california pretrial executives orientation final · california state association of counties,...

California Pretrial Executives

Orientation

July 23–26, 2013 San Jose, California

Presented by the Crime and Justice Institute in collaboration with California State Association of Counties, California State Sheriffs’ Association, and the Chief Probation Officers of California.

A C O N T I N U I N G E D U C A T I O N F O R U M

COURSE MATERIALS

RE

AL

IG

NM

EN

T

&

PR

ET

RI

AL

J

US

TI

CE

Developed by the Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ for the California State Association of Counties, California State Sheriffs’ Association, and the Chief Probation Officers of California.

California Pretrial Executives Orientation

COURSE OVERVIEW

Target Audience: • Executives currently administering pretrial services and/or executives planning to

take on this role in the near future

Dates and Times: • July 23rd through July 26th

o July 23, 2013, 5:30 pm to 8:00 pm o July 24, 2013, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm o July 25, 2013, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm o July 26, 8:30 am to 12:00 pm

Location: • Hayes Conference Center, San Jose, California (lodging and meals included on-site)

o All classroom sessions will be held in the San Jose Meeting Room. o Continental breakfast will be provided in the space adjacent the San Jose

Meeting Room. o Lunch and dinner will be served in the Silver Creek Restaurant.

Costs: • Lodging, meals and course materials are included for participants; participants will

be responsible for travel to and from the Conference Center and incidentals.

Description: As part of the continuing effort to support counties during the era of Realignment, the Joint Training Partnership of the Chief Probation Officers of California, California State Sheriff’s Association and the California State Association of Counties is pleased to offer the first California Pretrial Executives Orientation course. The session provides an opportunity for attendees to immerse themselves in an in-depth course designed specifically for executives currently administering pretrial services and/or executives planning to take on this role in the near future. The complex environment of today’s criminal justice system in California requires a strategic and focused approach to managing local criminal justice populations. The administration of pretrial justice is becoming increasingly critical in this effort. In order to develop and sustain public support and revenue for policies and practices that conform to legal and evidence-based pretrial standards, this in-depth training will

California Pretrial Executives Orientation 1


enhance your ability to develop, maintain and capitalize on the momentum created by state-wide efforts. The session encourages networking and problem solving among attendees and faculty. Topics that will be covered include: challenges and opportunities for legal and evidence-based pretrial practices in California; legal foundations of pretrial justice in California; performance management; managing the message; and action planning. Through our partnership with the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) at CRJ, we have been able to adapt for California the national Pretrial Executives Orientation course sponsored by the National Institute of Corrections. This course brings the expertise and experience from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and its Pretrial Executives Network, the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, the Pretrial Justice Institute and CJI into a well rounded course designed to address the unique challenges that pretrial executives face in California. Special thanks to the Alta Mesa Group as well for managing the logistics associated with this event. Course Goal: • Participants will leave this session with a defined strategy to meet the challenges of

implementing legal and evidence-based pretrial justice within their local criminal justice system.

Course Objectives: • Examine the legal underpinnings of pretrial release and detention decisions in

California, including relevant statutes, case law and consent decrees. • Review pretrial evidence-based practices at the system, agency, and case levels. • Examine suggested outcome and performance measures to gauge the effectiveness

in achieving agency and justice system goals. • Develop skills in crafting and delivering effective pretrial justice messages to internal

and external partners and the public • Prepare a pretrial justice action plan for moving legal and evidence-based practices

forward.

Pre-Session Assignments: • Prior to the course, participants are asked to:

o Complete the Pretrial System Assessment Survey and bring it to the course. The results will be used to shape discussions about key strength and challenge areas in each jurisdiction.

o Bring your agency mission statement to the course. o Observe the bail hearing process in your jurisdiction. o If a pretrial risk assessment instrument is used in your jurisdiction, bring a

copy the instrument to the course.



California Pretrial Executives Orientation Agenda

Tuesday, July 23, 2013 (5:30 pm to 8:00 pm) 5:30 pm – 6:30 pm Dinner 6:30 pm - 8:00 pm Course Introductions • This session will provide an opportunity for participants and faculty to meet one

another, network, and establish the foundation for the next three days. An overview of the course objectives will be provided and participants will have an opportunity to present the key challenges they face.

o Kristy Danford, Associate, Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ and Lori Eville, Corrections Program Specialist, National Institute of Corrections

Wednesday, July 24, 2013 (8:30 am to 4:30 pm) 7:30 am – 8:30 am Continental Breakfast 8:30 am – 10:15 am Evidence-Based Pretrial Practices: Risk Assessment, Supervision

and Court Reminders • This session will provide an overview of evidence- and research-based pretrial

practices at the system, agency and case level. Faculty will review the key elements included in national standards, recommendations from the National Symposium on Pretrial Justice on implementing legal and evidence-based pretrial policies, and practice examples for putting the research to practice.

o Lori Eville, Corrections Program Specialist, National Institute of Corrections and John Clark, Senior Project Associate, Pretrial Justice Institute

10:15 am – 10:30 am Break 10:30 am – 12:00 pm Legal Foundations for Pretrial Justice • Participants will be provided with an understanding of constitutional issues and

underlying law that shapes pretrial justice in the United States and within the state of California. This session will emphasize the legal underpinnings of pretrial justice with particular emphasis on California legislation, case law and consent decrees.

o Tim Schnacke, Pretrial Legal Expert



12:00 pm – 1:00 pm Lunch 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm Pretrial and Probation: Similarities and Difference • Similarities and differences in evidence-based practices and legal implications within

pretrial and post-conviction practices will be explored. Through a facilitated discussion participants will uncover variations in risk factors, legalities, supervision strategies, promising practices and opportunities to strengthen the evidence-base.

o Lori Eville, Corrections Program Specialist, National Institute of Corrections, Garry Herceg, Director, Santa Clara County Office of Pretrial Services, and Spurgeon “Kenny” Kennedy, Director, Office of Strategic Development, D.C. Pretrial Services Agency

2:30 pm – 2:45 pm Break 2:45 pm – 4:15 pm Performance Measurement: Measuring What Matters • This session will discuss the value of measuring what matters and using that

information to assess and strengthen the impact of pretrial justice practices on local systems. An overview of system and program level performance indicators will be provided. Participants will be given an opportunity to identify how these measures could be gathered and utilized to achieve the mission of pretrial justice in their jurisdictions.

o Spurgeon “Kenny” Kennedy, Director, Office of Strategic Development, D.C. Pretrial Services Agency and Garry Herceg, Director, Santa Clara County Office of Pretrial Services

4:15 pm – 4:30 pm Summary • At the end of the day an opportunity will be provided to reflect on the day’s

activities and assist in preparation for the upcoming day. o Kristy Danford, Associate, Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ

Thursday, July 25, 2013 (8:30 am to 4:30 pm) 7:30 am – 8:30 am Continental Breakfast 8:30 am – 9:30 am Reflections • This open forum is designed for all participants to discuss their views on the

information discussed to this point. Opportunities and challenges for putting the information to practice in their jurisdictions will be emphasized.

o All faculty, moderated by Kristy Pierce-Danford, Associate, Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ

9:30 am – 10:00 am Public Perceptions of Pretrial • This session will review the results of recent public opinion surveys related to

pretrial practices.



o Cherise Fanno Burdeen, Chief Operating Officer, Pretrial Justice Institute

10:00 am – 10:15 am Break 10:15 am - 12:00 pm Managing the Message • This session will provide guidance on the messaging and communications strategies

for pretrial justice during good times and times of crises. o Cherise Fanno Burdeen, Chief Operating Officer, Pretrial Justice Institute

12:00 pm – 1:00 pm Lunch 1:00 pm -3:15 pm Opportunities to Manage the Message • This session will provide participants with practical examples of opportunities to

manage the message; a work session is included for the development of strategy. Thereafter, participants are able to practice managing the message through a presentation and feedback process.

o All Faculty, led by Cherise Fanno Burdeen, Chief Operating Officer, Pretrial Justice Institute

3:15 pm – 4:30 pm Challenges and Opportunities for Moving to Legal and Evidence-Based Pretrial in California

• This session will afford participants the opportunity to further address key challenges and common themes addressed throughout the course. In addition, faculty will provide an overview of the current state of pretrial in California. Recent trends in the data as well as examples of efforts across the state will be shared.

o John Clark, Senior Project Associate, Pretrial Justice Institute, Garry Herceg, Director, Santa Clara Office of Pretrial Services, and Kristy Danford, Associate, Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ

Friday, July 26, 2013 (8:30 am to 12:00 pm) 7:30 am – 8:30 am Continental Breakfast 8:30 am – 10:15 am Pretrial Justice Action Planning • This session will provide participants with an opportunity to develop and discuss

strategies for putting the information learned to practice in the counties. Each jurisdiction will develop an action plan and be given the opportunity for feedback.

o All Faculty, lead by Lori Eville, Corrections Program Specialist, National Institute of Corrections

10:15 am – 10:30 am Break 10:30 am – 11:45 am Moving Pretrial Forward: Risk and Needs Assessment of the

Pretrial System in California



• This session will include a planning process for moving pretrial practices forward in California. Next steps for the sites and statewide efforts will be emphasized including mechanisms for tapping into outside assistance and strengthening in-state resources for sustainable change efforts.

o Cherise Fanno Burdeen, Chief Operating Officer, Pretrial Justice Institute, Lori Eville, Corrections Program Specialist, National Institute of Corrections and Kristy Danford, Associate, Crime and Justice Institute

11:45 am – 12:00 pm Closing Comments • At the end of the course an opportunity will be provided to reflect on the course.

o Kristy Danford, Associate, Crime and Justice Institute

12:00 pm – 1:00 pm Lunch is available


California Pretrial Executives Orientation COURSE FACULTY

Cherise Fanno Burdeen is the Chief Operating Officer for PJI.Ms. Burdeen earned her Masters in Criminal Justice from Indiana University and began her career with the research office of the Department of Justice. After federal service that included time with the Department of Homeland Security, Ms. Burdeen joined PJI in 2006. Since then, Ms. Burdeen has developed innovative strategies to raise awareness of pretrial justice issues, worked with a broad constituency of criminal justice stakeholder groups, provided technical assistance and training on policy reforms, and engaged in communications and media efforts. She has extensive experience with strategic planning, initiative management, and communications efforts across the criminal justice system. Ms. Burdeen currently serves as the 2013/2014 President of the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies. She also serves as the COO for the Institute for Justice Planning, a subsidiary of PJI providing planning support to jurisdictions engaged in criminal justice system reform. John Clark is a senior associate with the Pretrial Justice Institute, where he has been since 1987. He has worked closely with officials in hundreds of jurisdictions to gain support for and implement pretrial justice reforms, and has authored numerous publications relating to pretrial justice. He has extensive experience in providing technical assistance, and in training key system stakeholders on pretrial justice-related topics. Prior to joining PJI in 1987, John worked for eight years at the D.C. Pretrial Services Agency. He has a Master’s Degree in the Administration of Justice from American University. He is a lifetime member of the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies and is the proud recipient of the Association's most prestigious honor, the Ennis J. Olgiati Award. He is currently the co-chair of the NAPSA Education Committee and co-chair of the NAPSA Accreditation Committee.

Garry Herceg has been Director of the Office of Pretrial Services for Santa Clara County since December 2010. The Santa Clara Office of Pretrial Services which was established in 1971 provides information to the Courts on defendants booked into the County Jail on new felony offenses. The judges use this information to determine suitability for Own Recognizance (ORP) and Supervised Own Recognizance (SORP) releases, and determine probable cause to detain. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Herceg spent over 16 years in adult and juvenile probation services with Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. He served as Assistant Division Director of Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall from 2007 to 2010. During this time he was responsible for implementing evidence based programs that improved the conditions of confinement for


juvenile detainees. In addition he oversaw the daily operations of the home supervision and electronic monitoring programs. In addition to his bachelor’s degree from San Jose State University in Administration of Justice, Mr. Herceg’s professional training includes the Stanford University’s Leadership and Transformation Program, National Institute of Corrections Pretrial Executive Program, California Institute of Mental Health Aggression Replacement Instructor Training, Burns Institute Disproportionate Minority Contact Training and the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative. He is a member of the California Association of Pretrial Services as well as the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies. He was honored in 2006 as Santa Cruz County’s Probation Officer of the Year.

