Title: Pretrial Services Programs: Responsibilities and Potential.
Series: Issues and Practices
Author: Barry Mahoney, Bruce D. Beaudin, John A. Carver III, Daniel B.
Ryan, Richard B. Hoffman
Published: NIJ, March 2001
Subject: Pretrial Services; crime prevention; minority overrepresentation
130 pages 
286,000 bytes

------------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, appendixes, and tables are not included in this ASCII
plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat
graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS
at 800-851-3420 (877-712-9279 For TTY users).

------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Justice
Issues and Practices

Pretrial Services Programs: Responsibilities and Potential

------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft
Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs
World Wide Web Site 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

National Institute of Justice
World Wide Web Site
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

------------------------------

Pretrial Services Programs: Responsibilities and Potential
by
Barry Mahoney
Bruce D. Beaudin
John A. Carver III
Daniel B. Ryan
Richard B. Hoffman

March 2001
NCJ 181939

Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice is a publication series of the
National Institute of Justice. Each report presents the program options and
management issues in a topic area, based on a review of research and
evaluation findings, operational experience, and expert opinion on the
subject. The intent is to provide information to make informed choices in
planning, implementing, and improving programs and practices in
criminal justice.

------------------------------

National Institute of Justice

Carolyn Peake
Program Monitor

Legrome Davis
Supervising Judge, Criminal Division
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
1201 Criminal Justice Center                 
1301 Filbert Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107

Bennie H. Frazier
Chief, U.S. Pretrial Services
Office for the Southern District of Florida (Retired)
1595 N.E. 135th Street
Miami, FL 33161

John S. Goldkamp
Professor, Department of Criminal Justice
520 North Columbus Boulevard
Suite 600
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19123

D. Alan Henry
Director, Pretrial Services
Resource Center
1325 G Street N.W., Suite 770
Washington, DC 20005

Robert Wessels
Court Administrator
Harris County Criminal Courts at Law
301 San Jacinto, Room 401
Houston, TX 77002

Melinda Wheeler
Assistant General Manager
Kentucky Pretrial Services
100 Millcreek Park
Frankfort, KY 40601

Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice,
by Abt Associates Inc., under contract # OJP-94-C-007. Points of view or
opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

------------------------------

Foreword

Pretrial services programs can be valuable resources for making
significant improvements in the criminal justice system because they are
used in the early stages of the criminal case process. Unnecessary
detention before trial not only results in unnecessary jail costs, it also
deprives defendants of their liberty. From a policy perspective, decisions
about detaining or releasing defendants should balance the benefits of
release and the risk of flight or threat to public safety. 

Money bail remains a common mechanism for releasing or detaining
arrestees. But bail limits the decision to release defendants to one primary
factor: a defendant's ability to raise money. Pretrial services programs
offer the court alternatives by improving the breadth and quality of
information about defendants--including their housing and employment
situation, relationships with family, and other ties to the community--and
by providing services to address identified needs. All 94 districts in the
Federal court system and more than 300 localities now operate pretrial
services programs, which use a variety of mechanisms, including bail, to
help the court decide whether to release or detain defendants pending
further legal proceedings.

This report provides a review of issues and practices in the pretrial
services field. It describes how pretrial programs operate, discusses key
policy issues, and outlines issues and challenges for the future. It pays
particular attention to how pretrial services programs obtain and convey
information relevant to the pretrial release/detention decision. It also
describes how pretrial services agencies, the court, and other criminal
justice system agencies can work together to minimize the risks of
nonappearance and pretrial crime.

This report encourages policymakers and practitioners to examine
front-end decisionmaking practices and consider the roles pretrial services
programs can play in making criminal justice processes more effective
while enhancing public safety.

------------------------------

Preface

This document reflects contributions made by a great many individuals.
The report addresses both policy issues and operational practices, and in
preparing it we have gained knowledge, insight, and ideas from a broad
range of policymakers, practitioners, and researchers.

A number of practitioners from jurisdictions across the United States
patiently answered our questions and sent materials describing their
programs. In particular, we gratefully acknowledge help received from
Susan W. Shaffer, Director, and Janice Bergin and Laura DeVol, District
of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency; Robin Rooks, Director, Pretrial
Services Agency, and Theresa Westerfield, Court Administrator, Sixteenth
Judicial Circuit of Florida; Joseph A. Cairone, Court Administrator,
Criminal Trial Division, First Judicial District, (Philadelphia)
Pennsylvania; Perry Mitchell, Administrator, Maricopa County (Arizona)
Pretrial Services Agency; John Hendricks and Melinda Wheeler, Kentucky
Pretrial Services; Kim Holloway, Director, Pima County (Arizona) Pretrial
Services; Laura Lilienfeld, Supervisor, Pretrial Services Assessment
Section, Montgomery County (Maryland) Department of Correction and
Rehabilitation; Lance Forsythe, Director, Southside Community
Corrections and Pretrial Services, Emporia, Virginia; Carol Oeller,
Director, Harris County (Texas) Pretrial Services Agency; Robert Schwab,
Assistant Administrator, San Mateo (California) Bar Association; and
Susan Bookman, Director, Berkeley (California) Own Recognizance
Project.

Advisory board members Legrome Davis, Bennie H. Frazier, John S.
Goldkamp, D. Alan Henry, Robert Wessels, and Melinda Wheeler offered
very useful suggestions during two meetings, one in Washington, D.C.,
and another in Philadelphia. They also provided helpful comments on
drafts of this report.

Carolyn Peake, Program Monitor at the National Institute of Justice (NIJ),
took an active interest in the project. She provided a number of useful
suggestions about topics to be covered and valuable input on drafts.
Cheryl Crawford and Marilyn Moses, Contracting Officer's Technical
Representatives at NIJ, offered encouragement and helpful suggestions.
Two unidentified reviewers selected by NIJ also contributed valuable
comments and suggestions, and Barbara Brown and Toni Little at the
Justice Management Institute (JMI) furnished excellent administrative
support throughout report preparation. 

Peter Finn of Abt Associates, Inc., provided fine editing and valuable
guidance on scope, organization, and content. Karen Swetlow of the
National Criminal Justice Reference Service was enormously helpful
during the final editing stages.

In preparing the final draft, we considered the comments and suggestions
of all individuals who reviewed an earlier draft. In many instances, we
made significant revisions based on reviewers' thoughtful comments, and
the final version is undoubtedly a better product because of their input. We
have not, however, incorporated all of the suggestions received. In some
instances, different reviewers adopted very different (sometimes
diametrically opposing) positions with respect to report content and the
emphasis to be given to particular topics. Choices between different
perspectives had to be made, and we have done our best to make these
choices in a reasonable fashion.

This report addresses both policy and operational issues. It is not intended
to be a "how to" manual, although there is certainly much--particularly in
chapters 2 and 3--that should be valuable for pretrial practitioners
concerning the practical techniques of information gathering, verification,
risk analysis, and monitoring and supervision of released defendants.
Additionally, chapter 6 offers considerable information on the resources
available to help practitioners deal with operational problems. 

We have placed strong emphasis on discussing policy issues--and on
providing information about the roots of pretrial services in the bail reform
movement of the 1960s and 1970s--for two main reasons. First, the policy
issues--particularly those related to information systems, the commercial
surety bail system, and the appropriate scope for exercise of judicial
discretion--are of great importance not only to the future of pretrial
services programs but also to the future of criminal justice in this country.
Second, we believe that practitioners concerned about operational issues
are likely to do a better job of addressing those issues--and will have
greater realization of the consequences of alternative approaches to
particular operational problems--if they understand the history,
constitutional framework, and policy context within which operational
issues arise. 

In our view, the concepts of fundamental fairness and equal justice under
law are at the heart of the American justice system. The traditional
commercial surety bail system--which makes release of an arrested person
dependent on the individual's ability to post a money bond--runs directly
contrary to these concepts. Well-designed and well-managed pretrial
services programs have the potential to help justice systems function more
fairly and more effectively for all citizens.

Pretrial services programs were developed initially, in the 1960s and
1970s, to make our justice system more fair and to reduce the extent to
which persons were held in detention solely because they could not afford
to post bail. As the volume of arrests grew in the 1980s and jail
overcrowding became an increasingly serious issue in many communities,
criminal justice policymakers began to recognize that pretrial services
programs could help alleviate the crowded conditions and--with
appropriate supervision techniques--help minimize the risks of pretrial
crime. But the fact that many recently established programs have been
developed in response to jail crowding--and are appropriately focused on
helping to identify those in detention who may be safely released from
custody before trial--should not obscure the basic issues of fairness that lie
at the heart of pretrial decisionmaking. The techniques used by
well-functioning pretrial services programs--including information
gathering, risk assessment, and supervision of released defendants
applying a broad array of methods--have been developed to help make
pretrial decisionmaking more fair and even-handed, to alleviate jail
crowding, and to provide a greater measure of public safety. 

We would have preferred to have included all of the issues that
appropriately might be addressed in a report on pretrial services and to
have covered the issues that are included in greater depth. In some
sections, we refer readers to other sources for indepth coverage of
particular topics, but for many topics, relevant recent research and
available literature are scarce. Chapter 5 includes a discussion of topics
where further research or other work would be valuable, drawing heavily
on suggestions made by reviewers.

The authors assume full responsibility for presentation of the information
and ideas in this report. While we are enormously grateful for the
contributions of all who helped, those individuals are in no way
responsible for errors of omission or commission in report preparation.
That responsibility lies with us.

Barry Mahoney
Denver, Colorado

Bruce D. Beaudin
Marlboro, Vermont

John A. Carver III
Washington, D.C.

Daniel B. Ryan
Sag Harbor, New York

Richard B. Hoffman
Washington, D.C.

