4. www.crj.org/cji 4
Project Objectives
•Identify local jurisdiction’s pretrial system features and
needs
•Identify local jurisdiction’s pretrial performance
baseline
•Build jurisdiction’s capacity to select and implement
pretrial practices and pretrial risk assessment with
fidelity
•Assess performance of pretrial practices and pretrial
risk assessment & modify practices and assessment
based on data
5. www.crj.org/cji 5
Project Methods
•Conduct comprehensive system assessment
• Identify jail and system drivers and pretrial performance
baseline
• Review pretrial practices, system capacity and resources
• Describe case flow process from arrest/citation through
disposition
•Educate justice system on pretrial risk assessments
and pretrial practices
• Vet existing pretrial risk assessments or develop pretrial risk
assessment
• Identify pretrial practices that will support findings and
recommendations from system assessment
6. www.crj.org/cji 6
Project Methods
•Implement pretrial practices and pretrial risk
assessment with fidelity
• Develop and adhere to implementation plan
• Set up process to ensure proper scoring of risk tool
•Evaluate implementation of practices, pretrial risk
assessment performance and assess impact on
pretrial performance baseline
•Use data to make improvements – if appropriate, to
existing pretrial practices and risk assessment
7. www.crj.org/cji 7
Project Stages
•Systems change and transform – passing through a
sequence of steps – with each step moving closer
toward the intended outcome (Morgan, 2006)
•Implementation stages map out clear process to reach
intended outcomes
• Exploration/Evaluation
• Installation
• Initial implementation
• Full implementation
9. www.crj.org/cji 9
Project Stages
•Implementation can take 2 to 4 years to complete
• Well constructed practices to support existing resources and
capacity
• Ensure a process to maintain fidelity and sustainability
• Supports delivery of research-based practices
•Conducting all stage-appropriate activities is
necessary for new practices to be successful
• Supports time needed to increase buy-in and address
concerns of new practices
11. www.crj.org/cji 11
Pretrial Release Decision
•Purpose & significance
• Provide due process
• Maintain judicial integrity by securing defendant’s
appearance
• Demonstrate consideration for public safety
(ABA Standards of Pretrial Release)
12. www.crj.org/cji 12
Pretrial Release Decision
• Balancing act between
• Honoring presumption of innocence, providing due process,
and affording all legal and constitutional rights of defendants
WITH
• Maintaining integrity of judicial process, assure court
appearance, and considering need to protect public safety
13. www.crj.org/cji 13
Pretrial Release Decision
•Bail Reform Act of 1984
• Allows for detention where necessary to protect community
safety
• Detention hearings are required in cases involving violence
and certain drug offenses
•United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)
• Upheld the Bail Reform Act of 1984
• Detention is the limited exception
14. www.crj.org/cji 14
Pretrial Release Decision
•Difficult to make an informed pretrial release decision
•Timeframe to make the pretrial release decision is
very brief
• Initial court appearance is guided by statute
• Limits ability to collect reliable and objective information to
inform pretrial release decision
15. www.crj.org/cji 15
Pretrial Release Decision
•Measuring & Managing Risk
• Concept of risk is inherent with pretrial release decision
• Risk of failure to appear
• Risk to public safety
• Justice system is expected to take this risk
• Focus should turn to
• How well we measure risk
• How well we manage risk
16. www.crj.org/cji 16
Pretrial Release Decision
•Measuring Risk
• Administer an objective pretrial risk assessment instrument
• Report likelihood of risk of pretrial failure to court to inform
release decision
•Managing Risk
• Provide least restrictive options to mitigate risk
• Concept of risk principle applies to pretrial
• Release low risk with no to few conditions
• Release moderate risk with only the conditions needed to
ensure court appearance and protect public safety
• Detain those who are of highest risk – and if released, provide
the necessary conditions to reduce pretrial failure
18. www.crj.org/cji 18
Pretrial Process
•The pretrial process starts with initial contact with law
enforcement and lasts through case disposition
•Many decisions are made by various justice system
stakeholders
• Each decision provides an opportunity to support the
purpose and significance of the pretrial release decision
20. www.crj.org/cji 20
Alternatives to Detention
•Citations in Lieu of Arrest
•Use of Summons in Lieu of Arrest
•Release on recognizance
(ABA Standards of Pretrial Release)
21. www.crj.org/cji 21
Pretrial Release and Standards