Kristy Pierce-Danford provides capacity-building technical assistance and training across the country. She has extensive experience in data-driven policy and practice analysis and the facilitation of collaborative change efforts in state and local jurisdictions. Most of her system reform work includes working with stakeholders to assess current policies and practices, identifying strengths and areas for improvement, developing strategic implementation plans, and providing an array of on-the-ground support for implementation and continuous improvement efforts. Ms. Pierce-Danford has also authored technical assistance documents, curricula, and tools, including a Pretrial Program Toolkit for California, Pretrial Justice System Assessment, a Roadmap for Evidence-Based Practices in Community Corrections for Virginia, curriculum for Project Evidence-Based Practices Implementation, and managed the curriculum development and implementation of the Supervisory Leadership Academy. Ms. Danford has worked professionals across the country and has a depth of experience providing training and technical assistance. Much of her training experience revolves around making complex information simple, relevant and useful for participants. Ms. Danford is a highly regarded trainer in the integrated model, implementation of EBP, quality assurance, continuous quality improvement and project management. In addition, she is a certified trainer by the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute in Effective Practices in Corrections Settings. Ms. Pierce-Danford also manages a comprehensive training effort among the Chief Probation Officers of California, California State Sheriffs Association, and the California Association of Counties which includes content design and implementation of a series of conferences, trainings, workshops and webinars. Prior to joining CJI in 2008, Ms. Pierce-Danford served the CT Judicial Branch, Court Support Services Division (CSSD) where she implemented initiatives focused on evidence-based policy and practice and continuous quality improvement. Notably, she led an innovative statewide effort to enhance the Division’s ability to use empirical evidence and support data-driven decision making across pretrial, probation, family services and the network of contract treatment providers. This included the design and implementation of the Contractor Data Collection System (CDCS), a web-based system that electronically links assessment, supervision, treatment and arrest data to assess effectiveness. She also served as a Probation and Parole Agent for the state of South Carolina. Ms. Pierce-Danford received her Master of Public


Administration with a concentration in Urban Affairs from the University of South Carolina. She also holds a graduate certificate in Public and Nonprofit administration from the University of Connecticut. Timothy R. Schnacke is a criminal justice system analyst with twenty-five years of legal experience. He is currently the Executive Director of the Center for Legal and Evidence-Based Practices, a Colorado nonprofit corporation that provides research and consulting for jurisdictions exploring and/or implementing changes to the administration of bail. Most recently, he worked as a consultant to the Bail Subcommittee of the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, where he helped to draft comprehensive revisions to the Colorado bail statute to better reflect pretrial best-practices. In addition, he has served as a part-time consultant on local justice system assessments as well as a pretrial faculty member for the National Institute of Corrections within the United States Department of Justice, and as a consultant for the Pretrial Justice Institute in Washington, D.C.

Prior to 2012, Tim was employed for seven years as a Criminal Justice Planner/Analyst for Jefferson County, Colorado, working as staff to that County’s policy-level Criminal Justice Strategic Planning Committee. During his time there, he researched, wrote about, and helped to implement numerous improvement projects in all areas of the criminal justice system, including policing, local corrections, and the courts.

Beginning in 2007, Tim’s principal focus was the Jefferson County Bail Project, an ambitious effort to improve the local administration of bail that was highlighted at the 2011 National Symposium on Pretrial Justice. He has co-authored several publications on bail and pretrial release/detention, including The History of Bail and Pretrial Release (PJI 2010) and Glossary of Terms and Phrases Relating to Bail and the Pretrial Release or Detention Decision (PJI 2011).

Tim’s legal career includes private practice in Washington, D.C., and public work with the City of Aspen, Colorado, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit as both a Law Clerk and as Staff Counsel, and the Colorado Court of Appeals, where he was a Staff Attorney specializing in state criminal appeals. He has lectured at the University of Colorado at Denver, and has taught at the Washburn University Law School.

Tim received his Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of General Studies degrees from the University of Kansas, his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Tulsa College of Law, his Masters of Laws degree from the George Washington University’s National Law Center, and his Master of Criminal Justice degree from the University of Colorado.



EXERCISES



EXERCISE 1: PRETRIAL AND PROBATION: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCE INSTRUCTIONS: READ THE SCENARIO AND WRITE YOUR RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION PROVIDED. John Williams is a 29 year old male who has been assigned to your pretrial supervision caseload. John was released on to pretrial supervision after being arrested for felony 23152 VC, DUI. John has 3 prior convictions for DUI but the last one was 5 years ago. John has no other criminal history. He has completed all three previous grants of probation for DUI without violation. John has never missed a Court date. John is employed full time in construction and is divorced. He has shared custody or his two children. During the assessment process, John’s risk score was low. As part of John’s release terms, the Court ordered that John not possess or use alcohol. John was also ordered to attend counseling for alcohol. Two weeks into John’s supervision, John’s counselor tells you that John missed his scheduled weekly appointment. You call John’s house and leave a message for John to call you the next day. John doesn’t call. The next morning are in the area of John’s house and stop by his home to leave him a note to call you. You don’t expect John to be at home as it is work day but go ahead and knock on door. Surprisingly John answers the door and you start talking with him about missing his counseling appointment. John tells you he forgot about the appointment but promises to reschedule immediately. John appearance is disheveled. His hair is un-combed, he is unshaven and he has shorts with no shirt. He appears to have just woken up. John smells strongly of alcohol and slurring his words as he talks to you. John is also leaning on the door frame to steady himself. From the door, you see several bottles of beer and a half empty bottle of whiskey on the counter in John’s house. You know John lives alone except when his kids are present. John tells you he didn’t go to work today as he was ill. You question John about the visible bottles of alcohol. John says he had some friends over the previous night to watch the game and they were drinking. John initially denies drinking himself but then later admits he drank one beer. John is in violation of the terms of his release as he admitted using alcohol. As his pretrial supervision officer, what do you do? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



NOTES: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



EXERCISE 2: OUTCOME MEASURE EXERCISE INSTRUCTIONS: REVIEW THE MISSION AND OUTCOME MEASURES BELOW AND RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS PROVIDED.

MISSION As the County’s leader in pretrial risk assessment and risk management, Pretrial Services assists the Court make reasonable and appropriate bail decisions, consistent with State law. Pretrial Services is committed to maximizing court appearance by released defendants, promoting a safer community, and advancing fair administration of justice.

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

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

III. The ratio of defendants whose supervision level or detention status corresponds to their assessed risk of pretrial misconduct.

IV. The percentage of released defendants who are 1) not revoked for technical violations, 2) appear for all scheduled court appearances, and 3) remain arrest-free. The measure excludes defendants that are detained following a guilty verdict and those revoked due to non-pretrial related holds.

V. The average lengths of jail stay for pretrial detainees that are eligible by statute for pretrial release.

VI.

1. What data would you use in your jurisdiction to track this outcome? Identify the specific data and source.



2. How often should the data be reported to staff and partner agencies? What makes sense strategically as a collection and report schedule? 3. Is there a baseline within your organization for the outcome measure and any of the supporting performance measures? Basically, what results are you achieving right now? Yes: ________, _________, _________, _________, ____________ No 4. Is there a target within your organization for this outcome measure? Basically, what results should you expect? Yes: ________, _________, _________, _________, ____________ No 5. What impediments exist in your jurisdiction to implement, define, track this or any of the other outcome measures?



Performance Measurement: Measuring What Matters

Outcomes Appearance Rate: The percentage of supervised defendants who make all scheduled court appearances. Safety Rate: The percentage of defendants that are not charged with a new offense during the pretrial stage. Concurrence Rate: The percentage of defendants whose supervision level or detention status corresponds with their assessed risk of pretrial misconduct. Success Rate: The percentage of released defendants who are: 1) not revoked for technical violations, 2) appear for all scheduled court appearances, and 3) are not charged with a new offense during pretrial supervision. Pretrial Detainee Length of Stay: The average lengths of jail stay for pretrial detainees that are eligible by statute for pretrial release.

Risk Assessment Risk Management

Screening: The percentage of defendants eligible for release by statute that the program assesses for release eligibility. Recommendation: The percentage of time the program follows its risk assessment criteria when recommending release or detention.

Response: Frequency of policy-approved responses to compliance and noncompliance with release conditions. Intervention: The pretrial agency’s effectiveness at resolving outstanding bench warrants, arrest warrants and capiases.

External Factors/Assumptions Community Legal Defendant System



EXERCISE 3: OPPORTUNITIES TO MANAGE THE MESSAGE

Planning: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Message: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



EXERCISE 4: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES INSTRUCTIONS: RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS BELOW IN THE SPACE PROVIDED. 1) What is the mission of your pretrial program?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2) Using your experience and expertise, reflect on the results of your Pretrial System Assessment Survey and what you have learned in the course so far. Then, identify the core strengths and challenges for your county to move to LEBP. Keep in mind strengths and challenges include factors that are internal and external to your organization.

Key Strengths



Key Challenges 3) Based on the list of core strengths and challenges above, select at least one issue that is

most critical to address in order to achieve your mission. In the space provided, clarify what this challenge is and why it is so critical to your mission. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Notes: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



EXERCISE 5: ACTION PLANNING INSTRUCTIONS: DEVELOP AN ACTION PLAN FOR ONE SMART GOAL BASED ON THE ISSUE IDENTIFIED IN THE PREVIOUS EXERCISE. BE SURE TO THINK THROUGH THE CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THE ACTION PLAN.

WHAT IS THE MISSION-CRITICAL ISSUE I AM GOING TO SOLVE?

IF SUCCESSFUL, WHAT WILL THAT LOOK LIKE? WHAT IS THE DESIRED SOLUTION?



WHAT STEPS MUST BE TAKEN TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED OUTCOME? WHAT RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE TO HELP SOLVE THE ISSUE?



WHAT POTENTIAL BARRIERS MIGHT ARISE? HOW WILL I RESPOND?

BASED ON WHAT I CAN REALISTICALLY DO, WHAT IS YOUR SMART GOAL?



Notes: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Mission:

SMART Goal:

Objectives Strategies/ Tactics Deadline Person Responsible

Measurement Indicator



Mission:

SMART Goal:





Notes: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



KEY RESOURCES WEBSITES Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice http://www.crj.org/cji/entry/project_pacc National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies www.napsa.org National Institute of Corrections Information Center www.nicic.gov Pretrial Justice Institute www.pretrial.org PUBLICATIONS Partnership for Community Excellence, Pretrial Detention and Community Supervision:

Best Practices and Resources for California Counties, 2012 http://www.cafwd.org/pce/resources/entry/pretrial-detention-community-

supervision-best-practices-and-resources-for-c National Institute of Justice. (2001). Pretrial services and programs: Responsibilities and

potential. Washington, DC: Mahoney, B., Beaudin, B. D., Carver, J. A., Ryan, D. B., & Hoffman, R. B. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181939.pdf

Crime and Justice Institute and Marie VanNostrand, PhD. Legal and Evidence-Based

Practices: Applications of Legal Principles, Laws, and Research to the Field of Pretrial Services. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2007. http://www.crj.org/cji/entry/publication_boxset

Pretrial Justice Institute. Pretrial Services Program Implementation: A Starter Kit, n.d.

http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI-StarterKit.pdf

Pretrial Justice Institute. US Department of Corrections. Assessing Local Pretrial Justice

Functions: A handbook for providing technical assistance. National Institute of Corrections., 2011 http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025016.pdf


http://www.crj.org/cji/entry/project_pacc

http://www.napsa.org/

http://www.nicic.gov/

http://www.pretrial.org/

http://www.cafwd.org/pce/resources/entry/pretrial-detention-community-supervision-best-practices-and-resources-for-c

http://www.cafwd.org/pce/resources/entry/pretrial-detention-community-supervision-best-practices-and-resources-for-c