------------------------------

Table of Contents

Foreword
Preface
Executive Summary

Chapter 1: Pretrial Services: An Overview
--What Do Pretrial Services Programs Do?
--Impact on the community
--Impact on the accused
--Equal justice

--Need for This Report
--Background: Why and How Pretrial Services Programs Have Been
--Implemented 
--The Context in Which Pretrial Services Programs Operate
--Law enforcement personnel
--Prosecutor
--Defense attorney
--Judicial officers
--Pretrial services staff
--Bail bondsmen
--Organizational Structures for Pretrial Services Programs-Five Examples
--Kentucky: A statewide pretrial services agency
--District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency: Merging State and
Federal procedures
--Monroe County, Florida: Pretrial services in a rural environment
--Maricopa County, Arizona: Pretrial services for a high-growth area
--Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Improving pretrial release practices through
a guidelines approach and the use of new technology
--Methodology and Organization of This Report

Chapter 2: Techniques Pretrial Services Agencies Use to Inform the
Release/Detention Decision
--Overview
--Information Needed
--Conducting Defendant Interviews
--Timing of the interview
--Who should be interviewed?
--Location of the interview
--Interview formats and protocols
--Obtaining Information From Other Sources
--Verification
--Analyzing the Information: Approaches to Risk Assessment
--Providing Information and Recommendations to the Court

Chapter 3: Pretrial Supervision Strategies: Risk Management for Released
Defendants
--Managing the Risk of Nonappearance
--Information: The foundation for managing risk of flight
--Monitoring and reminder strategies
--Followup on no-shows
--Managing Risks to Public Safety
--Monitoring conditions of release
--Direct supervision
--Responding to violation of release conditions
--Supervision of Defendants With Special Needs
--How can program staff learn about the existence of special needs?
--How should program staff use information about defendants' substance
abuse and mental health needs in making risk assessments and presenting
information or recommendations to the court?
--What types of resources can be used to meet the special needs of released
defendants?
--What role should program staff play in monitoring and supervising
special needs defendants who are released conditionally?
--Interjurisdictional and "Courtesy" Supervision

Chapter 4: Sharing Pretrial Services Information for Use Beyond the
Release/Detention Decision
--Sharing Information With Other Agencies
--Sharing information with law enforcement agencies
--Sharing information with jail officials
--Sharing information for sentencing purposes
--Sharing information for use in differentiated case management and in
conducting special dockets
--Sharing information with diversion programs and social service
providers
--Sharing information with researchers
--Limitations on Information Sharing
--The Role of Pretrial Services in Integrated Justice Information Systems

Chapter 5: Looking Toward the Future: Key Issues for Policymakers and
Practitioners
--Juvenile Defendants in Adult Courts
--Use of New Technology
--Delegated Release Authority
--The Role of Commercial Surety Bail
--Costs to taxpayers
--FTA rates
--Pretrial crime rates
--Scope of program responsibilities
--Equal justice
--Judicial Discretion and the Effective Management of Release/Detention
Decisionmaking
--Research Needs
--Demonstration Programs
--Education and Training

Chapter 6: Where to Get Additional Help
--National Standards
--National Nonprofit Organizations That Provide Training and Technical
Assistance
--Potential Federal Funding Sources
--National and State Associations
--Local and State Pretrial Services Programs and Practitioners
--Literature in the Field

Appendix A--Kentucky Pretrial Services Agency-Forms, Instructions, and
Court Rule
Appendix B--District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency-Interview
Forms, Reports to the Court, and Summary of Community Supervision
and Drug Treatment Programs
Appendix C--Harris County (Houston), Texas, Pretrial Services Agency
Forms
Appendix D--Monroe County (Rochester), New York, Pretrial Services
Corporation-Point Scale Scoring Instructions
Appendix E--Philadelphia Municipal Court and Common Pleas
Court-Pretrial Release Guidelines Form and Worksheet
Appendix F--U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Pretrial
Services Agency-Advisement of Rights Form

------------------------------

Executive Summary

Pretrial services programs perform two critically important functions in
the effective administration of criminal justice:

o They gather and present information about newly arrested
defendants and about available release options for use by judicial
officers in deciding what (if any) conditions are to be set for defendants'
release prior to trial.

o They supervise the defendants released from custody during the
pretrial period by monitoring their compliance with release conditions
and by helping to ensure they appear for scheduled court events.

When both functions are performed well, jurisdictions can minimize
unnecessary pretrial detention, reduce jail crowding, increase public
safety, ensure that released defendants appear for scheduled court events,
and lessen invidious discrimination between rich and poor in the pretrial
process. This report describes how pretrial services programs operate and
discusses related policy issues. It focuses particularly on how these
programs obtain and convey information relevant to the pretrial
release/detention decision and how, by working with the courts and other
justice system agencies, programs can help manage and minimize the risks
of nonappearance and pretrial crime.

Techniques Used to Inform the Release/Detention Decision 

The core of pretrial services program operations is the collection,
verification, and analysis of information about newly arrested defendants
and available supervisory options. Pretrial programs should collect and
provide to the court at least the following defendant information:

o Identity, including date of birth and gender.

o Community ties, including residence, employment, and family status.

o Physical and mental condition, including alcohol or drug abuse.

o Criminal record, including history of adjudication of delinquency.

o Prior record of compliance with conditions of release, including
record of appearing for scheduled court dates.

Defendants are primary sources of information about themselves and
should be interviewed as soon as possible after arrest. Other sources--
including the pretrial services program's own records, other criminal
justice agencies, motor vehicle departments, the defendant's family
members, and the defendant's employer--can provide information about
the defendant and can verify information provided in interviews with the
defendant. If information cannot be verified, it should be labeled as
unverified in the program's report to the court.

Most pretrial services use the information they collect to develop
recommendations or identify options for the judicial officer who makes
the release/detention decision. The analysis process--risk assessment--is a
key step in the court's decisionmaking process and, if the defendant is
released, in managing the risks of nonappearance and pretrial crime.

Risk Management for Released Defendants

Defendants who miss a court appearance generally return to court when
contacted, but a missed appearance nevertheless disrupts the court
schedule, inconveniences victims and other witnesses, delays case
disposition, and wastes valuable time. Pretrial services programs use a
variety of monitoring and reminder techniques to anticipate and avoid
possible nonappearance problems. When a defendant does miss a court
appearance, programs seek to contact the defendant immediately to resolve
the problem. 

Pretrial services programs are not police agencies, and their capacity to
supervise defendants directly is often limited by lack of both law
enforcement powers and resources. The following program activities can
play an important role, however, in managing the risks that released
defendants pose to public safety: 

o Monitoring released defendants' compliance with conditions of
release designed to minimize pretrial crime, including curfews, orders
restricting contact with alleged victims and possible witnesses, home 
confinement, and drug and alcohol testing.

o Providing direct "intensive" supervision for some categories of
defendants by using program staff and collaborating with the police,
other agencies, and community organizations.

Sharing Information for Use Beyond the Release/Detention Decision

Pretrial services programs collect information that can be valuable in the
work of other justice system agencies, but much of this information is of a
very sensitive, personal nature. Often it is collected from defendants who
are emotionally distraught and have had no contact with a lawyer before
the interview. Given the sensitive nature of the information and the need to
obtain information from defendants who likely would be uncooperative if
they knew what they said could be made available to others, it is important
for pretrial services programs--and for the justice systems within which
they operate--to develop realistic policies that ensure appropriate
confidentiality and prevent misuse of the information. New technology
will make it feasible both to share information broadly and to establish
safeguards for information that should remain confidential.

Looking Toward the Future: Key Issues

A great many courts still must make critically important release/detention
decisions without access to the information typically collected by pretrial
services programs or to the monitoring and supervision these programs
can provide. Even in jurisdictions with well-established pretrial services, a
number of operational issues and new challenges must be addressed in
coming years. Much remains to be learned if pretrial services programs are 
to reach their full potential. Key issues for the future include how to--

o Bring effective pretrial services to jurisdictions that do not yet have
them.

o Handle pretrial release issues in cases involving juveniles charged as
adults.

o Use new technologies to enhance the quality of pretrial release/detention 
decisionmaking and the supervision of released defendants. 

o Use delegated release authority (including field citations, station house
release, and jail release) most effectively. 

o Determine the extent to which, if at all, courts should continue to
rely on commercial surety bail as a mechanism for releasing arrested
persons prior to trial.

o More effectively structure judicial decisionmaking in the pretrial
process, without making the process a mechanical one.

o Develop a current base of useful knowledge about key issues using
research at the national and local levels. 

o Develop a full range of education and training programs for pretrial
practitioners and policymakers. 

------------------------------

Chapter 1 
Pretrial Services: An Overview

Key Points

o Pretrial services programs perform two crucial functions: 

--Gathering and presenting information about newly arrested defendants
and about available release options for use by a judicial officer in
making decisions concerning a defendant's pretrial custody or release
status. 

--Supervising defendants who are released from custody during the
pretrial period by monitoring their compliance with release conditions
and by helping to ensure they appear for scheduled court appearances
and do not endanger community safety.

o Both functions described above are essential for jurisdictions to
achieve the central goal of a fair and effective pretrial release/detention
policy, which is to minimize unnecessary detention by releasing as many
defendants as possible who are likely to appear for scheduled court dates
and who will refrain from criminal behavior before trial.

o The pretrial decision has significant consequences for the community.
It affects how limited jail space is allocated and how the risks of
nonappearance and pretrial crime by released defendants are managed.

o The decision also has important consequences for defendants. It directly
affects their ability to assert their innocence, negotiate a disposition, and
mitigate the severity of a sentence.

o Pretrial release/detention policies and decisions have very important
implications for society's capacity to achieve the ideal of equal justice
under law. By providing judicial officers with essential information for
decision-making and by helping to supervise released defendants,
pretrial services programs help courts reduce discrimination based on
wealth and other factors not related to risk of flight or danger to the
community. Fair and effective pretrial release policies are an essential
component of equal justice.

o As pretrial services programs have evolved since the 1960s, they have
increasingly demonstrated their capacity to provide information about
defendants and about available supervised release options that is relevant
to assessing both the risk of flight and the risk to public safety. In some
jurisdictions, programs have also developed a capacity to supervise
defendants and to help minimize both types of risk.