•Jurisdiction should establish a pretrial services agency
to
• Conduct first appearance inquiries
• Develop and provide appropriate and effective supervision
• Present information to judge
• Risk of failure to appear
• Risk of new criminal activity
(ABA Standards of Pretrial Release)
22. www.crj.org/cji 22
Pretrial Services
•Two primary functions
• Administer an objective risk assessment that predicts failure
to appear and new arrest pending case disposition
• Provide court ordered supervision to moderate and higher
risk defendants
23. www.crj.org/cji 23
Pretrial Services
•Benefits
• Provides a reliable source of information to inform pretrial
release decision
• May be able to verify additional information for the court
• May be able to perform pretrial supervision and support
release conditions
•Challenges
• May not be able to administer pretrial risk assessment to all
defendants
• Supervision capacity and resources may be limited
25. www.crj.org/cji 25
A Shift to an Objective View
•Research shows that the use of actuarial risk
assessments results in a higher predictive validity than
clinical or professional judgement alone (Latessa and Lovins, 2010)
•The Vera Point Scale
• First pretrial risk assessment – not an actuarial risk tool
• Developed in 1961
•Pretrial risk assessment instruments are developed to
predict both failure to appear (FTA) and new criminal
arrest (NCA) pending case disposition
26. www.crj.org/cji 26
Pretrial Risk Assessment
•The current state of pretrial risk assessment research
focuses on three areas
• The lack of the use of a pretrial risk tool in most jurisdictions
• Slightly over 10% of jurisdictions use a pretrial risk tool
• Identifying the strongest predictors of pretrial failure
• Static and Dynamic factors
• Distinguishing between which factors are predictive of failure
to appear and new arrest pending case disposition
• The importance of validating the risk assessment tool on the
population in which it is to be administered (Bechtel, Holsinger,
Lowenkamp & Warren, 2015; Bechtel, Lowenkamp, & Holsinger, 2011)
27. www.crj.org/cji 27
Risk Factors
•Static Risk Factors
• Historical factors that have been demonstrated to relate to
pretrial failure
• Static means that these factors can’t change
• History of failure to appear, prior convictions, prior
incarcerations, pending case
•Dynamic Risk Factors
• Dynamic means that the factors associated with pretrial
failure can change
• Substance abuse, employment
28. www.crj.org/cji 28
Risk Factors
•Not all risk factors commonly found in pretrial tools
are strong predictors of pretrial failure
• Residence, alcohol, and current offense not consistently
shown to be significant predictors of FTA
• Residence, current offense, and employment not
consistently shown to be significant predictors of NCA
(Bechtel, Lowenkamp & Holsinger, 2011)
•Some risk factors are only predictive of one pretrial
failure outcome meaning they do not predict both
failure to appear and new arrest pending case
disposition
29. www.crj.org/cji 29
Risk Factors
•Many of the strongest predictors of pretrial failure are
static risk factors – but not necessarily of both FTA and
NCA
• History of failure to appear
• Prior misdemeanor convictions
• Prior felony convictions
• Prior violence
• Current violence
• Pending case
• Age
• Prior incarceration
(Mammalian, 2011; Bechtel, Lowenkamp, & Holsinger, 2011; Laura & John Arnold Foundation, 2014)
30. www.crj.org/cji 30
Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools
•Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment (VPRAI)
•Ohio Risk Assessment System – Pretrial (ORAS-PAT)
•COMPAS – Pretrial
•Public Safety Assessment – Court (PSA-Court)
• None of these pretrial tools have been subjected to a
rigorous peer-review process (Bechtel, Holsinger, Lowenkamp, & Warren, 2015)
• Many jurisdictions develop tools with local or state data
• With the exception of the VPRAI, the other pretrial tools
have not been independently reviewed – but even the VPRAI
has shown mixed results in terms of predictive validity
31. www.crj.org/cji 31
Implementation Challenges
•Challenges to implementing pretrial risk tools
• Time Constraints
• Money bail schedules
• Local capacity
• Subjective risk assessment
• Lack of buy-in & support from justice agency stakeholders
• Data quality limitations
32. www.crj.org/cji 32
Implementation Challenges
•Jurisdictions select tools that are either developed or
validated on a different population without
considering their target populations characteristics
•Pretrial agencies may not always prepare for a future
evaluation of the instrument’s predictive validity
33. www.crj.org/cji 33
Pretrial Risk Tools – Next Steps
•Provide training & coaching to pretrial services to
support accurate scoring of pretrial tool
•Ensure that the pretrial risk assessment accurately