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181939.pdf

http://www.crj.org/cji/entry/publication_boxset



http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025016.pdf


Mamalian, C. State of the Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment. Pretrial Justice Institute, 2011 http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20State%20of%20the%20Science%20Pretrial%20Risk%20Assessment%20(2011).pdf

National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies (NAPSA). Promising Practices in Pretrial Diversion http://www.pretrial.org/Docs/Documents/PromisingPracticeFinal.pdf

National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies (NAPSA). Standards on Pretrial Release: 3rd edition, 2004. http://pretrial.org/1964Present/NAPSA%20Standards%202004.pdf

Pierce-Danford, K. and Guevara, M. Creating an Effective Pretrial Program: A Toolkit for

Practitioners. Californians for Safety and Justice, 2013. http://www.crj.org/cji/entry/publication_pretrialtoolkit

Pretrial Executives Network. Measuring What Matters: Outcome and Performance

Measures for the Pretrial Services Field. National Institute of Corrections, 2011 http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025172.pdf

VanNostrand, M, K Rose and K. Weibrect. State of the Science of Pretrial Release

Recommendations and Supervision, 2011 http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20State%20of%20the%20Science%20Pretrial%20Recommendations%20and%20Supervision%20(2011).pdf

California Association of Pretrial Services Release Standards Recommended Procedures,

2007 http://pretrialservicesca.org/public/css/CAPS_Standards_022807_Approved.pdf


http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20State%20of%20the%20Science%20Pretrial%20Risk%20Assessment%20(2011).pdf

http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20State%20of%20the%20Science%20Pretrial%20Risk%20Assessment%20(2011).pdf

http://www.pretrial.org/Docs/Documents/PromisingPracticeFinal.pdf

http://pretrial.org/1964Present/NAPSA%20Standards%202004.pdf


http://www.crj.org/cji/entry/publication_pretrialtoolkit


http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20State%20of%20the%20Science%20Pretrial%20Recommendations%20and%20Supervision%20(2011).pdf



http://pretrialservicesca.org/public/css/CAPS_Standards_022807_Approved.pdf

California Pretrial Executives Orientation

Acknowledgements

The Joint Training Partnership asked the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) at CRJ to adapt for California the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Pretrial Executives Orientation course.

The material included is product of the expertise and experience from the: NIC and its Pretrial Executives Network

National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA)

Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI)

Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) at CRJ


Goal

Participants will leave this session with a defined strategy to meet the challenges of implementing legal and evidence-based pretrial justice within the local criminal justice system.

Objectives

Examine the legal underpinnings of pretrial release and detention decisions in California, including relevant statutes, case law and consent decrees.

Review of the pretrial evidence-based practices at the system, agency, and case levels.

Examine suggested outcome and performance measures to gauge the effectiveness in achieving agency and justice system goals.

Develop skills in crafting and delivering effective pretrial justice messages to internal and external partners.

Prepare a pretrial justice action plan for moving legal and evidence-based practices forward.


P R E P A R E D B Y :

L O R I E V I L L E , C O R R E C T I O N S P R O G R A M S P E C I A L I S T , N I C

J O H N C L A R K , S E N I O R A S S O C I A T E ,

P R E T R I A L J U S T I C E I N S T I T U T E

Evidence-Based Pretrial Practices: Risk Assessment, Supervision &

Court Date Reminders

Three Levels of EBP Implementation

System Level

Agency Level

Case Level


Overview

Evidence Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems is an NIC initiative with an overall goal of implementing a framework that links protocols and information tools between decisions points of the Criminal Justice System and facilitates organizational change and Evidence Based Decisions among Criminal Justice Stakeholders.

Why Evidence Based Decision Making?

The full potential of change has not yet been realized; evidence based approaches have not been implemented system wide

A primary perceived barrier is the lack of system collaboration around a common set of outcomes and principles

There is a growing body of evidence that can inform justice system agencies’ performance and increase effectiveness


Better Alignment

A need for a common set of outcomes and principles

The Goal of the EBDM Initiative

Test a “Framework” for evidence-based decision making at the local level using evidence to inform decisions that lead to risk and harm reduction.


The Goal of the EBDM Initiative

Affirm existing practices that have been demonstrated to be effective

Inspire and challenge practices that can be improved

Create tools and processes that can be replicated elsewhere

Address those thorny issues that are barriers to advancement

Harm Reduction

The justice system has a number of goals, recidivism reduction being just one (reducing individual offender risk).

Harm reduction is the overarching objective; many possible outcomes:

Fewer crimes and

Reduced erosion of property values

Less money spent on the justice system

Increased sense of safety

Less financial loss by victims

Greater confidence by citizens in the CJS

Harm reduction includes

decreases in the ill effects of

crime by communities,

victims, citizens, families of

offenders, and by offenders themselves


The Framework is grounded in four key principles

Principle #1

The professional judgment of criminal justice system decision makers is enhanced when informed by evidence-based knowledge.

Examples: use of risk tools; effectiveness of interventions under certain conditions

Evidence-based knowledge does not replace discretion but instead, informs decisions.


Principle #2

Every interaction within the criminal justice system offers an opportunity to contribute to harm reduction.

Examples: law enforcement officer at the point of arrest, pretrial officer at assessment, judicial officer on the bench

To be effective, justice system players must understand how their interactions influence others and have the knowledge

and skills to enhance this influence.

Principle #3

Systems achieve better outcomes when they operate collaboratively at the individual, agency, and system levels

Example: Establishment of policy teams and operational protocols that define how others will be consulted and decisions made

Decision making responsibilities remain at the individual and agency level, however

under the collaborative approach, input is received and other’s interests are taken

into account.


Principle #4

The criminal justice system will continually learn and improve when professionals make decisions based on the collection, analysis, and use of data and information

Examples: Establishment of agency and system wide performance measures; feedback loops to examine efficacy of current practice

Where evidence is not immediately available, the justice system may need to use its own

data to determine what is or is not working.

The Framework examines key decision points and the evidence to support

decision making at each one


Key Decision Points

Arrest Decisions

Pretrial Status

Decisions

Charging Decisions

Local Institutional

Release Decisions

Local Institutional Intervention

Decisions

Sentencing Decisions

Community Intervention

Decisions

Violation Response Decisions

Discharge from Criminal

Justice Intervention

Plea Decisions

Evidence Based Decision Making Initiative

Phase 1 (2009-2010)Research

Development of Framework

Phase 2 (Sept 2010-Aug 2011)7 Counties

Technical Assistance

Phase 3 7 County Implementation


EBDM Sites

Mesa County, Colorado

Grant County, Indiana

Ramsey County, Minnesota

Yamhill County, Oregon

Charlottesville-Albemarle County, Virginia

Eau Claire County, Wisconsin

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Phase II (Planning) ObjectivesBuild a genuine, collaborative policy team

Build individual agencies that are collaborative and in a state of readiness for change

Understand current practice within each agency and across the system

Understand and have the capacity to implement evidence‐based practices

Develop logic models

Establish performance measures, determine outcomes, and develop a system scorecard

Engage and gain the support of a broader set of stakeholders and the community

Develop a strategic action plan for implementation


Phase III (Implementation) ObjectivesCollect baseline data on implementation strategies

Implement change strategies

Sustain a multi‐disciplinary collaborative policy team

Fully engage agency staff in EBDM, focusing specifically on agency managers and supervisors

Embed EBDM knowledge system wide

Carry out the external stakeholder communication strategy

Guard against implementation failure

Measure performance against system wide scorecard

Celebrate success

Institutionalize policy changes

Expand the number of EBDM change strategies

Educate and engage in‐state colleagues on EBDM

Share experiences with national colleagues


Milwaukee System-Level Logic Model


Milwaukee County Pretrial and DiversionEarly Results

● Administering a locally-validated risk assessment instrument to determine likelihood for pretrial success.

● Informing pretrial release decisions—and conditions, if deemed necessary—with this pretrial risk assessment data.

● Using risk assessment to identify those who may be eligible for pre-charge diversion.

● Using risk assessment to identify eligible moderate risk defendants for post-charge diversion or deferred prosecution.

● Milwaukee’s Early Intervention Strategy (pretrial risk assessment and risk-informed decision making) was implemented February 2012, six months of implementation have demonstrated a 4% decline in the jail population.

● Projections based upon simulation model of diversion and deferred prosecution suggest that significant decreases in the jailed population can be expected over the next five years.


Tools

The Framework: http://www.cepp.com/documents/EBDM%20Framework.pdf

EBDM Starter Kit: Purpose: Provides guidance to sites that want to prepare to implement EBDM in their own

jurisdictions Audience: Local, collaborative criminal justice teams

http://ebdmoneless.org/starterkit/

EBDM User’s Guides: Purpose: Provide guidance to specific stakeholder groups on how EBDM applies to their work,

common challenges, solutions and resources Audience:

Pretrial Justice Stakeholder Publications Prosecutors Site Case Studies Judges Defense Victims

Tools

EBDM website

http://ebdmoneless.org/

EBDM Starter Kit

http://ebdmoneless.org/starterkit/


Evidence-Based Practices at the Agency Level

Pretrial Risk Assessment

Pretrial Risk Mitigation Supervision of pretrial release conditions

Court date reminders

ABA on Pretrial Services

Interview all defendants who are in

custody before the initial court appearance

Assess each defendant’s level of

risk to be a danger to the community and to fail to appear in court,

using scientifically validated risk criteria

Recommend to the court viable, least

restrictive options to address identified

risks

Supervise conditions imposed by the court, remind defendants of

their court dates.

A pretrial services program should be established to:


Evidence-Based Risk Assessment

Actuarial Risk Assessment

Evidence-based

Data driven

Used for decades in commerce

Actuarial Risk Assessment in the Justice System

Risk assessment What does it predict? What decision does it inform?

Tools

Classification Likelihood of institutional misconduct

Where an inmate should be housed

Objectiveinstitutional classification

Risk to Re-offend Screening

Likelihood of re-offense in the community (static

factors only)

Who should receive additional attention

Proxy

General Risk/NeedsAssessment

Likelihood of re-offense in the community (static

and dynamic factors)

What interventions should be offered

LSI-R, COMPAS, Wisconsin

Pretrial Risk Assessment

Likelihood of re-arrest or failure to

appear for court

What conditions can reasonably

assure court appearance and

community safety

Virginia, Ohio, Federal


What We Know About Pretrial Risk Assessment

Assessments guided by data outperform assessments made subjectively

Can successfully sort defendants into categories showing probabilities of success

Pretrial risk assessment involves more than just looking at the charge

Most defendants on pretrial release come back to court and stay out of trouble while their cases are pending

Validated Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools

Virginia

Colorado

Florida

Ohio

Kentucky

Federal system


Virginia Risk Assessment Tool

Risk Factor Points

Current charge is a felony 1

One or more pending charges at time of arrest 1

One or more misdemeanor or felony conviction 1

Two or more prior failures to appear 2

Two or more convictions for violent offenses 1

Lived at current address less than one year 1

Not employed continuously in previous 2 years and not primary caregiver of a child

1

History of drug abuse 1

Virginia Risk Assessment Tool

Risk Level Risk Score

1: Low 0,1 points

2: Below average 2 points

3: Average 3 points

4: Above average 4 points

5: High 5-9 points


Virginia Risk Assessment Outcomes

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

1

2

3

4

5

Probability of Failure to Appear Probability of Rearrest

Stakeholder Support for Pretrial Risk Assessment

The Conference of Chief Justices urges “that court leaders promote, collaborate and accomplish the adoption of evidence-based assessment of risk in setting pretrial release decisions,…”

Also: ABA, NACo, IACP, APA, NSA, NLADA, NACDL, National Symposium on Pretrial Justice


Promising Practices in Risk Mitigation

Matching Risk Mitigation Strategies To Identified Risks

What We Know About Pretrial Supervision

Providing intensive supervision services to low risk defendants does not decrease risks of failure to appear and rearrest, and may actually increase those rates.