------------------------------

What Do Pretrial Services Programs Do? 

Pretrial services programs play--or can play if their potential is fully
utilized--a critically important role in the effective administration of
criminal justice. While the scope of program responsibilities varies to
some extent across jurisdictions, fully developed pretrial services programs
perform two vital core functions:

o They gather and present the information about newly arrested defendants 
and about possible options for supervised release that judicial officers
need when deciding whether or not to release these individuals. 

o They supervise defendants who are released from custody during the
pretrial period, monitoring their compliance with conditions of release
that are designed to minimize the risks of nonappearance and danger to
the community, reminding them of scheduled court appearances, and
reporting to the court on their performance while on pretrial release.

Both functions are essential for a judicial decisionmaking process that, in
each individual case, seeks to strike the right balance between two core
societal values: individual liberty and public safety. How this balance is
struck at the outset of a criminal proceeding--whether the defendant is
detained or released and, if released, what level of supervision is
provided--has enormous implications for both the community and the
defendant. It also has very important implications for society's capacity to
meet the ideal of equal justice under the law.

Impact on the community 

Unnecessary pretrial detention means unnecessarily high jail costs for the
community as well as deprivation of the defendant's liberty. Despite
unprecedented construction of correctional facilities over the past two
decades, many jails are seriously overcrowded. Policies and decisions that
result in needless detention of arrestees contribute to jail overcrowding
and, ultimately, to further expenditures of public resources for
construction and operation of jail facilities.

If defendants are released, however, two types of potentially adverse
consequences may affect the community: The defendant may not return
for scheduled court appearances, or the defendant may commit a criminal
offense, including the attempted intimidation of victims or other
witnesses.

To minimize unnecessary detention and adverse consequences to the
community, both the initial release/detention decision and the
implementation of a decision to release require pertinent information about
the defendant and about available options for supervision. Pretrial services
programs can provide the necessary information and, when a decision is
made to release a defendant during the pretrial period, can help manage the
risk of nonappearance and the threat to public safety.

Impact on the accused 

If a defendant is ordered held in custody, or if money bond is set at an
amount the defendant cannot meet, several significant consequences may
result:

o The defendant who remains in jail may have difficulty  participating in 
his or her own defense. (An incarcerated defendant cannot look for 
friendly witnesses and, in some jurisdictions, is unlikely to have much 
contact with a defense lawyer.)

o Defendants held in detention often have a heightened incentive to plead
guilty, even though they may have a valid defense, simply to gain their  
freedom--particularly if they can receive a sentence of "time served" or  
receive credit for their jail time against a relatively short jail or prison  
sentence.

o Statistically, defendants detained prior to trial plead guilty more often,  
are convicted more often, and are more likely to be sentenced to prison  
than are defendants who are released prior to trial.[1] 

By contrast, released defendants can be in touch with a lawyer relatively
easily and can assist in developing a defense to specific charges. They can
also take steps to reduce the severity of a sentence if they ultimately plead
or are found guilty by, for example, getting or keeping a job, maintaining
or reestablishing family ties, and developing a record of complying with
conditions of release.[2] 

Equal justice 

The concept of equal justice under law is deeply embedded in the U.S.
Constitution and is a core value of American society. In the area of pretrial
release/detention decisionmaking, it means, at a minimum, that all
defendants should have the same opportunity for consideration for release
without invidious discrimination based on race, sex, or economic status. In
particular, poor defendants should not be denied pretrial release solely
because they are financially unable to post a money bond (see "The
Continued Prevalence of Money Bail as a Mechanism for Determining
Pretrial Release or Detention"). By providing judicial officers with
information about defendants and available supervision options, pretrial
release programs enable courts to move toward the goal of equal justice.

Need for This Report 

From a policy perspective, the rational goal of an effective policy for
pretrial release and detention is clear: Jurisdictions should seek to release
as many arrested persons as possible (and thus minimize the use of jail
space for pretrial defendants), consistent with the objectives of (1)
ensuring attendance at required court proceedings, and (2) minimizing
threats to public safety.[3] 

A variety of sources offer ample evidence that many jurisdictions are
having difficulty balancing these objectives and have not taken full
advantage of the potential benefits of pretrial services programs. Consider
the following:

o The proportion of felony defendants released prior to trial varies widely  
 across jurisdictions, from as low as 18 percent to as high as 88 percent.[4] 

o Reported rates of rearrest and failure to appear (FTA) for scheduled  
court appearances also vary widely. In many jurisdictions, FTA rates  
reported in the 1990s appear to be markedly higher than those in the  
1960s and 1970s.[5]

o Some jurisdictions with high release rates nevertheless have relatively  
low FTA and rearrest rates.

o Minorities, especially blacks, are more likely to be detained during the  
pretrial period than are white defendants who have similar charges and  
prior records.[6]

The wide variations in pretrial release practices and outcomes, coupled
with increasing jail populations and with FTA and rearrest rates that often
seem too high, should give justice system policymakers and practitioners
cause to examine the pretrial policies (or, conversely, the absence of such
policies) in their jurisdictions. While more research is clearly needed, even
the fragmentary data now available raise obvious questions. In particular,
if some jurisdictions can release a high percentage of newly arrested
persons without having unacceptably high FTA and rearrest rates, why are
others unable to achieve similar results?

This report is intended to provide justice system policymakers and
practitioners with information and ideas that can be useful in examining
the effectiveness of pretrial processes in their own jurisdictions. While this
report includes a discussion of issues related to pretrial services for
juveniles who are being prosecuted as adults (see chapter 5), the focus is
on the role of pretrial services programs in handling cases involving adults
charged with crimes. Moreover, this report spotlights key policy issues,
identifies areas of disagreement and consensus, and includes descriptions
of operational practices and methods that pretrial services programs use to
handle specific types of situations. 

The report is intended for judges, court administrators, prosecutors, public
defenders and leaders of the private defense bar, managers of pretrial
services programs, and senior officials in law enforcement agencies,
probation departments, agencies responsible for jail management, and
State and local criminal justice planning agencies. It should also be useful
for State legislators and for county and city government officials
concerned about developing policies that will promote public safety while
minimizing the drain on public resources for jail construction and
operation. In jurisdictions that do not yet have well-developed pretrial
services programs, this report may serve as a catalyst for the development
of programs to improve both the release/detention decisionmaking process
and the capacity for effective supervision of defendants released before
trial.

Background: Why and How Pretrial Services Programs Have Been
Implemented 

Pretrial services programs, which now operate in more than 300 counties
and in all 94 districts in the Federal court system, were not a part of any
criminal justice system in 1960 (see "The Creation of Pretrial Services
Agencies in the Federal Courts: Meeting the Need for Reliable
Information"). In examining the potential role and function of these
programs, it is important to understand why pretrial services programs
were originally developed and how they have evolved since the first such
program--New York City's Manhattan Bail Project--was implemented in
1961 (see "Historical Evolution of Bail and Pretrial Release/Detention
Policies").

Early bail reform efforts sought to improve the release/ detention
decisionmaking process by improving the breadth and quality of
information available to judges at the point of initial decisionmaking.
Thus, for example, the Manhattan Bail Project demonstrated that judges
would release more defendants on their own recognizance if they had
information regarding defendants' housing arrangements, family ties, and
employment, rather than information about only the current charge and the
individual's prior criminal record.[7] Subsequent legislation, including the
Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966, encouraged judges to consider factors
other than the seriousness of the charge in setting conditions of release and
to use conditions other than the setting of a money bond amount.

Pretrial services programs were developed during the 1960s and 1970s to
help provide judges with information that would enable them to use a
range of nonfinancial conditions. However, neither the legislation nor the
courts themselves produced effective policies to guide judges in using
information to set conditions of release in a fashion that would maximize
the number of persons who could be released without posing unacceptable
risks to public safety. Jail crowding became an increasingly serious
problem as the volume of arrests rose during the 1980s but did not lessen
much as crime and arrest rates dropped during the 1990s. A "second
generation" of pretrial services programs that came into existence during
this period focused primarily on trying to identify defendants who were
unable to make bail but who would be acceptable risks for release either
on their own recognizance or under supervision. These new programs were
less firmly rooted in concerns about equal justice than were the early
programs; rather, their primary concern was often simply to help keep jail
populations at an acceptable level.

The Context in Which Pretrial Services Programs Operate 

Because jail crowding remained a pervasive problem in localities
throughout the United Stated during the 1990s, some observers have
begun to call for a comprehensive reexamination of the "front end" of the
criminal justice process. Since pretrial services programs play--or can
play--an integral role in the early stages of criminal case processing, it is
important to understand the roles that these programs and other justice
system participants play in the pretrial release/detention decision process.

The participants' roles, responsibilities, and activities may vary depending
on their legal authority (different States have different statutory
provisions); the resources of the jurisdiction; its geographic location and
case volume; and the bundle of attitudes, traditions, expectations, and
practices that make up the local legal culture. One example of a pretrial
process, from arrest to trial or plea, is shown in the following figure. The
discussion below outlines key roles in the process.

Law enforcement personnel 

Police officers prepare incident reports and other documents providing
basic information concerning the circumstances of the arrest or charge.
Generally, either the police agency responsible for the arrest or officials at
the jail fingerprint the arrested person and may check for any prior
criminal record. Usually, the police agency forwards the incident report
and any prior record information to the prosecutor for further use in
determining what charges should be filed, although sometimes the police
agency files charges directly with the court.

Prosecutor 

In most jurisdictions, the prosecutor determines what charge or charges
will be filed, basing that decision on police reports and other available
information, including the possible existence of other pending cases
against the arrestee. The prosecutor then draws up a formal charging
document (called by various names, often a complaint or information) that
sets forth the charges and files it with the clerk of the court. At the first
court appearance, the prosecutor typically presents information to the court
regarding the charge; any prior criminal record; the existence of any other
pending cases; the condition of any victims; the State's view of the
strength of its case; and, finally, a recommendation concerning detention
or release, which may include setting bond at a specific amount.

