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
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.
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 2
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 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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 3
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.
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 4
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.
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 5
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.
• 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 6
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 7
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 8
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 9
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 10
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.
EXERCISES
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 11
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.
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? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 12
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.
NOTES: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 13
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.
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 14
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.
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?
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 15
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.
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 16
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.
EXERCISE 3: OPPORTUNITIES TO MANAGE THE MESSAGE
Planning: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 17
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.
Message: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 18
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.
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 19
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.
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. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 20
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.
Notes: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 21
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.
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?
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 22
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.
WHAT STEPS MUST BE TAKEN TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED OUTCOME? WHAT RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE TO HELP SOLVE THE ISSUE?
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 23
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.
WHAT POTENTIAL BARRIERS MIGHT ARISE? HOW WILL I RESPOND?
BASED ON WHAT I CAN REALISTICALLY DO, WHAT IS YOUR SMART GOAL?
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 24
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.
Notes: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 25
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.
Mission:
SMART Goal:
Objectives Strategies/ Tactics Deadline Person Responsible
Measurement Indicator
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 26
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.
Mission:
SMART Goal:
Objectives Strategies/ Tactics Deadline Person Responsible
Measurement Indicator
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 27
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.
Mission:
SMART Goal:
Objectives Strategies/ Tactics Deadline Person Responsible
Measurement Indicator
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 28
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.
Mission:
SMART Goal:
Objectives Strategies/ Tactics Deadline Person Responsible
Measurement Indicator
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 29
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.
Notes: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 30
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.
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 31
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.
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 32
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 33
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 34
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 35
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 36
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 37
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 38
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 39
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 40
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 41
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 42
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 43
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 44
Milwaukee System-Level Logic Model
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 45
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 46
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/
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 47
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:
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 48
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 49
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 50
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 51
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 52
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)
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 53
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 54
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 55
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 56
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?
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 57
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?
Application of Principle # 3 to Pretrial Services
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?
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 58
Application of Principle # 4 to Pretrial Services
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:
http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI-StarterKit.pdf
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 59
P R E P A R E D B Y :
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?
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 60
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?
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 61
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 62
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 63
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 64
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 65
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 . . .
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 66
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 67
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 68
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 69
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.”
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 70
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)
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 71
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 72
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)
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 73
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 74
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 75
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 76
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?
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 77
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 78
Need to know!
Terms
History
Law
Research
Or else --- weeds!
Thank You
Tim SchnackeCriminal Justice Planner/Analyst
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 79
P R E P A R E D B Y :
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 80
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 ;
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 81
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 82
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 83
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 84
Risk Assessment
PretrialPretrial Post-convictionPost-conviction
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 85
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 86
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 87
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 88
Supervision Strategies
PretrialPretrial Post-convictionPost-conviction
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 89
Areas of Legal Differences
Legal Status
Change in status of constitutional rights
Arrest
Warrant
Search and seizure
Financial Condition of Release
Legal Status
PretrialPretrial Post-convictionPost-conviction
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 90
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 91
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 92
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”…
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 93
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.”
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 94
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…
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 95
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 96
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 97
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.)
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 98
SAFETY RatePercentage of supervised defendants who are not charged with a new offense during the pretrial stage
Monthly Outcome Historical Outcome
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 99
CONCURRENCE RatePercentage of defendants whose supervision level or detention status corresponds with their assessed risk of pretrial misconduct
Monthly Outcome Historical Outcome
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 100
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
Monthly Outcome Historical Outcome
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 101
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 102
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 103
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 104
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 105
Lessons on Effective Implementation
● 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.
Lessons on Effective Implementation
●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)
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 106
P R E P A R E D B Y :
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 107
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 108
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 109
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 110
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 111
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 112
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 113
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 114
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 115
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 116
What can we learn from this for pretrial justice communication?
Calling for Pretrial Reform Since 2010
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 117
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 118
Most Effective Test Ads
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 119
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 120
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 121
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?
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 122
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?
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 123
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
The Media Make friends with your
local newspaper’s crime reporter
Open House/Town Hall Meeting
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 124
Other Strategies
Hitching a ride
Unlikely allies
www.pretrial.org
Facebook.com/pretrial @pretrial [email protected]
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 125
P R E P A R E D B Y :
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 Executives Orientation 126
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 127
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 128
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 129
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 130
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 131
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 132
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 133
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 134
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 135
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 136
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 137
P R E P A R E D B Y :
Kristy Danford, Associate, Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ
Pretrial Justice Action Planning
Action Planning
Reality
Objectives
Goals
MissionVision
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 138
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
Measurement Indicator
214
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 139
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 140
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 141
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 142
Pretrial Justice System Assessment: Survey Version
Companion to the Pretrial Justice System Assessment
December 2012
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 143
2 | P a g e
Pretrial Justice System Assessment: Survey Version
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
http://pretrial.org/1964Present/NAPSA%20Standards%202004.pdf
• 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
http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025172.pdf
• Pretrial Justice Institute (2011). Assessing local pretrial justice functions: A handbook for providing technical
assistance. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from
http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025016.pdf
• 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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 144
3 | P a g e
Pretrial Justice System Assessment: Survey Version
Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 145
4 | P a g e
Pretrial Justice System Assessment: Survey Version
Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 146
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 147
6 | P a g e
Pretrial Justice System Assessment: Survey Version
Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 148
7 | P a g e
Pretrial Justice System Assessment: Survey Version
Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ
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
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 149
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)?
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 150
9 | P a g e
Pretrial Justice System Assessment: Survey Version
Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ
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.
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 151
10 | P a g e
Pretrial Justice System Assessment: Survey Version
Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ
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).
California Pretrial Executives Orientation 152