Moderate and higher risk defendants released with conditions were less likely to have a pretrial failure than moderate to higher risk defendants who did not have release conditions. (Federal study, 2009)


What We Know About Pretrial Supervision

Focused on higher risk defendants – those who were denied non-financial release at the initial appearance.

These defendants were placed in supervised pretrial release program.

Outcomes: rearrest and failure to appear rates were lower than for those released on money bail or on OR (Study done in Miami, Milwaukee and Portland, OR, 1985).

Evidence-Based Risk Mitigation Practices

Court Date Reminders


Court Date Reminder Studies

Nebraska, 2010: appearance rate for reminded group – 92%, for control group – 88%.

Multnomah County, OR, 2005: FTA rate for group receiving an automated reminder was 16%, compared to 28% for the group not receiving a call.

Jefferson County, CO, 2005: FTA rate reduced from 23% to 11% when household reached and to 7% when defendant reached.

Case Study - Kentucky

2011 law required the Kentucky pretrial services program to conduct a validated risk assessment on every defendant in Kentucky before the initial appearance.


Pretrial Outcomes in Kentucky

Overall release rate Non-financialrelease rate

Rearrest rate Failure to appearrate

66%

8% 10%

70%

Case Study - DC

Pretrial services program mandated by law to assess risks and supervise defendants

Detention permitted in certain circumstances

A financial condition cannot result in the detention of the defendant


Pretrial Outcomes in DC

80%

15%5%

88% 88%

Application of Principle #1 to Pretrial Services

The professional judgment of criminal justice system decision makers is enhanced when informed by evidence-based knowledge:

ID pretrial decision points (initial recommendation, supervision levels, administrative sanctions, non-compliance).

What evidence currently supports these decisions?

What other evidence, data, or information could be used to support these decisions?


Application of Principle # 2 to Pretrial Services

Every interaction within the criminal justice system offers an opportunity to contribute to harm reduction:

ID all points where interaction between program and defendant.

What in the research can be used to make these interactions more conducive to harm reduction?


Systems achieve better outcomes when they operate collaboratively at the individual, agency, and system levels:

ID all key stakeholders.

What current mechanisms aid in collaboration on harm reduction policies?

What opportunities exist for increasing collaboration?

What actions are needed to take advantage of these opportunities?



The criminal justice system will continually learn and improve when professionals make decisions based on the collection, analysis, and use of data and information:

ID pretrial program’s current data collection capacity.

What is needed to bring that capacity to a level required to identify evidence based practices?

What is the capacity to analyze the data that are available? How can that capacity be expanded?

For More Information…..

Starter Kit for implementing a pretrial services program:




T I M S C H N A C K E , P R E T R I A L L E G A L E X P E R T

Legal Foundations for Pretrial Justice in California

Evidence Based Practices

“Making decisions about how to achieve the goals of a given discipline by integrating the best available evidence.”

“What works to do what?”

Health/mental health

Bail?


Importance of the LawLEBP

“If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice.”

Judge Learned Hand

What is Bail/What is the Purpose of Bail?

“Bail . . . not OR”; “OR means no bail at all”; “OR in lieu of bail”; “released on conditions versus released on bail;” “Can be released on bail, or on OR, or on conditions of release;” “He was released without bail”; “Bail is an amount of money:” “You can pay cash or bail”; “Taking of bail consists of the acceptance of . . . sufficient bail”; “Admission to bail is the order . . . that the defendant be discharged from actual custody;” “The bail will pay to the people . . .”; “Qualifications of bail”; “Bail is a person licensed by the DOI”; “increase, decrease, and set the amount of bail”; “if money is deposited instead of bail”

Purpose?


The Original Bail Setting

After the Normans: Evolution of Secured Bail

Process: Private prosecution ---------------- Public with PJ

Summons ---------------------- Arrest on suspicion

Handled locally ------------ Itinerant crown justices

No jails --------------------------- More placed in jails

Surety = kin ------------ Surety = nonfamily groups


Evolution of Secured Bail

Pledge: Stand in --------- Pledge Property ------- Pledge $

Promise: Promise to produce ------ Promise to pay if don’t

Punishment: Fine (replacing feud) ------------ Corporal/Prison

Evolution of Secured Bail: Tipping Point

People (sufficient sureties) Easy to find ------------- More difficult to find

English versus American solutions

Promise $ on back-end ------ Pay $ front-end


Only One Change in Purpose

Purpose changed as jails replaced threat of feud

From then until now the purpose of bail = to obtain release

Statute of Westminster (bail/no bail)

English abuses leading to reforms

American right to bail (Blackstone)

Colonial practice

Purpose is Release

Supreme Court equates “right to bail” with “right to freedom,” and “right to release.” “Liberty is the norm.”

“The practice of admission to bail, as it has evolved in Anglo-American law, is not a device for keeping persons in jail upon mere accusation until it is found convenient to give them a trial. On the contrary, the spirit of the procedure is to enable them to stay out of jail until a trial has found them guilty.”

Detention since 1800’s gave us amnesia.


Change in Definition

Bail (baillier) was to hand over or deliver – to stand in, carry a burden

Bail equated with money for 1,000 years

Varying definitions (as seen in California)

1,000 years is a long time -- amnesia again!

“[e]quating bail and bail decision-making with strictly financial arrangements is … misleading.”

Bail is the Process of Release

Follows from History

Conforms to Black’s

Conforms to Supreme Court

Conforms to other states definitions

Conforms to other federal definitions “process”

Most important – recognizes money as a condition


Money is a Financial Condition of Release

Money no different in theory from other limitations on pretrial freedom

Best practice standards recognize this

Must be analyzed for legality and effectiveness

Considered “restrictive” and “undesirable”

That’s because of its bad effects

REPEAT AFTER ME . . .


Purpose of Conditions

Purpose from about 500 AD to 1970

Second Generation of Bail Reform

Law recognizes a second purpose

Now, 2 constitutionally purposes of limiting pretrial freedom – court appearance and public safety

Why does it matter?

Arbitrary $ amounts + lack of people (SS) + paying up front = detention

Variables


Law Directs Three EBDM Goals

Maximize Release

Maximize Court App.

Maximize Public Safety

Sources of Law

U.S. Constitution (Supreme Law of the Land)

Federal Statutes, Federal Cases (few, but significant)

State Constitutions

State Statutes, State Cases (few, but significant)

Court Rules


Legal Foundations

Right to Bail

Federal constitution?

State constitution?

Legal Foundations

Release Must Be The Norm

"In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.”

United States v. Salerno


Legal Foundations

The Presumption of Innocence

Coffin v. U.S. 156 U.S. 432 (1895)

“The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”


Application to Bail

“Unless this right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence, secured only after

centuries of struggle, would lose its meaning.”Stack v. Boyle (1951)

“The excessive bail clauses safeguard the right to pretrial bail that, in turn, protects the right to

prepare a defense and the presumption of innocence.”

Col. Supr. Court (2005)

California?

Legal Foundations

Bail as Punishment

“The Court of Appeals properly relied on the Due Process Clause, rather than the Eighth Amendment, in considering the claims of pretrial detainees. Due process requires that a pretrial detainee not be punished.”

Bell v. Wolfish (1979)


Legal Foundations

Individualized Release or Detention

Determination

“Each defendant stands before the bar of justice as an individual.”

Justice Robert H. Jackson (1951)

Stack v. Boyle 342 U.S. 1 (1951)

“Since the function of bail is limited, the fixing of bail for any individual defendant must be based upon standards relevant to the purpose of assuring the presence of that defendant. [Those standards] are to be applied in each case to each defendant.”

“ To infer from the fact of indictment alone [no individualized facts] a need for bail in an unusually high amount is an arbitrary act.”

Stack v. Boyle


Bail Schedules

Antithesis of an individualized determination

Stack

Other States

Arbitrary + all the bad traits of money bail

ABA Standards

Jefferson County and Colorado Research

Legal Foundations

Excessive Bail“The only arguable substantive limitation of the Bail Clause is that the Government’s proposed conditions of release or detention not be ‘excessive’ in light of the perceived evil. . . . Thus, when the government has admitted that its only interest is in preventing flight, it must be set at a sum designed to ensure that goal, and no more.”

United States v. Salerno (1987)


Legal Foundations

$$ for Public Safety

Legal Foundations

Due Process “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

5th and 14th Amendments; state law


Legal Foundations

Irrational

Unreasonable

Unfair

Arbitrary

Legal Foundations

Equal Protection“Can an indigent be denied freedom,

where a wealthy man would not, because he does not happen to have enough property to pledge for his freedom?”

Justice William O. Douglas


Legal Foundations

Right to Counsel“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.”Walter A. Rothgery v. Gillespie County, Texas, 128 S. Ct. 2578 (2008)

California

Legislation, statutes, case law, practices, and even a state’s constitution can uphold or offend legal principles

Can inhibit EBDM

Can frustrate goals


Big Issues

Terms – bail is not money

Bail Schedules

Risk Assessment

Statute full of $

California Law

Overall Use of Money versus Risk?

Best Practices?

Overall Recognition of Bail/No Bail, Release/No Release Dichotomy?

Best Practices?


Options

Nothing

Workarounds

Take the offensive

Pretrial Improvement

Requires common understanding of legal principles, history, terms, research

Once we are all on the same page, we can effectively assess any particular state legal scheme, local practices


Need to know!

Terms

History

Law

Research

Or else --- weeds!

Thank You

Tim SchnackeCriminal Justice Planner/Analyst

[email protected]



Lori Eville, Corrections Program Specialist, NIC

Garry Herceg, Director, Santa Clara County Office of Pretrial Services, and

Spurgeon “Kenny” Kennedy, Director, Office of Strategic Development, D.C. Pretrial Services Agency & Vice President, NAPSA

Pretrial and Probation: Similarities and Differences

Objectives

Review the differences in legal status between persons on pretrial and probation supervision

Identify the pretrial risk factors that indicate the greatest probability of successful pretrial release

Identify the post-conviction risk and need factors that indicate the greatest probability of long term recidivism

Discuss outcome and supervision strategies of a pretrial defendant and a probationer


A 2009 national survey of pretrial services programs found that half of all pretrial programs started since 1990 were housed administratively within probation departments.

As of 2009, 38% of all pretrial programs are located within probation departments.

Survey of Pretrial Services Programs, Pretrial JusticeInstitute,2009

About 70% of pretrial defendants that are sentenced to probation

American Probation and Parole AssociationPretrial Supervision

Resolution

WHEREAS, pretrial supervision services exist to evaluate the jail population to ensure those who should be in custody remain in custody and those who do not pose a significant risk to the community can be released, allowing for better utilization of our justice resources;

WHEREAS, a vast majority of pretrial supervision activities are carried out as subdivisions of state or local probation agencies, while depending on jurisdiction, others are standalone agencies;

WHEREAS, the majority of our jails are filled with those awaiting trial with a large percentage of these crimes being misdemeanors and low-level nonviolent felonies ;


WHEREAS, pretrial supervision officers compile reports on those they supervise noting compliance with conditions that can be useful to the court if individuals convicted are then released on probation;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the American Probation and Parole Association supports the role of pretrial supervision services to enhance both short-term and long-term public safety, provide access to treatment services and reduce court caseloads, and submit that such a role cannot be fulfilled as successfully by the bail bond industry.

Enacted June 2010

WHEREAS, pretrial supervision divisions in the United States employ professionally trained officers who use tools to assess the risk of offenders prior to release from jail and make recommendations for release to the appropriate court or office;

Purpose of Pretrial Service Agencies

Pretrial services agencies assist courts in making prompt, fair, and effective release/detention decisions, and by monitoring and supervising released defendants to minimize the risks of nonappearance at court proceedings and risks to the safety of the community…….

NAPSA Standard 3.1, 2004


American Bar Association

According to the American Bar Association, the purpose of the “pretrial release decision” are “providing due process for those accused of crime, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process bysecuring defendants for trial, and protecting victims, witnesses and the community from threats, danger, or interference.”