Defense attorney 

The defense lawyer, whether retained or appointed by the court to
represent the defendant, interviews the defendant as soon as possible. In
court, the defense attorney will make the strongest possible case for
releasing the defendant on the least restrictive conditions. In many
jurisdictions, however, the defendant is not represented by counsel at the
first appearance, when determinations concerning release or detention are
initially made.

Judicial officers 

Optimally, a judicial officer--a judge, magistrate, commissioner, or
hearing officer--makes the initial pretrial release/detention decision after
considering the representations of the prosecutor and the defense attorney,
as well as significant background information provided by the pretrial
services program. In making this decision, judicial officers are concerned
about two types of risk--the risk of flight or nonappearance for scheduled
court appearances and the risk to public safety. In assessing these risks,
judicial officers tend to focus on four key factors:

o The seriousness of the current charge, as set forth in the complaint and  
the representations of the prosecutor.

o The defendant's prior criminal record, which is widely viewed as  
relevant to assessing the risk to public safety that would be posed by a  
decision to release or to set a relatively low money bond amount.

o Information about the defendant, including community and family ties;  
employment status; housing; existence and nature of any substance  
abuse problems; and (if the defendant had been arrested before) record  
of compliance with conditions of release set on previous occasions,  
including any failures to appear.

o Information about available supervisory options if the defendant is
  released.

While the statutory framework within which judicial officers make
release/detention decisions varies from State to State, it generally gives the
judicial officer broad discretion in setting conditions of release, including
the setting of bond amounts. Statutes typically direct the judicial officer to
consider a number of factors in setting release conditions but give little
guidance with respect to how to weigh different factors. (See the section
"Judicial Discretion and the Effective Management of Release/ Detention
Decisionmaking" in chapter 5.) 

While decisions about release conditions are generally made by a judicial
officer (especially in felony charge cases), in many situations a judicial
officer has a minor role or no role in the decisionmaking process. Instead,
other individuals may have primary or exclusive responsibility (see
"Delegation or Abrogation? When the Release Decision Is Not Made by a
Judge").

Pretrial services staff 

Pretrial services program personnel gather and present information
pertinent to the defendant's risk of flight and community safety. In some
jurisdictions, the program also may be responsible for providing
information on available options for supervised release and for conducting
mental health screening or drug testing and informing the court of the
results. Although practices vary (see chapter 2), many programs also
present an analysis of the known risk factors and make recommendations
concerning possible release options.

Bail bondsmen 

Surety bail remains a widely used mechanism for release/detention
decisionmaking in many jurisdictions. In these jurisdictions, once bail is
set at a designated amount, bondsmen or bail agents decide whether to
offer the defendant bail. They also determine what fee will be charged and
what (if any) collateral will be required.

Organizational Structures for Pretrial Services Programs--Five Examples 

Pretrial services programs in Kentucky, the District of Columbia, Florida,
Arizona, and Pennsylvania are representative of the various ways in which
jurisdictions have structured pretrial services agencies, different
techniques the agencies have employed to obtain information that will
assist judicial officers in making release/detention decisions, and some of
the methods they have used to supervise released defendants. One of the
agencies operates on a statewide basis, one serves the Nation's capital, and
three operate at the local level.


Kentucky: A statewide pretrial services agency 

The Kentucky State Legislature established the Pretrial Services and Court
Security Agency in 1976 to replace the commercial bail bonding system.
The new agency immediately assumed responsibility for implementing the
pretrial release process, and the enabling act made it a crime to post a bond
for profit in Kentucky.

The agency now has 220 staff members located in 60 offices, serving a
State population of approximately 4 million. The agency operates within
the judicial branch as part of Kentucky's Administrative Office of the
Courts. Staff members interview about 180,000 defendants each year, or
approximately 84 percent of all arrestees. They conduct interviews around
the clock in the State's population centers of Louisville, Lexington, and the
Kentucky sector of the Cincinnati metropolitan area. Interviewers are on
duty 16 to 20 hours per day in smaller cities and on call at all times in rural
regions.

The agency maintains a policy of neutrality. The training manual advises
new officers: "The neutral stance you maintain in your daily operation sets
you apart in the criminal justice structure. . . . [I]f you cannot sustain an
approach of neutrality in implementing this information, you will not be
an effective pretrial officer."

A pretrial officer interviews all arrestees except those who decline to be
interviewed or who post bail immediately. The officer's top interview
priority is obtaining background information for use by the judge at the
defendant's first court appearance. Increasingly, the agency is able to draw
on information in its own records system. As is generally the situation
nationally, immediate legwork to obtain more current and detailed
information poses the greatest challenge to officers operating within the
tight timeframe in which pretrial services agencies function.

Interview information is treated as confidential--only the judge is given
access to the report, and neither the interview nor the report can be
subpoenaed. The information goes into the agency's records system for
future reference in subsequent cases involving the defendant and also may
be used by the agency's failure-to-appear unit.

Pretrial officers are responsible for verifying the interview information as
rapidly as possible to complete the process prior to the defendant's first
court appearance. Priority items for verification are residency,
employment, and family contacts in the locality. To verify information,
staff members make phone calls to references and interview family
members who are present at the jail during the interview with the
defendant. 

Pretrial officers in Kentucky must be prepared to present information to
the judge at the court appearance and to provide--or renew the search
for--information the judge may request at that time. Using a point-scoring
system that accounts for current charges, prior record, and family and
community ties, the agency recommends release on recognizance (ROR)
for defendants who score above the cutoff line. Judges are required by law
to consider ROR and to identify in writing issues regarding risk of flight
or community safety, although this does not always happen in practice. In
making the release/detention decision, judges can use a variety of methods
in addition to ROR, including placing the defendant in the custody of a
person or organization, placing restrictions on the defendant's travel or
residence, and requiring the defendant to post a cash bond with the court.

The agency supervises defendants principally through a tracking and
notification system, using the system to remind defendants of upcoming
court appearances. More intensive supervision is reserved for major felony
cases and court requests. Drug testing is done at court request.

The FTA rate for defendants under the agency's supervision is 8 percent.
Most FTAs occur in cases involving minor offenses, such as public
intoxication. In most FTA cases, a warrant is issued and the agency's FTA
unit draws on all the information the agency has collected to locate and
return the defendant.

Kentucky Pretrial Services reviews its risk assessment point-scoring
system every 2 years. The process includes suggestions from judges,
circuit clerks, jail officials, and a sample group of pretrial service officers.
The agency has an active inservice training program and is working to
broaden officer skills related to domestic violence, cultural diversity,
victim advocacy, and driving while intoxicated.

District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency: Merging State and Federal 
procedures 

The District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency has served the Superior
Court since the District's courts were reorganized in the early 1970s to
resemble the structure of most State court systems. The agency also
provides pretrial services to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

The agency, with nearly 170 staff members, operates 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. The director reports to an executive committee composed of
the chief judges of the Federal and district appellate and trial courts, the
U.S. Attorney, the public defender, and the director of the District's Court
Services and Offender Services Agency. As of 1998, along with the courts
and criminal justice agencies in the District, the agency was transitioning
to Federal status under the supervision of a trustee appointed by the
Attorney General of the United States.

In 1998, agency staff conducted more than 22,000 interviews in the cell
blocks of the Federal and D.C. courthouses. Staff presented more than
20,000 reports to the court and also conducted postrelease interviews in
more than 12,000 cases to explain release conditions. Interview
information entered into an automated system forms part of the basis for a
printout that becomes the report presented to the court. Most defendants
are interviewed less than 24 hours after they have been arrested. D.C.
Pretrial Services does not interview individuals arrested on traffic charges
or municipal ordinance violations.

Defendants are tested for recent drug use, and the results are entered into
the automated information system used in preparing the report for the
judge. Both the interviews and the drug tests are conducted voluntarily. At
the outset of the process, the interviewer describes the purpose of the
interview or drug test and how the information will be used and informs
the defendants of their right to refuse to participate without the advice of
counsel.

During the interview, the defendant is asked for references to verify
residence, employment, and community ties. Verification takes place after
the interview. Date of birth is checked, along with criminal history,
through a National Crime Information Center (NCIC) record check.
Defendants who have no phone numbers for contacts and defendants who
are reluctant to give references pose the biggest obstacles to verification,
along with unavailable or uncooperative references.

The agency provides its printout report to the court, prosecutor, and
defense counsel. The report reflects the information gathered in the
interview along with the drug test results and prior record check. It does
not specify reference names or phone numbers, nor does it cover some
types of possibly relevant (but highly sensitive) information, such as
whether a defendant has AIDS. However, a "consult" notification on the
report signals the judge or commissioner to obtain further information
from agency staff with respect to this type of information.

The agency does not use a point-scoring or bail guidelines system. Rather,
officers specify risk factors with respect to flight and community safety
and, for each factor, identify a proposed solution, usually through a
condition of release. Release on recognizance, for example, might be
conditioned on the defendant's providing proof of address within 24 hours.

The agency's computer system is an important part of its operations. The
automated system is used to record information about each defendant,
conditions of release, and compliance with conditions.
Computer-generated letters remind defendants of their next court date and
direct them to acknowledge receipt of the reminder letter. The drug-testing
laboratory, located in the Superior Court Building, performs more than
80,000 urinalysis tests annually on persons in a pretrial status, and the
results are entered immediately into the automated system for use in
setting conditions of release and monitoring compliance. The agency is
planning to install an electronic mail process for notifying judges of
violations of conditions of release.

At any given time, approximately 9,500 defendants are under agency
supervision; of these, about 500 are assigned to heightened or intensive
supervision or are participants in the Drug Court Program. The agency
follows up promptly on any missed court appearance using a three-person
FTA unit that operates mostly through telephone contacts.