predicts FTA and NCA for target population &
appropriately classifies defendants by risk level
•Expand use of pretrial risk tools at the earliest point
possible in the process to inform the pretrial
release decision
35. www.crj.org/cji 35
Release Conditions
•The use of release conditions is a substantial
component of the pretrial process in attempting to
ensure a defendants appearance in court
•Depending on the jurisdiction, a variety of release
conditions may be available
36. www.crj.org/cji 36
Release Conditions
•Many pretrial conditions and interventions follow
closely the interventions adopted to address and
influence a post-conviction population
•Most of these interventions have not been thoroughly
tested for their effectiveness
(Bechtel, Holsinger, Lowenkamp, & Warren, 2015)
37. www.crj.org/cji 37
Release Conditions
•Pretrial release should be done under the least
restrictive conditions
• Courts must have alternative release choices
• Intended to limit detention
• Can increase economic and other hardships
• One study indicated a 20% increase in unemployment after
being detained for 3+ days
• Disruption to financial stability and residential status was also
reported for defendants detained 3+ days
(Holsinger & Bechtel, 2015)
38. www.crj.org/cji 38
Release Conditions
•Standard Conditions
• No arrest contact with law enforcement
• Updating the court with a current address
• No contact with victims and witnesses
•Specific Conditions
• Maintain employment
• Compliance with electronic monitoring
• Compliance with alcohol and drug testing
• Pretrial supervision
39. www.crj.org/cji 39
Release Conditions
•Although due process challenges arise when such
conditions are viewed as blanket conditions, statute
and common practice often result in certain
conditions being applied to the vast majority of
defendants, regardless of their risk
40. www.crj.org/cji 40
Release Interventions
•Pretrial Supervision
• Intended to facilitate, support, and monitor defendants
compliance with pretrial conditions
• One study examined the effectiveness of pretrial supervision
contact type and frequency in Philadelphia; the results
offered some promise that pretrial supervision may help
reduce failure to appear rates and new arrest rates (Goldkamp &
White, 2006)
• Pretrial supervision differentiated by risk level may support
reductions in pretrial failure, along with staff training on
cognitive interaction skills (Danner, VanNostrand & Spruance, 2015)
41. www.crj.org/cji 41
Release Interventions
•Court Date Notification
• Studies have shown that there is some benefit to introducing
this process into a jurisdiction
• Financial, capacity, and resource burden (Bechtel, Holsinger, Lowenkamp &
Warren, 2015)
•Electronic Monitoring
• Common tool during the post-conviction phase
• There is no conclusive evidence of its effectiveness in
reducing failure to appear or new criminal arrest pending
case disposition (Bechtel, Holsinger, Lowenkamp & Warren, 2015; VanNostrand, Rose, &
Weibrecht, 2011)
42. www.crj.org/cji 42
Release Interventions
•Alcohol and Drug Testing
• Research revealed that there was no significant difference in
pretrial failure when substance abuse testing and treatment
conditions were assigned to defendants in the two highest
risk level categories
• However, lower-risk defendants who were required to
participate had higher failure rates than their lower-risk
counterparts who were not
(Bechtel, Holsinger, Lowenkamp & Warren, 2015; VanNostrand & Keebler, 2009)
44. www.crj.org/cji 44
Summary
•The pretrial stage provides multiple opportunities for
defendants to be diverted out of the system and to
use the least restrictive options
•The courts are under great pressure to make a pretrial
release decision quickly and often with limited
information
•Risk is inherent in our justice system – as use of
detention is to be the carefully limited exception
45. www.crj.org/cji 45
Summary
•Measuring and managing risk is critical to both
reducing the likelihood for pretrial failure; however, it
has to be implemented within a jurisdiction’s capacity
and resources
• Using a pretrial risk assessment will offer the court with
objective information to inform the pretrial release decision
• Providing supervision and services appropriately requires
using the least restrictive options
• Research is needed to identify which practices are the most
effective in reducing pretrial failure
46. www.crj.org/cji 46
Summary
•Project will support each jurisdiction’s specific system
needs and pretrial features
•Each jurisdiction will be actively involved in the
selection/development of a pretrial risk assessment
and pretrial practices
•Technical assistance will direct support toward
implementing the risk assessment and practices with
fidelity
•Ongoing evaluation of implementation will occur to
support sustainability of pretrial efforts