American Bar Association Standards on Pretrial Release, Third Edition, 2002, Standard 10-1.1

American Probation and Parole Association

The purpose of probation is to assist in reducing the incidence and impact of crime by probationers in the community. The core services of probation are to provide investigation and reports to the court, to help develop appropriate court dispositions for adult offenders and juvenile delinquents, and to supervise those persons placed on probation. Probation departments in fulfilling their purpose may also provide a broad range of services including, but not limited to, crime and delinquency prevention, victim restitution programs and intern/volunteer programs.

Probation Purpose Enacted January 1997, American Probation and Parole Association


Evidence-Based Practice

PretrialPretrial Post-convictionPost-conviction

Legal and Evidence-Based Practices: Must be consistent

with the rights afforded to defendants awaiting trial

Methods proven by research to reduce unnecessary detention

Evidence-Based Practices:

Objective ,balanced and responsible use of current research and best available data to guide policy and practice decisions to reduce offender recidivism

Role of the Officer

Pretrial OfficerPretrial Officer Probation/Parole OfficerProbation/Parole Officer

● Background investigation

● Risk Assessment

● Release recommendations to the court

● Monitor Conditions of Release

● Report to the Court

● Pre-sentence investigation● Risk Assessment/

Classification● Risk Reduction/Behavior

Change● Match interventions to

identified needs● Monitor Conditions of

Probation● Report to the Court


Risk Assessment


What it does…● Provides impartial

information to the courts regarding release or detention decisions

● Predicts the level of risk to community (re-arrest)

● Predicts level of risk of failure to appear for court

What it does….

Predicts risk of probability of future criminality

Classifies offenders by risk

Identifies interventions to reduce criminal risk

Supervision Outcomes

PretrialPretrial Post-ConvictionPost-Conviction

Assess and Supervise a defendant to:

Reasonably assure his/her appearance in court through disposition of case

Reasonably assure the safety of the community

Assess and Supervise an offender to:

Reduce areas of risk related to future criminal activity recidivism

Completion of court ordered obligations

Public Safety-Accountability


Pretrial: Risk Factors

Current charge

Prior FTA

Criminal History

Employment

Length at residence

Pending charge

Substance abuse

Pretrial Risk Assessments

In Public Domain:

Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI)

Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) Pretrial Assessment Tool

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessments:

District of Columbia

Indiana

Florida

Colorado

Kentucky

Federal Pretrial


Post Conviction: Risk Factors Static

Criminal History

Age at First Arrest

Previous Substance Abuse

Gender

Current Age

Post-Conviction: Criminogenic NeedDynamic

Anti-Social Behavior

Anti-Social Personality

Anti-Social Attitudes

Anti-Social Peers

Problems with family/marital relationships

Problems with school and or work

Substance Use

Poor Leisure/Recreation Development


Post-Conviction Risk-Need Assessments

Third Generation assessments are empirically based and use both static and dynamic factors. Through on-going assessment these assessments can identify risk relevant change in the person and his or her situation.

Level of Service Inventory- Revised (LSI-R)

Fourth Generation assessments are designed to follow the offender from intake through case closure. These assessments aim to further the principles of effective treatment and help design supervision that can protect society from recidivistic crime (Andrews et al., 2006). They also guide community treatment and placement.

Level of Service Case Management Inventory-Revised (LS/CMI-R)

Correctional Offender Manager Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS)

Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) Community Supervision Screening Tool and Community Supervision Tool.

Supervision Placement Decisions

PretrialPretrial Post-ConvictionPost-Conviction

● Risk based● Consistent w/LEBP● Provide supervision

recommendations to include differential supervision

● Release and supervision conditions determined by court, including money bail

Risk based

Statutorily driven

Court may determine supervision level and conditions

Determined by a paroling authority


Supervision Strategies


Research Based Strategies: Court Notification

Electronic Monitoring (Limited)

Release on Own Recognizance (ROR)

Low risk defendants achieve can achieve the same pretrial outcomes with no intervention or supervision.

Promising Practices:

Matching risk level to supervision level

Non-Evidence Based Strategies:

Financial Release Conditions

Research Based Strategies:

Targeting resources to high risk offenders, situations, and times

Use of kiosk or “case-bank” for low risk offenders

Supervision with treatment

Supervision modalities:

Contacts

Collateral contacts

Electronic monitoring

Drug Testing

Post-Conviction: Effective Risk Reduction Interventions

Risk Principle: Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk offenders.

Need Principle: Target interventions to criminogenic needs.

Responsivity Principle: Be responsive to temperament learning style, motivation, culture, and gender when assigning programs.

Dosage: Structure 40-70% of high-risk offenders’ time for 3-9 months

© Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ

http://www.crj.org/cji/entry/publication_integratedmodel


Areas of Legal Differences

Legal Status

Change in status of constitutional rights

Arrest

Warrant

Search and seizure

Financial Condition of Release

Legal Status


Charged but Not Convicted

Defendant

Officers can not speak to defendant about pretrial charge.

The right to not self-incriminate

The right to non-excessive bail

Delegated Authority from the Court to make release decisions

Convicted of the Charge

Offender

Officers may speak to offender about conviction, can question about condition violations


ProbationPretrial

Presumption of Innocence

Right Against Self-incrimination

Right to Bail that is Not Excessive

Right to a Speedy and Fair Trial

Purpose of Bail is to Provide Reasonable Assurance of Court Appearance and Community Safety

The presumption of release on recognizance for defendants charged with non-capital crimes unless the Court determined that such release would not assure court appearance.

Restrictions on money bail, which the Court could impose only if non-financial release options were not enough to assure appearance.

Allows for a convicted person some freedoms in the community while supervised by a probation officer

Suspends an imposition of a sentence

Practices Guided byFederal, State and Local Statutes

PretrialPretrial ProbationProbation

Appointment and duties of a release officer

Releasable Offenses

Can order no contact on certain DV and Sex Offense Charges

Conditions of Release

Appointment and duties of a officer –Sworn Peace Officers

Training Standards Supervision and Conditions of

Release Arrest and Arrest Authority Carry Firearms Transportation Interstate Compact Violations Sanctions Conduct Hearings


References and Resources

“State of the Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment”-Pretrial Justice Institute (2011)

“State of the Science of Pretrial Release Recommendations and Supervision”- Pretrial Justice Institute (2011)

“Risk/Needs Assessment 101: Science Reveals New Tools to Manage Offenders”- Pew Center on the States (2011)

“Promising Practices in Providing Pretrial Services Functions Within Probation Agencies- APPA/PJI (2010)

“Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Community Corrections” - Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice (2009).

Define

Develop

Achieve

Measure

Improve

Measuring for Results:Using Performance Measurement

to Achieve Mission and Goals

P R E P A R E D B Y :Spurgeon Kennedy, Director, Office of Strategic DevelopmentD.C. Pretrial Services Agency

Vice-President, NAPSA


What is missing in most leadership-related writings and teachings is the lack of attention to results. Most of them focus on organizational capabilities (adaptability, agility, mission-directed, values-based) or on leadership competencies (vision, character, trust and other exemplary attributes, competencies and capabilities).

All well and good, but what is seriously missing is the connection between these critical capabilities and results. And this is what results-based leadership is all about: how organizational capabilities and leadership competencies lead to and are connected to desired results.

Dave Ulrich, Jack Zenger, and Norm Smallwood (1999). Results-Based Leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press

The Problem

“Busy Work:” Activity meant to take up time but not necessarily yield productive results.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000)

“BUSY DATA”…


Many pretrial programs don’t know what data are critical in measuring their relevance in an evidence-based criminal justice system or their successes in meeting strategic performance and outcomes. For many pretrial programs—and criminal justice programs in general—the focus is on “busy data,” not results-oriented and strategic information.

Most pretrial programs don’t know how to measure what truly matters to them, stakeholders or the public.

BOTTOM LINE: Pretrial services programs must move from “data building” to “performance management.”


Goals

Create a results-oriented measurement system that tracks pretrial programs’ mission-related and strategic functions

Allow pretrial programs to show through solid performance oriented information their value in a high-functioning criminal justice system

Allow better decisions on program resources, quality and effectiveness

Achieve better results in public safety, court appearance and defendant compliance

Inputs and Outputs

From this…

OutcomesEfficiencies

To this…


How Measurement Promotes Results

● Shifts the organization’s focus from activities to results, from how a program operates to the good it accomplishes

● Frees leaders to lead

● Focuses and motivates management and staff on common goals and purposes

● Identifies what works and what’s promising

● Positions organization within the system and community as successful, increasing support and resources

Definitions

Measures are numeric (rates, totals) or qualitative (perception, feedback) indicators of how well an organization achieves its mission-related and strategic functions.

Outcome measures focus mission

Performance measures gauge operational goals in support of the mission

Performance measurement is the process that tracks progress toward achieving the mission and goals, including: Ability to transform

resources into goods and services

Quality of outputs and outcomes

Effectiveness of operations in meeting objectives


Pretrial Release Outcome & Performance Measures

In 2011, NIC published Measuring What Matters: Outcome and Performance Measures for the Pretrial Field A compilation of the Network’s suggested outcome and

performance measures and mission critical data.

www.nicic.gov/library/025172

Outcome Measures: Appearance Rate

Percentage of supervised defendants who make all scheduled court appearances Nearly all programs have maximizing appearance as part of

the mission. It is included as a chief objective in local rules and enabling legislation, and included in national standards.

Recommended data includes: Number of defendants with a verified pretrial release and/or

placement to a pretrial program, and

A subset of this population that have no bench warrants or capiases for missed court appearances.

May also be tracked for various populations of defendants


Appearance Rate Percentage of supervised defendants who make all scheduled court appearances

Monthly Outcome Historical Outcome

85.9%

14.1%

March 2013Appearance Rate

Successful Cases FTA Cases

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

88.8% 86.7% 87.7%80.3% 84.0% 82.0% 85.9% 82.5% 83.8% 81.5% 83.4% 84.0% 85.9%

11.2% 13.3% 12.3%19.7% 16.0% 18.0% 14.1% 17.5% 16.2% 18.5% 16.6% 16.0% 14.1%

Annual Appearance Rate

Successful Cases FTA Cases

Outcome Measures: Safety Rate

Percentage of supervised defendants who are not charged with a new offense during adjudication. New offenses: Occur during the period of pretrial release; Include prosecutorial decision to charge; and Carry the potential of incarceration or community supervision

upon conviction.

Recommended data includes: Number of defendants with verified pretrial release and/or

placement to a pretrial program, and Subset of this population with no re-arrests on a new offense. May also be tracked by various categories (offense, risk, etc.)


SAFETY RatePercentage of supervised defendants who are not charged with a new offense during the pretrial stage


97.0%

3.0%

March 2013Safety Rate

Successful Cases Arrests

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

98.3% 98.1% 97.0% 94.0% 98.4% 95.5% 98.4% 98.8% 95.6% 97.7% 95.9% 97.5% 97.0%

1.7% 1.9% 3.0% 6.0% 1.6% 4.5% 1.6% 1.2% 4.4% 2.3% 4.1% 2.5% 3.0%

Annual Safety Rate

Successful Cases Arrests

Outcome Measures: Concurrence Rate

Percentage of defendants whose supervision level or detention status corresponds to their assessed risk for pretrial misconduct. Overall supervision level should be comparable; conditions

recommended or imposed do not have to match exactly. Concurrent Y/N: Recommendation is for OR with no

conditions; defendant is released with weekly reporting?

Recommended data: Number of release and detention recommendations and

subsequent release and detention decision outcomes. Only count defendants eligible by statute for pretrial release;

exclude those on statutory holds, probation or parole warrants or holds, and detainers from other jurisdictions.


CONCURRENCE RatePercentage of defendants whose supervision level or detention status corresponds with their assessed risk of pretrial misconduct


85.5%

14.5%

March 2013Concurrence Rate

Judges Concurred with ReleaseRecommendation

Judges Issued Alternative Release 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

86.8% 85.9% 86.2% 85.5% 85.9% 87.2% 88.6% 86.0% 88.7%82.3% 82.0% 85.5% 85.5%

13.2% 14.1% 13.8% 14.5% 14.1% 12.8% 11.4% 14.0% 11.3%17.7% 18.0% 14.5% 14.5%

Annual Concurrence Rate

Judges Concurred with Release Recommendation Judges Issued Alternative Release

Outcome Measure: Success Rate

Percentage of released defendants who are: Not revoked for technical violations;

Appear for all scheduled court appearances; and

Remain arrest-free.