Monroe County, Florida: Pretrial services in a rural environment

The Monroe County Pretrial Services Program began operations in 1988
in response to a problem of rising caseloads and severe jail overcrowding.
Monroe County includes the Florida Keys--a 120-mile chain of small
islands that stretches from the southern tip of the mainland to Key
West--plus a portion of the mainland that is largely within Everglades
National Park. The county has a population of only 78,000 persons, but it
receives more than 4 million visitors each year. The pretrial services
program has nine staff members who work in several locations--a main
office in Key West, an office at the detention center in Key West, and
satellite locations in the other two towns (Plantation Key and Marathon)
that have a courthouse and a jail. During a single year, the program
conducts approximately 3,300 interviews and supervises approximately
650 defendants released on nonfinancial conditions. The program director
reports to the court administrator for Florida's Sixteenth Judicial Circuit.

Three of the program's four investigators are located in Key West, the
county seat and main population center. Every day (including weekends
and holidays), staff interview newly arrested defendants at the jail
beginning at 7 a.m. By the time defendants first appear before a judge at
about 1:30 p.m., the investigators have obtained their addresses and
information about their family and community ties, employment, and prior
criminal records. Time permitting, staff also will have verified information
obtained through the interviews by contacting family members or other
references. Additionally, if the charge involves a victim (and especially if
the charge involves domestic violence), staff will have tried to contact the
alleged victim to ask his or her opinion about the release of the defendant
and to learn of any concerns about future contact with the defendant. Staff
will also have conducted a criminal history record check, beginning with
the program's own records of any prior contacts with the same defendant.
Using a computer, the staff check Monroe County records and criminal
history information maintained by the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement and the NCIC.

Before the court session begins, staff will use a point-scoring form to
develop a recommendation concerning ROR or supervised release for each
defendant. No recommendation is made concerning release on money
bond. At the first appearance hearing, a staff member presents the
information and recommendations and either answers questions or seeks to
obtain additional information.

The procedures in the other two jail and courthouse locations are similar to
those followed in Key West but are complicated by staffing limitations--
the program has only one full-time staff member in Marathon and one
part-time officer in Plantation Key. 

In making the release/detention decision, the judge considers information
provided by the program and the staff's recommendations but may also
exercise discretion to set a money bond amount. Under Florida law, the
judge must consider two primary criteria in establishing conditions of
release: likelihood of appearance for scheduled court dates and risk of
physical danger to the community. There is a statutory presumption in
favor of nonmonetary release except in capital cases, but judges
nevertheless make extensive use of financial conditions of release. A bail
schedule is used to set bond amounts in misdemeanor cases, and money
bond amounts are commonly set in both felony and misdemeanor cases
when the judge decides not to release a person on nonfinancial conditions.
Occasionally, a judge may set a money bond amount and also impose
additional conditions such as periodic drug testing and call-in reporting,
both administered by the pretrial services program.

When a defendant is released under supervision of the pretrial services
program, program staff review the conditions of release with the defendant
and explain the requirements for reporting by phone or in person. The
call-ins and in-person visits are used as an opportunity to remind the
defendant about the next court date. If a defendant under the program's
supervision fails to report as required, the program's compliance officer (or
one of the staff members in Marathon and Plantation Key if the defendant
resides in the Middle or Upper Keys) immediately seeks to make contact
by phone or through a home visit. Usually, the problems can be resolved
quickly and informally. However, if there is egregious noncompliance or if
the defendant appears to have fled the community, the program will report
the facts to the court and request that a bench warrant be issued. A bench
warrant will also be issued if the defendant fails to appear for a scheduled
court date. When a warrant is issued, program staff try to locate the
defendant, learn what happened, and encourage the defendant to return
promptly to court. If there is an acceptable reason for the nonappearance,
the warrant may be rescinded.

In addition to gathering information for the initial release/ detention
decision and staying in touch with defendants released on their own
recognizance or on supervised release, the program monitors the jail
population. A program staff member reviews the jail records, interviews
any defendants who may have been missed during the initial round of
interviewing, and updates interview and verification information on
defendants who have been unable to make bond. If the information
indicates that the defendant would be a good candidate for release, the
program submits a written report, with recommendations, to the court. The
program also notifies the defense attorney, who can request a
bond-reduction hearing. 

Maricopa County, Arizona: Pretrial services for a high-growth area 

Maricopa County, Arizona, first launched its Pretrial Services Agency in
1975 with Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA)
funding. Three years later, the county assumed funding by incorporating
the agency into the Superior Court, where the agency now is located under
the chief pretrial officer/administrator.

With a staff of 48 as of mid-1999 (up from 36 in 1997), the agency serves
Phoenix and the surrounding county, where the population is
approximately 2.8 million--an increase of more than a million since 1985.
Staff conduct interviews at the Madison Street Jail in Phoenix, where the
Central Intake Unit is located. In 1996, pretrial officers interviewed more
than 44,000 arrested felony-charge defendants (75 to 80 percent of all
initial appearances), excluding only defendants also charged with
probation or parole violations, immigration law violations, or flight from
other jurisdictions.

Judicial officers consider the agency's bail guidelines matrix, which
incorporates a point scale, in deciding whether to order ROR or
conditional release and in setting money bail amounts. Arizona statutes
and constitutional provisions allow detention of persons charged with
felonies if, after a hearing, they are found to pose a risk of substantial
danger to a person or to the community that cannot be met by any
conditions of release. When a money bail amount is set, it can be posted
either in cash or through a bail bondsman. 

Interviews conducted by pretrial services program staff focus primarily on
obtaining information about community ties and criminal history. The
agency tries to verify as much information as possible before the initial
court appearance. However, the commissioners who preside over initial
appearances frequently must act on the basis of uncorroborated
information because the officer who conducted the interview is not always
able to reach references in time to verify employment and residence
information. Officers conduct interviews using a laptop computer. For
presentation to the court, the officer provides a printout of the completed
automated interview form.

The score that the agency assigns using the bail guidelines classification
matrix provides a basis for judicial officers in setting release conditions or
ordering detention. Risk factors incorporated into the matrix include
current charge, prior record severity, prior failures to appear, and the
defendant's living situation and employment. The completed form
presented at the initial appearance before the commissioner shows the
calculation of the risk factors and may include additional officer
comments. A review of the guidelines was initiated in 1999.

Although many Maricopa County defendants obtain release on surety
bond, some are released on nonfinancial conditions that involve
supervision by the pretrial services agency. Some defendants in the
agency's supervision program are simply required to report weekly (either
by telephone or in person), while others are under intensive supervision
that can include 24-hour house arrest, field visits, and random drug testing.
The level of supervision is stipulated in the release conditions set by the
initial appearance commissioner. 

The failure-to-appear unit, consisting of two officers, concentrates on
locating nonappearing defendants placed under the agency's supervision
within 7 days after the missed court date. If the defendant does not appear
for the next scheduled event, the court issues a bench warrant. For failure
to comply with conditions, the agency uses a three-step process. First, it
gives the defendant a verbal warning with a reminder of imminent
termination from the program if noncompliance continues. Staff members
may also refer the defendant to drug counseling if urinalysis tests have
been positive. For a second incident of noncompliance, the defendant
receives a sanction, such as increased contact or a switch from telephone
check-in to office visit, accompanied by a reminder of imminent
termination if noncompliance continues. The third time, staff members
terminate the defendant from the release program and recommend
revocation of release to the court.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Improving pretrial release practices through a
guidelines approach and the use of new technology 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was one of the first jurisdictions in the United
States to have a full-fledged pretrial services program operating on an
around-the-clock, 7-day-a-week basis. First established in 1970, the
Philadelphia program has changed substantially since its early days. It is
now a pretrial release guidelines approach developed on the basis of
extensive research, employing a broad range of supervisory options for
released defendants (see "Learning From Experience and Policy-Focused
Research: The Background to Philadelphia's Adoption of Bail Guidelines
and Supervised Release"). 

Currently, with more than 70,000 new arrests annually, pretrial services
staff conduct about 60 percent of their interviews by video teleconference,
using two-way linkages between the program's central location and five
satellite police lockups. Staff conduct the other interviews in person at the
police headquarters building, but--in light of the success in conducting
interviews by video--all interviewing will probably be conducted by video
in the near future. Information obtained through the interviews is entered
directly into the program's computer system, as is information about the
defendant's criminal history and prior record of compliance with release
conditions.

Once the district attorney has made a charging decision, information about
the charge is also entered into the computer. The computer is programmed
to analyze the information about the defendant and the specific charge and
to place the defendant into one of 40 categories in a matrix of pretrial
release guidelines. The defendant's placement in the matrix, reflecting the
severity of the charge and the predicted risk of failure to appear or
re-arrest, provides a basis for the bail commissioner to set conditions of
release following guidelines applicable to the category.

The program provides options for ROR for low-risk defendants and for
release to structured pretrial supervision of medium- to high-risk
defendants charged with relatively serious crimes. These are defendants
who would probably otherwise have remained in jail because of inability
to post money bail. One of the critical functions of the pretrial services
program is to supervise these releasees using a variety of case
management techniques, including personal reporting, drug testing, and
arranging for housing, drug treatment, and other needed services.

As of mid-1999, Philadelphia's pretrial services program operated with a
staff of 107 full-time and 140 part-time employees who interview
defendants, verify information obtained through the interviews, prepare
the guidelines worksheets and reports (using the computer program),
notify defendants of upcoming court dates, supervise medium- to high-risk
defendants, and follow up on defendants who fail to comply with the
conditions that have been set. FTA and rearrest rates have dropped sharply
since 1992, even though release rates are high compared with rates in most
other urban jurisdictions. Furthermore, the system has been able to keep
the jail population under control.