Recommended data: Number of defendants released to the program; and

The subset of this population that experience no revocations for technical violations, failures to appear, or re-arrests.

It excludes defendants detained following a guilty verdict and those revoked due to non pretrial related holds.


SUCCESS RatePercentage of released defendants who (1) are not revoked for technical violations of the conditions of their release, (2) appear for all scheduled court appearances, and (3) are not charged with any new offense during pretrial supervision


79.1%

20.9%

March 2013Success Rate

Total Successful Cases

Total Revoked Cases 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

82.8% 81.1% 78.4%70.4% 73.5% 69.4%

78.5% 76.8% 75.0% 74.3% 73.1% 76.5% 79.1%

17.2% 18.9% 21.6%29.6% 26.5% 30.6%

21.5% 23.2% 25.0% 25.7% 26.9% 23.5% 20.9%

Annual Success Rate

Total Successful Cases Total Revoked Cases

Outcome Measures: Detainee Length of Stay

Average lengths of jail stay for pretrial detainees that are eligible by statute for pretrial release.

Significant measure for pretrial programs, particularly the estimated 27% of pretrial programs located within corrections departments and with missions to help control jail populations.

Recommended data include: Admission and release dates for all pretrial-related jail

detentions.

Release is defined as the full discharge from custody


Performance Measures

Universal Screening is the percentage of defendants eligible for release by statute that the program assesses for release eligibility.

Recommendation Rate is the percentage of the time the program follows its risk assessment criteria when recommending release or detention.

Response to Defendant Conduct is the frequency of policy-approved responses to compliance and noncompliance with court-ordered release conditions.

Pretrial Intervention Rate is the pretrial agency’s effectiveness at resolving outstanding bench warrants, arrest warrants and capiases.

OutcomesAppearance Rate: The percentage of supervised defendants who make all scheduled court appearances. Safety Rate: The percentage of defendants that are not charged with a new offense during the pretrial stage.Concurrence Rate: The percentage of defendants whose supervision level or detention status corresponds with their assessed risk of pretrial misconduct.Success Rate: The percentage of released defendants who are 1) not revoked for technical violations due to condition violations, 2) appear for all scheduled court appearances, and 3) are not charged with a new offense during pretrial supervision.Pretrial Detainee Length of Stay: The average lengths of jail stay for pretrial detainees that are eligible by statute for pretrial release.

Risk Assessment Risk ManagementScreening: The percentage of defendants eligible for release by statute that the program assesses for release eligibility.

Recommendation: The percentage of time the program follows its risk assessment criteria when recommending release or detention.

Response: Frequency of policy-approved responses to compliance and noncompliance with release conditions.

Intervention: The pretrial agency’s effectiveness at resolving outstanding bench warrants, arrest warrants and capiases.

External Factors/AssumptionsCommunity Legal Defendant System


Creating Outcome Measures

IT STARTS WITH THE MISSION:

As the County’s leader in pretrial risk assessment and risk management, Pretrial Services assists the Court make reasonable and appropriate bail decisions, consistent with State law. Pretrial Services is committed to maximizing court appearance by released defendants, promoting a safer community, and advancing fair administration of justice.

Creating Outcome Measures

IT STARTS WITH THE MISSION:

“To promote pretrial justice and enhance public safety”

Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia


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

Lessons on Effective Implementation

● Tie measures to mission, goals and objectives. ● Use performance measurement to track progress and direction toward

strategic objectives.

● Avoid busy data—use results for big mission-driven things.● Data should be the foundation for new initiatives, budgets, strategic

planning, and priorities.

● Leaders lead! ● Management sees value and commits to measurement; they are active

in measurement creation, articulating mission/vision/goals, and disseminating expectations and results.

● Create a measurement framework; advertise it at all levels.● Everyone knows how measures relate to their work and knows what they

do is worthwhile.


Lessons Learned on Effective Implementation

● Create measurement systems that are positive, not punitive.● Successful performance frameworks are not "gotcha" systems, but

learning environments that help the organization identify what works/what doesn’t and continue with/improve.

● Tie compensation, rewards, and recognition to performance measurements.● Link performance evaluations and rewards to specific measures of

success; tie financial and nonfinancial incentives directly to performance.

● This sends a clear and unambiguous message to the organization about what's important.

● Share results with staff, customers, and stakeholders.● Excluding sensitive or protected data, performance measure

results should be openly and widely shared

Judges mostly support implementation of the measures but opposed or expressed skepticism about publicly reporting them due to concerns they will be misconstrued and result in unfair comparisons. They are worried the numbers will not accurately reflect operations because of external matters affecting cases.

“The only individuals interested in the results would be a lawyer planning to run against an incumbent, a young journalist seeking a headline or a disgruntled litigant seeking to file a JTC (Judicial Tenure Commission) complaint against a judge,” the 12-judge Macomb bench said in a document submitted to state officials, although it mentions only “certain” judges oppose the reporting proposal.

The bench’s concerns were similar to those mentioned in memos submitted by the Michigan Judges Association, Michigan Probate Judges Association, Michigan District Judges Association and other jurists statewide.



● Programs must identify outcomes and indicators.● Measures imposed by outsiders may not meet the desired criteria.

● Agencies should seek input when identifying program outcomes.● Staff, customers, and partners can point out important outcomes.

● Data collection and analysis pose technical challenges.● Hiring a technical expert often will often save time, offer reassurance

and improve results.

● Trial-run the measurement system. ● It must last long enough to encompass all key data collection points

and must involve at least a representative group of program participants.

● Expect that the trial run will identify problems; that’s the point.


●Developing an outcome measurement system takes time. Eight steps across three phases: 1. Initial preparation - getting ready to begin, choosing

outcomes to measure, specifying indicators for the outcomes and preparing to collect data;

2. Trial run - trying out data collection procedures and data analysis and reporting methods; and

3. Implementation - adjusting the outcome measurement system and using the findings.

o Monitor and improve measurement systems. Programs change and programs learn. The system must keep up!

Hatry, van Houten, Plantz, and Greenway (1996)



C H E R I S E F A N N O B U R D E E N ,

C H I E F O P E R A T I N G O F F I C E R ,

P R E T R I A L J U S T I C E I N S T I T U T E

Public Perceptions and Managing the Message


What can we learn from this for pretrial justice communication?

Calling for Pretrial Reform Since 2010


Most Effective Test Ads


Most Effective Test Ads

If you have a communications strategy…

Tragic case Citizen or public safety

personnel victims

Budget hearings

Legislation proposed that is anti-EBP

Jail crowding/law suit

Reorganization

Stakeholders already know who you are

You already know where they stand

Examples: Clemmons IACP

Allegheny County PA

Colorado ballot

Virginia legislation

Monroe County NY


Strategies and Techniques

Single Overriding Communication Objective

Brief statement of the single most important message you want to get across during your communication

The ability to stay “on message” is directly related to the clarity of your SOCO and the amount of preparation and practice.

5-8 words (quotable quote) Key Facts

Does this relate to my SOCO? How does it help to clarify or add depth to the SOCO?

Target Audience Communications Objective List of Potential Questions


Key Messages

Powerful, effective and compelling communications require as a foundation a meaningful and lasting message.

In order to make your message meaningful it must highlight the impact your program has on public safety.

And, in order to make it lasting it needs to be told as a story, with both facts and feelings.

Bridging

No matter what you are asked, come back to your SOCO

Examples of phrases?


Flagging

Alerting your audience you are about to say something important

Examples of phrases?

Hooking

Ending your answer to a question with a statement that encourages the interviewer to ask a follow-up question that you think is important

Examples of sentences?


Dumping

Taking responsibility and admitting a mistake, a problem, or negative situation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTdKa9eWNFw

(BP Oil Spill)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYys4XjTJgU&feature=related (CT Mayor)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYMPK16poIk&feature=related

VERSUS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r_PIg7EAUw

(JetBlue)

Methods of Communication

Face to face

Flyers/one-pagers

Website

eBlasts

Facebook

Twitter

The Media Make friends with your

local newspaper’s crime reporter

Open House/Town Hall Meeting


Other Strategies

Hitching a ride

Unlikely allies

www.pretrial.org

Facebook.com/pretrial @pretrial [email protected]



John Clark, Senior Project Associate, Pretrial Justice Institute,

Garry Herceg, Director, Santa Clara Office of Pretrial Services, and

Kristy Danford, Associate, Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ

Challenges and Opportunities for Moving to Legal and Evidence-

Based Pretrial in California

Rich History of Pretrial Services in California

Some of the first programs in the country were in CA: L.A., Berkley and San Francisco

Organizational meeting of the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies held in San Francisco in 1973

Santa Mateo County Pretrial Services named national model in 1982


California Pretrial Services Programs

Alameda

Butte

Fresno

Humboldt

Los Angeles

Marin

Monterey

Napa

Orange

Riverside

Sacramento

San Bernardino

San Diego

San Mateo

San Francisco

Santa Barbara

Santa Clara

Santa Cruz

Solano

Sonoma

Yolo

Planning for Pretrial Services

Contra Costa

El Dorado

Imperial

San Joaquin


Most people in California jails have not been convicted of a crime

21 counties have pretrial populations

of over 70%

7 counties with pretrial population

of 50% or lower

3 Mini-Case Studies

Contra Costa County – in program planning stage

Riverside County – early stage of revamping an inherited program

Santa Clara County – in implementation of evidence-based practices stage


Contra Costa County Facts

In San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area

Land area: 802 square miles

Population 1.066 million

Ninth most populous county in California

Four jail facilities in the county housing about 1,500 inmates

Jail not over capacity but population 70-80% pretrial

Pretrial Services Planning in Contra Costa

Began looking at pretrial services in 2011

CCP fully behind starting pretrial, using AB 109 funds

Formed a Working Group including the DA’s office, PD’s office & Probation

Program will be under Probation

Hope to start late Fall 2013


The Plan

Will use the Virginia pretrial risk assessment tool at first

Collect data to later test it

Conduct assessments before initial appearance

Target most offenses

Provide supervision to match identified risk levels

Challenges

Putting together the pieces of a pretrial services program

Shift in thinking and longstanding practices of judges and prosecutors

Training of probation staff to assume pretrial services duties


Opportunities

Funding from AB 109

Strong support of the CCP

Strong support of the presiding judge

The jail population is not currently over capacity

Technical assistance

Riverside County Facts

Riverside County covers 7,208 square miles Fourth most populous county in CA: 2.2 million in

2010 Five jails throughout county, max capacity = 3,842

2012 Felony Bookings and Releases 27,972 felony bookings 1,132 (4%) OR releases 12,446 (44%) financial bail releases 6,990 (24%) Federal Release Order releases


Implementation Plan

Develop new pretrial database and court reports

Increase efficiency Increase defendant interviews and OR releases

Streamline jail and court processes

Choose and implement an assessment tool

Establish stakeholder leadership group

Develop pretrial supervision program

Utilize technology

Challenges

Time limitation: Four months from initial notification to implementation

Size and scope of the county: Multiple facilities, multiple courts, multiple bench officers

Organizational development: Coming to a pretrial mindset and focus; and addressing inefficiencies

Systems collaboration: Broadening the comfort zone and gaining confidence among stakeholders without having the requisite experience


Opportunities

Leadership: Executive team support; dedicated managers and supervisors tasked with building a quality program

Partnerships: Cooperation and investment from partner agencies and technical assistance

Existing resources: Ability to send supervisors to site visits and training, pretrial structure in place; information technology and case management system, and experienced and trained staff

Santa Clara Facts

• South Bay Area

• Land area: 1315 square miles

• Population: 1.78 million

• Seventh most populous county in California

• Two jail facilities housing about 4000 inmates

• Jail 105% of CSA rated capacity since inception of AB 109, 68% pretrial

• Prior to AB 109, 93% of capacity, 71% pretrial


Pretrial Services in Santa Clara

Program started in 1969 with a grant

Made independent county department in 1971

Department consists of three units: 24/7 Jail Unit, Supervision Unit and Court Unit

41 positions, annual budget 5.5 million

Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices

Began in 2010 when department partnered with PJI to develop locally empirically-developed risk tool

Engaged stakeholders: BOS, County Executive, Court, DA, PD and CBO’s

Series of stakeholder meetings to decide on temporary tool in order to collect data, VPRAI

Conducted series of trainings for pretrial staff, all 80 judges, PD, DA, BOS, County Counsel, CBO’s, Grand Jury


EBP Implementation Continued

VPRAI/Data Collection implemented January, 2011

Local validation study began late 2011, completed mid 2012-PJI

Training for staff, stakeholders on new tool late 2012

New local empirically-developed risk tool implemented January 2013

Challenges

Changing detention decision making culture from reliance on personal opinion/experience to follow RAI (Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow)

Keeping stakeholders engaged-Court, DA, PD

Policy development, performance outcome measures for staff, union issues

Coaching/mentoring of staff/judges

Questioning of data driven decision making


Challenges, Cont.

Net widening based on risk level-over use of supervision, over use of terms of release

Court/DA reliance on bond schedule

35% increase in average daily population of pretrial releases in 6 months, large caseloads

Ongoing targeting of department by Bail Industry: lawsuit, support of elected officials, audit, reduction in funding.

Opportunities

AB 109 Funding

Education of community of pretrial issues

Further reduction of pretrial detention pop

Expansion of services-Reentry Resource Center, Pretrial Diversion

Warrant reduction/expansion of court reminder system to include text, emails, social media


Santa Clara Resources

Technical Assistance

Training-NIC, PJI

Professional Groups-CAPS, NAPSA

Site Visits

M I S S I O N

K E Y S T R E N G T H S A N D C H A L L E N G E S

M I S S I O N - C R I T I C A L I S S U E I D E N T I F I C A T I O N

Exercise #4



Kristy Danford, Associate, Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ

Pretrial Justice Action Planning

Action Planning

Reality

Objectives

Goals

MissionVision


Action Plan Elements

Goals in alignment with your mission Objectives and strategies/tactics that must be completed

to achieve a given goal Time frames or deadlines Person(s) or committee(s) responsible Measurement indicators Provide enough information to: Ensure completion of the strategies/tactics will logically result in

goal achievement. Charge those responsible so they can create a detailed work plan for

carrying it out Communicate expectations and progress

Action Plan Template

Mission:

Goal:

Objectives Strategies/Tactics

Deadline PersonResponsible


214


Pulling It All Together

Consider: What would your ideal solution be? What potential barriers might arise and how would

you respond? Based on past experience, what has worked/not? Given your resources (time, money, staff, etc.),

what can you realistically accomplish? By when? What are the “low-hanging fruit?” What “sacred cows” need to change to make

progress?

SMART Goals

Specific – Detailed and clear enough to be interpreted in the same way by different individuals

Measurable – Possible to objectively determine whether the goal has been met

Attainable – Can be accomplished given the resources and skills available (or will become available)

Realistic – Can be accomplished given the context and constraints of implementation

Time-bound – Has a deadline or timeframe for completion


SMART Goals

Most goals are not SMART at the outset, it takes thoughtful discussion

It begins with an idea for a solution Implement risk assessment

Successfully supervise those released to pretrial supervision

SMART Goals

Turn solution-focused ideas turn into SMART goals By June 2014, 85% of all statutorily eligible pretrial defendants

will be assessed for risk of pretrial misconduct.

By June 2014, 80% of all defendants released to pretrial supervision will 1) not be revoked for technical violations, 2) appear for all scheduled court appearances, and 3) not be charged with a new offense during pretrial supervision.


Action Planning Challenge

Create a rough draft of one action plan goal Select a key challenge area

Identify a solution to the challenge

Turn the solution into a SMART goal

Identify specific objectives and strategies necessary to achieve the goal Include timelines, person/committee responsible, and a

measurement indicator that will let you know it is working

Test your logic – if you do a, b and c it is logical to expect you will achieve the goal? If not, revise as necessary.

C O N S I D E R A T I O N S

A C T I O N P L A N N I N G

Exercise #5


Pretrial Justice System Assessment: Survey Version

Companion to the Pretrial Justice System Assessment

December 2012


2 | P a g e


Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ

Acknowledgements

The Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ would like to express appreciation for the substantial body of pretrial justice work

that preceded the development of this assessment tool, including contributions made by the Department of Justice,

Public Welfare Foundation, the Pretrial Justice Institute, National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies, Luminosity,

Inc., and the American Bar Association. Several key documents were referenced to create this assessment tool,

including:

• American Bar Association (2007). ABA standards for criminal justice: Pretrial release (3rd

ed.). Washington, DC:

American Bar Association. Retrieved from

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_standards/pretrial_release.authc

heckdam.pdf

• Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice (2009). Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and

Practice in Community Corrections, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from

http://www.crj.org/cji/entry/publication_integratedmodel

• National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies (2004). Standards on pretrial release (3rd

ed.). Washington, DC:

National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from


• VanNostrand, M., & Crime and Justice Institute (2007). Legal and evidence-based practices: Applications of legal

principles, laws, and research to the field of pretrial services. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Retrieved from http://cjinstitute.org/boxset

• National Institute of Corrections (2011). Measuring What Matters: Outcome and performance measures for the

pretrial services field. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Retrieved from


• Pretrial Justice Institute (2011). Assessing local pretrial justice functions: A handbook for providing technical

assistance. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from


• Pretrial Justice Institute (2009). Pretrial services program implementation: A starter kit. Washington, DC: Bureau

of Justice Assistance. Retrieved from

http://www.cejamericas.org/manualsaj/[PJI]PretrialServicesProgramImplementationKit_%20AStarterKit.pdf

• Clark, J. (2012). Pretrial Justice Mini-Assessment. Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute.

CJI would also like to thank several contributors who provided valuable input throughout the development process.

• Kristy Pierce-Danford, Associate, Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ (primary author)

• Cherise Fanno Burdeen, Chief Operating Officer, Pretrial Justice Institute

• Meghan Guevara, Managing Associate, Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ

• Lisa Brooks, Senior Associate, Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ

• John Clark, Senior Project Associate, Pretrial Justice Institute

• Michael Jones, Senior Project Associate, Pretrial Justice Institute

Suggested Citation:

Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ, Kristy Pierce-Danford (2012). Pretrial Justice System Assessment: Survey

Version. Boston, MA: Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ.


3 | P a g e



Introduction

The Pretrial Justice System Assessment: Survey Version assesses the status of pretrial justice practices in a given

jurisdiction. It is a companion document to the Pretrial Justice System Assessment, and can be administered as a survey

or used as an abbreviated, stand-alone assessment tool. The survey includes critical areas of interest in the

administration of pretrial justice, and can be used to determine the degree to which jurisdictional practices are

consistent with national standards. It provides illustrative examples intended to give the respondent an idea of what

might be happening in jurisdictions at particular stages of implementation.

The assessment provides an opportunity for stakeholders to take a high-level view of how pretrial practices are

functioning. By completing the assessment, pretrial practitioners, local stakeholders, and technical assistance providers

can quickly and easily increase their understanding of the system. It is recommended that responses be supported by

data and documentation. Checklists of documentation, general information and key data points to reference are

included in the appendix. Not all jurisdictions will be able to provide information in all areas of inquiry. The degree to

which information is available will often depend on the stage of implementation and local political realities. It is often

the case that simply by asking the questions, stakeholders will begin to identify strengths in the system as well as gaps

that may need to be addressed.

Prior to initiating the assessment, thought should be given to whom to include in the pool of respondents, what will be

done with the information gathered, and the amount of time and resources available to analyze the results. Based on

the answers to those questions, the extent of the survey will vary and decisions may need to be made to tailor it

accordingly. For example, in some sites responses from a handful of key players will suffice, while in others surveying all

staff may be more appropriate.

It is important to note that the results should not be used to compare one pretrial services agency to another. This is

not a validated survey, and it is not intended to provide a “grade” for the jurisdiction. The purpose of the rating system

is to provide a snapshot of where a particular jurisdiction is relative to targets set forth in national standards, allowing

practitioners, stakeholders, and technical assistance providers to see at-a-glance which areas need improvement. The

true value in the use of this tool is not in the rating system, but in the discussions and improvement efforts it will initiate.

Should a more intensive assessment of the site be needed, the companion document, Pretrial Justice System

Assessment, provides a more detailed tool for conducting a comprehensive assessment. In addition to the areas

included in the survey and appendix, it includes targets and questions to consider for each critical area as well as an

assessment of organizational/system readiness for change. Upon completion of the Pretrial Justice System Assessment

Survey Version and/or the companion document, jurisdictions are encouraged to celebrate the areas of strength and

develop a work plan or strategy to strengthen areas in need of improvement.


4 | P a g e



Pretrial Justice System Assessment Survey

Structure: The survey is divided into two sections. Section “A,” jurisdictional pretrial processes, is intended to address

the system in which pretrial services operate. Section “B,” pretrial justice services, is intended to address the agency that

administers pretrial services. Descriptions for each critical area are based on National Association of Pretrial Services

Agencies (NAPSA) standards and recommended practices, which draw heavily from the American Bar Association’s

Standards on Pretrial Release.

Instructions: Score the jurisdiction in each critical domain area using a rating continuum from 1 (Little to No Progress)

through 5 (Advanced Implementation/Fully Operational). 1= Little to No Progress, 2=Initial Discussion, 3=Planning/Early

Implementation, 4=Active Implementation, 5=Advanced Implementation/Fully Operational, or N/A=Not Applicable. To

illustrate:

• If the jurisdiction has made little to no progress toward national standards in the domain area, then score a “1”

(Little to No Progress). For example, if the jurisdiction has not discussed moving toward the use of pretrial risk

assessment tool, then score a “1.”

• If the jurisdiction has begun discussions of steps to take and falls between “1” (Little to No Progress) and “3”

(Planning / Early Implementation), then score a”2” (Initial Discussion) in the space provided. For example, if the

jurisdiction has begun discussing whether or not to adopt the use of a pretrial risk assessment tool but the

decision has yet to be made, then score a “2.”

• If the jurisdiction has plans in place and/or has begun the initial steps of implementation, then score a “3”

(Planning/Early Implementation) in the space provided. For example, if the jurisdiction has decided to adopt the

use of a pretrial risk assessment instrument and developed a work plan to guide the implementation process,

then score a “3.”

• If the jurisdiction is in the midst of implementation but not yet at a point of “5” (Advanced Implementation/Fully

Operational); then score a “4” (Active Implementation) in the place provided. For example, if the jurisdiction is

in the process of implementing a pretrial risk assessment tool, but not yet at a point of widespread use and

validation of the tool; then score a “4.”

• If the jurisdiction has succeeded in carrying out implementation steps and is operational in the domain area,

then score a “5” (Advanced Implementation/Fully Operational). For example, if the jurisdiction regularly

administers a locally validated pretrial risk assessment tool and quality assurance procedures are in place; then

score a “5.”

• If a domain area does not apply, denote “N/A” and provide a brief rationale in the comments section. For

example, if a conscious decision was made not to utilize a pretrial risk assessment tool; then score a “N/A” and

denote the reason for deciding not to use a pretrial risk assessment tool.

Appendix: Includes checklists of documentation and general information to review and performance data to analyze.

The checklists can be used to identify appropriate evidence and contextual information in support of survey results.

Recommendation: Upon completion of the assessment, compile a summary document (e.g., brief, presentation, memo,

report, etc.) outlining the strengths and areas for improvement for the jurisdiction. This document can then be utilized

as the basis for developing a work plan or strategic plan to strengthen the administration of pretrial justice.