Methodology and Organization of This Report 

This report's review of issues and practices in the pretrial services field has
drawn from three main types of sources. First, a literature review covered
relevant case law, numerous articles and monographs, three sets of
national standards addressing pretrial release, a report on the results of a
1989 national survey of pretrial services programs (the most recent survey
data available), and documents and reports prepared by individual pretrial
services programs. Second, structured interviews were conducted in
person and by telephone with criminal justice professionals, including
pretrial service agency officials, judges, court administrators, prosecutors,
defense counsel, and academic researchers. Third, the authors have
benefited from comments and suggestions made at meetings of an
advisory board composed of a State trial judge, a trial court administrator,
Federal and State pretrial services agency managers, and experienced
researchers in the pretrial field.

The remainder of this report describes and analyzes the operations of
pretrial services programs and outlines key challenges facing these
programs as they look to the future:

o The techniques pretrial services programs use to gather and present  
information in making release/detention decisions are examined in  
chapter 2.

o The risk management role of pretrial services agencies in supervising  
defendants subject to court-ordered release conditions is explored in  
chapter 3.

o The viability of sharing information gathered by pretrial services  
agencies in other stages of the criminal justice process is assessed in  
chapter 4.

o Critical issues concerning pretrial release that policy-makers and  
practitioners will need to address in the near future are discussed in  
chapter 5.

o Information about available resources is provided in chapter 6.

o Sample forms and documents are presented in appendixes A through F. 

------------------------------

Notes

1. See, for example, Foote, C., "Compelling Appearance in
Court-Administration of Bail in Philadelphia," University of Pennsylvania
Law Review 102 (1954): 1031-1079; Rankin, A., "The Effect of Pretrial
Detention," New York University Law Review 39 (1964): 641-655;
Clarke, S.H., and S.T. Kurtz, "The Importance of Interim Decisions to
Felony Trial Court Dispositions," Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology 74 (1983); Gottfredson, M.R., and D.M. Gottfredson,
Decision Making in Criminal Justice: Toward a Rational Exercise of
Discretion, New York: Plenum Press, 1988. 

2. Freed, D., and P. Wald, Bail in the United States: 1964, Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice and Vera Foundation, 1964: 45-46;
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of
Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1967: 31.

3. Goldkamp, J.S., "Judicial Responsibility for Pretrial Release Decision
Making and the Information Role of Pretrial Services," Federal Probation
57 (1) (March 1993): 31. 

4. Clark, J., and D.A. Henry, "The Pretrial Decision," Judicature 81
(1997): 76-77. Clark and Henry note that in the Federal system, where the
same statute governs pretrial release decisionmaking in all districts, release
rates ranged between 18 percent and 68 percent. In large jurisdictions
participating in the National Pretrial Reporting Project sponsored by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice, the range
was between 30 percent and 88 percent.

5. Ibid. The failure to appear (FTA) rates of the 40 jurisdictions studied in
the National Pretrial Reporting Project ranged between 2 percent and 56
percent, averaging 25 percent. By contrast, in 1961 the average FTA rate
in large jurisdictions was 6 percent; in 1971 it was 9 percent. Also see
Thomas, W., Bail Reform in America, Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1976.

6. Juszkiewicz, J., "Processing of Felony Defendants, 1992: A Profile in
Disparity?" Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Society of Criminology, 1994.

7. Ares, C.E., A. Rankin, and H. Sturz, "The Manhattan Bail Project: An
Interim Report on the Use of Pretrial Parole," New York University Law
Review 38 (1963): 67; Rankin, A., "The Effect of Pretrial Detention."

------------------------------

The Continued Prevalence of Money Bail as a Mechanism for
Determining Pretrial Release or Detention

Although release on nonfinancial conditions is now used far more widely
than before the advent of the bail reform movement in the 1960s, money
bail is still the predominant mechanism used for release/detention
decisionmaking in most American courts. A 1998 report published by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that in 1994, in the 75 most populous
jurisdictions in the United States, 56 out of every 100 defendants charged
with a felony were either released on money bail or detained because of
inability to post bail. Of the 56, a total of 25 were able to gain their release
while the other 31 awaited disposition of their cases in jail. Of the other
44, a total of 37 were released under some form of nonfinancial conditions
(although not necessarily under the supervision of a pretrial services
program) and 7 were held without bond.[a]

------------------------------

a. Reaves, B.A., Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1994,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
1997: 17 (table 14).

------------------------------

The Creation of Pretrial Services Agencies in the Federal Courts: Meeting
the Need for Reliable Information

How the Federal judicial system responded to its need for more timely
information to assist the pretrial release/ detention decision illustrates the
value of using a pretrial services agency to meet this demand. The Federal
Bail Reform Act of 1966, directed primarily toward making the pretrial
release/detention decision more fair and rational, required judicial
officers-judges and magistrates-to release defendants on the least
restrictive conditions that would ensure their appearance at trial. The law
instructed judicial officers to consider the following factors:

o Nature and circumstance of the offense.
o Weight of evidence.
o Family ties.
o Employment.
o Financial resources.
o Character and mental condition.
o Length of time at current residence.
o Record of convictions.
o Appearance record at court proceedings.

Who would provide judicial officers with this information? The 1966
statute contained no mechanism for gathering background information on
defendants. This need for information served as the impetus for title II of
the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, which created 10 pilot pretrial services
agencies in the Federal courts. The pilot agencies were designed to provide
judges with the information necessary to make conditional release
decisions. The agencies were authorized to collect, verify, and report to the
judicial officer background information about defendants and to
recommend appropriate release conditions. The pilot agencies, following
and expanding on approaches initially developed by pretrial services
projects in State court systems, developed strong support from judges and
magistrates in the pilot districts. In the early 1980s, when Congress was
considering expansion of pretrial services into all Federal courts, Federal
magistrates testified that neither defense lawyers nor prosecutors were able
to provide them with the requisite information for an informed bail
decision.

Members of the judiciary were clear on how to resolve this need: Judge
Gerald B. Tjoflat (11th Circuit), then Chairman of the Committee on the
Administration of the Probation System of the Judicial Conference of the
United States, stated: 

[T]he administration of justice is far better served when a magistrate or
judge setting conditions of bail under the Bail Reform Act of 1966 has
sufficient accurate and objective information regarding the defendant,
his background, the offense and all other evidence that relates to the
question of whether he will appear for trial. The system is far better
served when the judge can make an informed decision, and pretrial
services has made a major step in that direction.[a]

In the Pretrial Services Act of 1982, Congress expanded the pilot program
by establishing pretrial service agencies in all 94 Federal district courts.

------------------------------

a. Tjoflat, G.B. "Extend the Operations of the Pretrial Services Agencies,"
testimony presented at hearings before the Subcommittee on Crime of the
House Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Congress, 1st Session,
Washington, DC, 1981: 12.

------------------------------

Historical Evolution of Bail and Pretrial Release/Detention Policies

The Manhattan Bail Project and other pretrial services programs that
started in the 1960s and 1970s were designed to provide an alternative to
the money bail system. Although specifics of the money bail system vary
from one jurisdiction to another, the basic principle is the same: Courts
will release a defendant if he or she can arrange to have bail bond posted
in the amount of money set by the judicial officer. Courts assume that
defendants released on bond will return for future court appearances rather
than lose their money or pledged collateral.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, the person who posted bail and guaranteed
the appearance of the defendant at trial was a private individual--usually a
friend, relative, or employer of the accused. The personal association
between the defendant and surety was at least as important as the monetary
stake of the surety in ensuring the defendant's appearance for trial. As the
population grew more mobile in the 19th century, commercial bondsmen
gradually replaced private sureties.

For a fee, the bondsman would post the amount of the bail bond. Since the
commercial bondsman would at least theoretically be liable if the
defendant fled, the bondsman would require defendants, or their friends
and relatives, to post collateral or agree to indemnify the bondsman if the
bond were forfeited for nonappearance. This practice became well
established by the end of the 19th century and was upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court in 1912 against claims that it was contrary to public
policy. Since the late 19th century, money bail had been the principal
method used in the United States to resolve the question of whether a
defendant in a criminal case should be released before trial.

The transition to commercial bondsmen largely moved the pretrial release
decision out of court control and into the hands of the bondsmen. In a
jurisdiction that relies on money bail, a judicial officer sets bail in a
specific amount or, alternatively, sets bail mechanically by reference to a
"bail schedule" that fixes bond amounts in accordance with the seriousness
of the charge. To obtain release on surety bond, the defendant has to be
able and willing to pay the bondsman a nonrefundable fee, typically 10
percent of the bond. The defendant may also need to be able to provide
collateral equal to or greater than the bond. Even then, the bondsman may
decline to do business with defendants deemed to be bad risks. As a result,
the judicial officer who sets a money bond cannot know whether a
defendant will be able to get out of jail. This system is still the primary
method of addressing release/detention decisions in many jurisdictions
today.

The consequence of relying on the money bail system is that the
defendant's freedom hinges largely on one factor--the ability to raise
money. If the defendant can raise the money, even if the charges are
serious and there is a risk of flight or potential danger to the community,
the defendant will be released. Conversely, a defendant unable to raise the
money languishes in jail even when the charges are minor, the person's
roots in the community reduce the likelihood of flight, and release poses
little threat to community safety.

Recurrent criticism of this system, based on studies in Chicago, Cleveland,
and the State of Missouri during the first quarter of the 20th century, had
scant impact. Not until the early 1960s were significant efforts made to
develop viable alternatives. The Manhattan Bail Project used a control
group research design to test the hypothesis that courts could release more
defendants successfully on their own recognizance if judges were given
verified information at arraignment about the individual's character and
roots in the community. 

Once the results confirmed the hypothesis, judges in Manhattan began
releasing many more defendants on their own recognizance. Moreover,
these released defendants had considerably lower failure-to-appear rates
than did defendants released on bail. Acclaimed a success, the project was
emulated rapidly across the country. Pretrial release projects were
implemented in dozens of other jurisdictions, and significant bail reform
legislation was passed by Congress and several States.

The initial reforms focused primarily on providing alternatives to the
traditional surety bail system. The alternatives fall into two main
categories: (1) release on nonfinancial conditions that restrict the liberty of
the accused in various ways, and (2) release under "deposit bail"
procedures that bypass the professional bondsman and provide for money
bond (or a percentage of the bond amount, typically 10 percent) to be
posted directly with the court.