A. Continuum of Implementation: Jurisdictional Pretrial Justice Processes

Critical

Domain

Area

Little to No Progress (Rating of 1)

Planning / Early Implementation (Rating of 3)

Advanced Implementation / Fully

Operational (Rating of 5)

Rate

1-5 or

N/A

Citation

Release and

Summons

Few, if any, efforts are made to divert minor

cases (misdemeanor and low-level felonies)

from custodial arrests

Efforts have begun to divert more minor cases

(misdemeanor and low-level felonies) from

custodial arrests

The jurisdiction does not use custodial arrests

for minor cases (misdemeanors and low-level

felonies)

Bond

Schedules

There is significant reliance on monetary bond

schedules

The jurisdiction has plans in place to reduce

reliance on bond schedules

Bond schedules are not used/permitted

Financial Bail The ability to meet financial conditions tends

to be the leading factor in securing pretrial

release, rather than imposing the least

restrictive conditions based on risk

Plans are in place to ensure only the least

restrictive conditions, based on risk, are used

to provide reasonable assurance the

defendant will appear in court and to protect

the safety of the community, victims and

witnesses pending trial

Level of risk for pretrial misconduct is the

leading factor in securing release pending trial

Early

Screening

Prosecutors rarely screen cases before first

appearance to decide whether to move

forward and on what charges

Efforts have begun to have experienced

prosecutors screen each case before first

appearance to decide whether to move

forward and on what charges

An experienced prosecutor reviews each case

before initial appearance and decides whether

to move forward and on what charges

Prosecutors rarely appear at bail-setting

hearings

Efforts have begun to increase the appearance

of prosecutors at bail-setting hearings

Prosecutors appear at each bail-setting

hearing

During bail-setting hearings, prosecutors do

not advocate for the least restrictive

conditions, based on risk, to assure the

defendant will appear in court and to protect

the safety of the community, victims and

witnesses pending trial

Plans are in place to increase advocacy by the

prosecutors at bail-setting hearing for the

least restrictive conditions, based on risk, to

assure the defendant will appear in court and

to protect the safety of the community,

victims and witnesses pending trial

During bail-setting hearings, prosecutors

advocate for the least restrictive conditions,

based on risk, to assure the defendant will

appear in court and to protect the safety of

the community, victims and witnesses pending

trial

Defense for

Indigent

Defendants

Defense is rarely present at the initial bail-

setting

Plans are in place to increase defense

representation for defendants at initial bail-

setting

Defense is present at the initial bail-setting

hearing for each defendant

Defense rarely has enough time to meet with

each defendant and gather necessary

information to make representations

regarding release prior to the initial bail-

setting

Efforts have begun for defense to meet with

more defendants and gather information

needed to make representations regarding

release prior to the initial bail-setting

Defense has enough time to meet with each

defendant and gather information needed to

make representations regarding release prior

to the initial bail-setting

Release

Authority

Individuals with release authority do not have

clear criteria for making release decisions,

Plans are in place to ensure individuals with

release authority follow set criteria, including

an evidence-based risk assessment, for making

Anyone with release authority follows set

criteria for making release decisions, including


6 | P a g e



including evidence-based risk assessments release decisions an evidence-based risk assessment

Individuals with release authority are seldom

trained in using set criteria to make release

decisions

Efforts have begun to train individuals with

release authority in how to use set criteria for

making release decisions

Anyone with release authority is trained to

follow set criteria for making release decisions

Release

Options

The releasing authority does not have all the

information needed to make an informed

decision, including evidence-based risk

assessments

Plans are in place to provide the releasing

authority all the information needed to make

an informed decision, including evidence-

based risk assessments

Anyone with release authority has all the

information necessary to make informed

decisions, including evidence-based risk

assessments

There is not a wide array of options available

to those with release authority to address

defendant risk

Efforts have begun to widen the range of

options available for addressing the range of

risks posed by defendants

A broad continuum of options is available to

those with release authority to address the

range of risks posed by defendants (e.g.,

release on personal recognizance, court

reminders, electronic monitoring, active

supervision and other risk mitigation options)

B. Continuum of Implementation: Pretrial Justice Services

Critical

Domain

Area

Little to No Progress (Rating of 1)

Planning / Beginning Implementation (Rating of 3)

Advanced Implementation/ Operational (Rating of 5)

Rate

1-5 or

N/A

Target

Population

Few, if any, segments of the population taken

into custody are targeted for pretrial

interviews

Plans are in place to increase the pool of

defendants targeted for pretrial interviews

All defendants taken into custody (except

those excluded by statute) are targeted for

pretrial interviews

Interview

Timing

Pretrial interviews, including information

verification, seldom occur prior to the initial

pretrial release determination hearing

Efforts have begun to ensure pretrial

interviews, including information verification,

occur prior to the initial pretrial release

determination hearing

Pretrial interviews, including information

verification, occurs prior to each initial

pretrial release determination hearing

Ongoing

Review

The status of detained defendants is rarely

reviewed to determine if new circumstances

would enable release

Efforts have begun to review the status of

detained defendants to determine if new

circumstances would enable release

The status of detained defendants is regularly

reviewed to determine if there are any

changes that would enable release

Information

Collected

Most information gathered in pretrial

interviews is not relevant to an objective

assessment of the risk of pretrial misconduct

posed by the defendant

Plans are in place to ensure information

gathered is directly relevant to an objective

assessment of risk or pretrial misconduct posed

by the defendant

Most, if not all, information gathered is

relevant to the objective assessment of the

risk of pretrial misconduct posed by the

defendant


7 | P a g e



Information collected in the pretrial interview

is not relevant to the type of supervision and

follow up needed if the defendant is released

Efforts have begun to ensure the information

collected is relevant to the type of supervision

and follow up needed if the defendant is

released

In addition to the information used for risk

assessment, most- if not all- information

collected is relevant to the type of

supervision and follow up required if the

defendant is released

Risk

Assessment

An evidence-based pretrial risk assessment is

not in use

Plans are in place to administer an evidence-

based pretrial risk assessment instrument

A validated risk assessment is being

administered in a timely fashion to the target

population

The risk assessment has not been recently

validated on the population

Efforts have begun to validate the risk

assessment on the population

The risk assessment has been recently

validated on the population

A quality assurance process to ensure

accuracy and consistency is not in place

Plans are in place to establish a quality

assurance process to ensure accuracy and

consistency

A quality assurance process is in place to

ensure accuracy and consistency

Release

Recommenda

tions

Recommendations rarely correspond to

assessed risk

Plans are in place to increase the degree of

correspondence between assessed risk and

recommendations

Recommendations regularly correspond with

the assessed risk level

Those with release authority seldom follow

release recommendations

Plans are in place to increase the agreement

between release recommendations and the

decisions made by those with release authority

Those with release authority regularly adhere

to the recommendations

Supervision Supervision resources are not prioritized by

risk

Efforts have begun to prioritize supervision

resources and provide differentiation of

services between levels of risk

Supervision resources are prioritized for

higher risk defendants, and less restrictive

options are used for lower risk defendants

Responses to

Violations

The jurisdiction has no established criteria to

respond to violations do not exist

The jurisdiction has begun to establish criteria

to respond to violations

Established criteria for responding to

violations exist

The criteria are not consistently applied Plans are in place to ensure consistent

application

Established criteria for responding to

violations are consistently applied

Court

Reminders

Reminders of upcoming court dates are not

provided to defendants

Efforts have begun to establish a court date

reminder system

Court date reminder notices are provided to

defendants

Data /

Quality

Assurance

Limited or no data is available at the case and

agency levels

Efforts have begun to collect data at case and

agency levels

The jurisdiction has accurate data at case and

agency levels

No quality review of data reports is being

conducted

Plans are in place to develop data reports to

guide continuous improvement efforts

The jurisdiction uses data reports to guide

continuous improvement efforts


Appendix

Continuum of Implementation: Pretrial Justice Documentation Checklist and General Information

Critical

Domain Area

Documents and Information to

Review

Areas of Focus Title of Documents Reviewed, If

Applicable

Legal

Framework

• Relevant law and court rulings

related to pretrial justice in the

jurisdiction

• Criminal procedures for bail

and pretrial release provisions

• Court ruling or consent decrees

in force

• Criteria for issuing release

citations or summonses

• Whether there is a presumption of release on the least restric-

tive conditions

• Factors that the court is required to consider

• Which release options the court must choose from

• Whether the court can hold a defendant without bail

• Circumstances under which a defendant can be held without bail

• Provisions on the use of citation releases and summonses in lieu

of arrest

• Mandatory population limitations

• Judicial officers’, prosecutors’, and defenders’ familiarity with

and interpretation of pretrial statute, case law, and court rules

Policies and

Procedures

• Pretrial services agency

standard operating procedures,

such as:

o defendant screening

o interview and verification

o risk assessment and

recommendations

o follow up reviews,

supervision

o performance management

o information sharing and

confidentiality

• Training materials

• Understand pretrial functions, ask informed questions and

assess degree of adherence

Pretrial

Forms

• Documents utilized to

administer pretrial services

o Risk assessment

o Interview guide

o Bail report to the court

o Release order

o Compliance/violation

• How forms are used in daily work (e.g., if there is a bond

schedule, is it used by law enforcement or jail staff prior to initial

appearance or by magistrates setting bail)?


9 | P a g e



report to the court

o Reminder notice

o Bail schedule

Performance

Reports

• Daily pretrial population

reports

• Monthly management reports

• Annual performance reports

• Annual pretrial service agency

budget

• Understanding priorities and budgetary authority

• Assessment of data capacity

• Knowledge of prior issues, challenges and milestones achieved

Physical

Layout and

Operating

Hours

• Agency layout and geography

• Use of technology and mobility

of staff

• Hours of operation

• Organizational chart

• Proximity of pretrial services staff to defendants and court

• Availability of interview space

• Ability of staff to access data system, upload information and

utilize other technologies

• Understanding of resource availability and constraints

• Availability of staff

• Efficiency of operations

Strategic

Documents

• Strategic plan/mission/vision

• Efforts of coordinating councils

or key committees

• Analysis of key issues

• An understanding of the purpose of pretrial practices and key

priorities

• A sense of the collaboration and prior efforts around pretrial

justice practices

External

Relations

• Recent media coverage

• Reports by advisors or

consultants

• Sense of pretrial reputation in the community

• Knowledge of history, successes/challenges

National

Survey

• National Association of Pretrial

Services Agencies (NAPSA) or

Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI)

survey responses

• Broad overview of practices

Other • Any other information source • Other points of view, background, etc.


10 | P a g e



Continuum of Implementation: Pretrial Justice Checklist of Key Data Points*

Critical

Area

Data Measures to Analyze

Comments

Pretrial

Processing

• Annual data for the past one to five years:

o # of bookings

o # of defendants statutorily eligible for pretrial release booked

o # of defendants assessed

o # not interviewed and why they were not assessed

o # recommended for release, by type of release recommendation and risk level

o # not recommended, by reasons why they were not recommended and risk level

o # of defendants released, by release type and risk level

o # of defendants under pretrial supervision (also include current population), by risk level

Pretrial

Outcome

• Annual data for all releases in the past year to five years:

o # of pretrial releases, by type of release and risk level

o # of failures to appear, by type of release and risk level

o # of re-arrest, by type of release and risk level

o # of technical violations, by type of release and risk level

Jail

Capacity

• Current population

• Trends in the jail population (by month or year, over the past five years), including:

o # of bookings (by charge type, i.e., felony, misdemeanor, violent, property, drug)

o average daily population

o average length of stay

o average length of stay for those released during the life of the case, by charge type, bond

amounts, and type of release

o average length of stay in jail for those detained throughout the pretrial period, by charge

type and bond amounts

o composition of population in terms of status (e.g., pretrial, sentenced, awaiting probation

violation hearing, holding for other jurisdictions)

Other • TBD depending on the jurisdiction

* Not all data points listed may be available in a given jurisdiction, and not all are necessary to inform the system assessment. The availability and format of data

will vary by jurisdiction. It is important to review the source, reliability and computation method of various data elements. For additional information on what

to measure and rates to calculate please see the National Institute of Corrections document, Measuring What Matters: Outcome and performance measures for

the pretrial services field (2011).