During the 1970s and 1980s, legislation involving the release/detention
decision began to focus increasingly on the issue of potential danger to the
community. At the Federal level, the Bail Reform Act was amended in
1984 to allow consideration of danger and to allow preventive detention in
limited circumstances. Most States and the District of Columbia now
address danger in their bail laws and allow--at least implicitly--preventive
detention and denial of bail or severely restricted release options under
some circumstances.

During the 1980s, as the volume of arrests increased in most jurisdictions,
jail crowding became a significant issue in many jurisdictions. In some
localities, lawsuits brought on behalf of jail inmates led to the imposition
of jail population caps that required the release of new arrestees or
previously detained inmates if the population exceeded the ceiling. Some
of the more recently created pretrial services programs evolved from local
efforts to address jail crowding problems, especially in jurisdictions
operating under court-ordered caps.

------------------------------

Delegation or Abrogation? When the Release Decision Is Not Made by a
Judge

In many American jurisdictions, judicial officers do not decide whether an
arrested person will be detained or released. Some observers have,
however, taken the position that the critical issue, at least at the initial
decision point, is not whether the decisionmaker is a judge but, rather,
whether there are clear and appropriate criteria for making the decision
and a decisionmaker who has adequate information and has been well
trained in pretrial release/detention decisionmaking. Decisionmakers and
release/detention mechanisms include the following:

o Police officers and desk appearance tickets. Desk appearance tickets, or
citations, are summonses given to defendants at the police station,
usually for petty offenses or misdemeanor charges. The tickets can
greatly reduce the use of pretrial detention and can save the court system
a great deal of time by avoiding initial pretrial release or bail hearings in
minor cases. Because they are typically based only on the current charge
(and sometimes on a computer search to check for outstanding warrants),
the potential exists to release high-risk defendants without supervision or
monitoring. As computerized access to criminal history information
becomes easier (and thus enables rapid identification of individuals with
prior records indicating they pose a risk to the community), desk
appearance tickets may become more widely used. (See the section
"Delegated Release Authority" in chapter 5.)

o Jail administrators. In many jurisdictions, jail officials have authority
to release (or, in some instances, to refuse to book into jail) arrested
persons who meet certain criteria. In some localities, they exercise this
authority pursuant to a court order that specifies priorities with respect to
the categories of defendants that can be admitted to the jail and the
categories that are to be released when the jail population exceeds a
court-imposed ceiling. The "automatic release" approach helps minimize
jail crowding, but does so at the risk of releasing some defendants who
pose a high risk of becoming fugitives or committing criminal acts. To
help minimize these risks, some sheriffs and jail administrators have
developed their own pretrial services or "release on recognizance" units
with staff who conduct risk assessments based on interviews with
arrestees, contact with references, and prior record checks.

o Bail schedules. These are predetermined schedules setting levels of bail
(from release on recognizance to amounts of surety bond) based solely
on the offense charged. Depending on local practices, release pursuant to
a bail schedule may take place at a police station, at the local jail, or at
court. This practice can save time for judicial officers and allow rapid
release of defendants who can afford to post the bail amount. However,
release determinations based solely on the current charge are of dubious
value because there is no proven relationship between a particular charge
and risk of flight or crime. Release pursuant to a bail schedule depends
simply on the defendant's ability to post the amount of the bond.
Moreover, when a defendant is released by posting bond set pursuant to
a bail schedule, there is generally no capacity for supervision to
minimize the risks of crime and nonappearance. 

o Bail bondsmen. When a judicial officer sets the amount of bond that a
defendant must produce to be released, or when bond is set mechanically
on the basis of a bail schedule, the real decisionmakers are often the
surety bail bondsmen. If no bondsman will offer bond, the defendant
without other sources of money remains in jail. The defendant's ability
to pay a bondsman the 10-percent fee (and sometimes to post collateral)
often bears no relationship to his or her risk of flight or danger to the
community.

o Pretrial services agencies. In some jurisdictions, these agencies have
authority to release certain categories of defendants. The authority is
usually limited to relatively minor cases, although agencies in a few
jurisdictions can release some categories of felony defendants. Because
the pretrial services agency can obtain information about the defendant's
prior record, community ties, and other pending charges, its decision to
release or detain is based on more extensive information and criteria than
when the decision is based on application of a bail schedule. However,
because these programs lack the independence of judicial officers, they
can be targets for political and public pressure.

------------------------------

Learning From Experience and Policy-Focused Research: The
Background to Philadelphia's Adoption of Bail Guidelines and Supervised
Release

In response to concerns about inconsistencies among judges in
release/detention decisionmaking, Philadelphia began exploring the
concept of pretrial release guidelines in 1978. Despite the existence of an
active and well-established pretrial services agency, money bail remained
an important and widely used option at that time, and the practices of
individual judges in using nonfinancial conditions and in setting bail
amounts varied widely. Working with researcher John Goldkamp and his
colleagues, the Philadelphia Municipal Court arranged a study of judges'
actual bail decisionmaking practices. Data were collected on 4,800 bail
decisions made during the 1977-79 period, including information on
charges against the defendant, past criminal history, prior performance on
pretrial release, employment, community and family ties, demographics,
and subsequent performance on pretrial release.

Analysis of the data allowed researchers to identify factors that judges
commonly used in deciding to release defendants on their own
recognizance and to set money bail at different amounts, and indicated that
the significant disparities in bail release/detention decisions existed
because different judges weighted the factors in different ways. The
second stage of the research involved extensive discussion of these
findings, in addition to collaborative development and testing of a set of
"voluntary" bail guidelines that judges could use in making bail
decisions.[a] The guidelines incorporated a grid or matrix that categorized
defendants on the seriousness of the current charges and a risk
classification that ranked defendants according to likelihood of flight or
rearrest. When the current charge and risk assessment data were put
together, a defendant would fall into one of 60 (later reduced to 40)
possible categories. For each category, there would be a suggested option
or range of options that could include release on recognizance (ROR) for
low-risk defendants or the setting of money bail in amounts that increased
to correspond with the severity of the charge and the severity of the risk.
At that time (early 1980s), the guidelines included no provision for
supervised nonfinancial release of medium- to high-risk defendants.

Findings from the second-stage research were promising--particularly the
evidence that the guidelines approach produced significantly more
consistent decisionmaking (thus reducing the inequities associated with
the bail function and the use of pretrial detention) and that it could be used
to generate feedback to judges about the consequences of their decisions
for individual cases and for the system as a whole (including impacts on
jail population). On the basis of these findings, the Philadelphia Municipal
Court judges decided to adopt bail guidelines for use by the entire court
beginning in 1982. Before full implementation and evaluation of the
guidelines approach, however, a dramatic upsurge in arrests during the
1980s produced a jail overcrowding crisis that had an enormous impact on
pretrial release practices.

In 1987, litigation brought in Federal court on behalf of inmates of the
Philadelphia jails resulted in a consent decree that contained or generated a
number of provisions designed to reduce the jail population and maintain
it at or below a "maximum allowable population." One such provision
placed a moratorium on admission to the Philadelphia jails for all but
those individuals charged with very serious crimes against the person. In
practice, this meant that whenever the jail population exceeded the
allowable maximum, defendants would have to be released from detention
if they did not meet the strict criteria for admission. The result was the
release from pretrial detention of a large number of defendants with drug
or alcohol problems, with lengthy criminal records, or with histories of
willful failure to appear. Not surprisingly, these defendants--who made up
approximately 40 percent of the incoming caseload in Philadelphia--had
very high rates of failure to appear.

The combination of a jail population cap and procedures severely limiting
admissions to jail meant that pretrial release/detention decisions made in
Municipal Court at the defendant's first appearance were rendered virtually
meaningless. Furthermore, the limited pretrial services program resources
were significantly diverted away from facilitating release at initial
appearance to activities supporting reviews of the detention population in
efforts to find candidates for conditional release. The bail guidelines
system was completely eviscerated by the emergency procedures put in
place as a result of the consent decree.

Developing a viable plan to overcome the effects of the jail population
limit and other provisions of the consent decree and to restore credibility
to the criminal justice process in Philadelphia took several years. In 1992,
the city adopted an Alternatives to Incarceration Plan designed to
minimize the unnecessary use of confinement and to provide
accountability and supervision for persons released to the community both
before trial and after conviction. The cornerstone of the plan was an
updated version of the bail guidelines system initially developed a decade
earlier, augmented by an enhanced capacity for supervision of released
defendants.[b]

A key feature of the new approach was the establishment of an option for
release to structured pretrial supervision of medium- to high-risk
defendants charged with relatively serious crimes. These were defendants
who under former practices (i.e., before the consent decree) would
probably have remained in jail because judges believed that they were not
good risks for ROR, and they were unable to post money bail, even when
set at a relatively low amount. The earlier bail guidelines approach in
Philadelphia had included no provision for supervised release of these
categories of defendants; this time, the provision of support services
through the pretrial services program (either directly or by referral) was a
key component. The pretrial services program also continued to have
responsibility for obtaining the information relevant to risk categorization
and presenting the information to the judicial officer at first appearance.

------------------------------

a. Goldkamp, J.S., and M.R. Gottfredson, Judicial Guidelines for Bail: The
Philadelphia Experiment, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, 1984.

b. Goldkamp, J.S., and M.K. Harris, An Alternatives-to-Incarceration Plan
for Philadelphia: Findings and Proposed Strategies, Philadelphia: Crime
and Justice Research Institute, 1992.

------------------------------

Chapter 2 
Techniques Pretrial Services Agencies Use to Inform the
Release/Detention Decision 

Key Points

o By providing reliable information to the courts, pretrial services
programs can enhance the ability of judicial officers to make fair,
equitable, and effective pretrial release/detention decisions.

o Pretrial services programs should collect and provide to the court at
least the following information about newly arrested defendants:

--Identity, including date of birth and gender.

--Community ties, including residence, employment, and family status.

--Physical and mental condition, including information concerning abuse
of alcohol or drugs.

--Criminal record, including history of adjudications of delinquency. 

--Prior record of compliance with conditions of release, including record
of appearing for scheduled court dates.

o Cases involving charges of domestic violence pose particular
challenges for courts and for pretrial services programs. Pretrial services
programs can help judicial officers make release/detention decisions in
these cases by obtaining and presenting the following information:

--The defendant's relationship with the alleged victim, including living
situation and whether they have children in common.

--The possible existence of any court orders (past or current) restraining
the defendant from contacting the victim.

--Substance abuse problems of the defendant.

--Possible living arrangements, separate from the alleged victim, that
may be available for the defendant if released.

--Mechanisms that can be used to prevent contact between the defendant
and the alleged victim during the pretrial period and to monitor the
defendant's conditions of release.

o In addition to information about defendants, pretrial services programs
should also obtain and provide to the court information about available
supervisory options.

o Defendants are primary sources of information about themselves. They
should be interviewed very shortly after arrest to begin the process of
gathering and verifying essential information prior to the defendant's
first court appearance.

o When interviewing defendants, pretrial services program staff should
advise them about the purposes of the interview, the neutral role of the
pretrial services agency, the types of information to be collected, how
the information will be used, and the fact that their participation in the
interview is voluntary.

o Other sources--including the pretrial services program's own records of
prior cases involving the same defendant, other criminal justice agencies,
motor vehicle departments, the defendant's family members, and the
defendant's employer--can provide information about the defendant and
can verify information provided in interviews with defendants. If
information cannot be verified, it should be clearly labeled as unverified
in the program's report to the court.

o The pretrial services program should analyze the information it collects
to assess the risks of nonappearance and dangerousness. The risk
assessment provides a basis for formulating recommendations
concerning conditions of release and the use of available supervisory
mechanisms.

------------------------------

Overview 

The heart of pretrial services program operations is the collection,
verification, and analysis of information about defendants and available
supervisory options. This chapter focuses on a set of interrelated questions
about how pretrial services programs obtain and convey information
relevant to the release/detention decision:

o What information is needed for the decision? In particular, what types
of information should a pretrial services program be expected to provide 
 to a judicial officer?

o From what sources should pretrial services program staff seek to obtain
 information? What practical techniques can be used to help obtain the
information?

o What information should be verified and how can this be done?

o How should information about the defendant and possible release
options be presented to the court? To what extent should pretrial services
programs make recommendations to the court?

o How is risk assessment conducted?

Information Needed 

While the judicial officer needs different types of information to make
decisions concerning custody status and to set conditions for released
defendants, not all of the information must be provided by a pretrial
services program. Information about the nature and circumstances of the
charged offense, for example, should ordinarily be provided by law
enforcement agencies and prosecutors, with an opportunity for defense
lawyers to present their positions when the facts are in dispute. Similarly,
although statutes often mandate that judicial officers consider the weight
of the evidence and likelihood of conviction in resolving the
release/detention issue, these are matters that involve legal judgments
about facts or allegations. Presentation of information about these matters
is appropriately left to prosecution and defense attorneys.

Information about a defendant's identity, prior criminal record, and any
pending charges (including probation or parole violations) is often
gathered by law enforcement and the prosecutor. However, this is an area
in which pretrial services programs frequently play a valuable role. Often,
a pretrial services program's own records will contain relevant information
that supplements what the police and prosecutor can provide. In some
jurisdictions, the pretrial services program has primary responsibility for
conducting criminal history record checks and may also review court
records to see whether there are other pending cases involving the same
defendant. It is common for the program's contacts with other agencies to
turn up highly relevant items of information.

Most of the other information needed for sound release/ detention
decisionmaking--information about the defendant and about possible
options for release that will minimize risks of nonappearance and pretrial
crime--is best gathered by pretrial services program personnel. Standards
adopted by the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies
(NAPSA) suggest that an independent investigating agency collect the
following information about defendants:

o Length of residence at past and present address.

o Family ties and relationships in the community.

o Employment status and history.

o Financial conditions and means of support.

o Physical and mental condition, including abuse of drugs or alcohol.

o Identity of references who will verify information and assist the
defendant in complying with conditions of release.

o Prior criminal record and history of delinquency.

o Prior record of failure to appear in court and compliance with conditions 
 of release.[1]

Some pretrial services programs collect supplementary information in
certain kinds of cases to help judges set conditions that are appropriate for
the circumstances of the case. In Kentucky, for example, in every case in
which the defendant is charged with an offense involving violence or
threats of violence in a domestic relationship, staff of the Kentucky
Pretrial Services Agency complete an addendum to the usual defendant
interview form. The addendum presents available information about the
defendant's relationship with the alleged victim, the existence of any
current or past restraining order, and where the defendant would live if
released. In Monroe County, Florida, staff of the pretrial release program
routinely contact persons identified as victims of an arrested person to
learn their views about releasing the defendant. For female defendants,
some pretrial services programs ask questions that address woman-specific
issues such as pregnancy, child care, and domestic violence to learn about
services needed and to help shape conditions of release (see "Obtaining
Information for Release/Detention Decisionmaking in Domestic Violence
Cases").

In addition to having information about the defendant, judicial officers
often want to know what supervisory options are available if they decide
that the defendant does not need to be held in jail. The issue commonly
arises in situations involving defendants who are homeless, defendants
who have medical needs, and defendants who need treatment for alcohol,
drug abuse, or mental health problems. The issue also arises in cases
involving charges of domestic violence or other assault when the judicial
officer wants to be confident that no contact between the defendant and the
complainant will occur (see "Contacting Verification Sources Who Also
May Be Victims").

Some pretrial services programs have the capacity to supervise some or all
of these categories of defendants directly. If the program cannot provide
direct or primary supervision itself, however, program staff are often
aware of other organizations or agencies that can do so. For example, the
report to a judge on a recently arrested person who is a drug addict could
note that fact (and provide information on drug test results, if available),
but also let the judge know of a drug treatment program that has an
available slot.

Conducting Defendant Interviews 

Interviewing defendants is a basic function of every pretrial services
program. The defendants themselves are, at least in the first instance, the
primary sources of information about themselves that can be relevant to
the release/detention decision. However, a number of issues--and, with
respect to some of the issues, sharply conflicting views among
practitioners--exist with respect to when interviews should take place, who
should be interviewed, and where and how the interview should be
conducted.

Timing of the interview 

Optimally, defendants will be interviewed very shortly after arrest to begin
gathering data relevant to the release/detention decision as quickly as
possible. This approach, which is followed by most pretrial services
programs, increases the likelihood that the court will have essential
background information at the time of the defendant's first court
appearance when the initial release/detention decision is made.

Some programs, generally those with very limited staff resources, do not
conduct interviews until after the first court appearance. This approach
reduces the pool of defendants to be interviewed because some arrestees
(for example, those who are able to post money bail and those who are
released on nonfinancial conditions by a judicial officer acting without
information provided by the program) already will have been released by
the time program staff begin interviewing. One consequence of this
approach is that the early releases, whether made on money bail or on
nonfinancial conditions, are likely to have been made without the judicial
officer having adequate information relevant to risk of flight or danger to
the community and without providing for the defendants' supervision.

Who should be interviewed? 

Programs do not need to interview every newly arrested person. Some
individuals, for example, will have been arrested on warrants issued by
other jurisdictions or arrested for violations of parole or violation of
Federal immigration matters. If the local court does not have jurisdiction
over the offense that gives rise to the arrest, then an interview is not
appropriate unless the court or executive branch agency that has
jurisdiction over the case specifically requests one.

Also, some pretrial services programs exclude selected defendants from
the interview pool, based on the charge against the defendant or
knowledge that the defendant has an extensive criminal record (see
"Exclusionary Policies"). Programs that follow this approach assume there
is little likelihood these defendants will be granted nonfinancial release,
regardless of the strength of their community ties, and that it would be an
inefficient use of limited project resources to interview them.


Other programs, following recommendations of the NAPSA Standards,
seek to interview all defendants over which the court has jurisdiction. This
approach has the benefit of enabling the program to provide the court with
relevant information in all cases, including ones in which--even though the
charge may be serious or the defendant may have a lengthy record--there
may be some viable release options, such as supervised drug treatment,
required urine testing, or electronically monitored home confinement.
Another benefit is that relevant information on the defendant's 
background, community and family ties, and mental and physical
condition can be gathered at an early stage. Depending on how it is
disseminated, some of this information can be extremely useful for a
variety of purposes, such as jail classification, assessment of the need for
medical assistance or mental competency exams, preparation of
presentence investigation reports, and formulation of nonincarcerative
dispositions involving treatment and supervision. (See chapter 4, "Sharing
Pretrial Services Information for Use Beyond the Release/Detention
Decision.")

Location of the interview 

Interviews will be most productive and useful if conducted in an
atmosphere that encourages defendants to cooperate with the interviewer.
Whenever possible, interviews should be conducted under circumstances
in which custodial officers, police officers, prosecutors, and other
defendants cannot hear or observe them. This is not always possible and,
indeed, it is not uncommon for interviews to be conducted in crowded jail
facilities. Sometimes it may be necessary (or desirable) to conduct
interviews by telephone or by video teleconference (see "Using
Videoconferencing for Defendant Interviews and Reports to the Court").
Security for the interviewer is an important consideration for inperson
interviews. The interview should be conducted where there is no chance
that the interviewer can be taken hostage or otherwise placed in physical
danger. 

Interview formats and protocols 

The extent to which information provided in a pretrial services interview is
treated as confidential--an issue discussed in chapter 4--is important. An
assurance that information will be treated as confidential or can be used
only for purposes of the release/detention decision is likely to increase the
defendant's cooperation, but agency staff can offer such assurances only if
they are certain that the confidentiality or limited-use policy can be
maintained (see "Cautions to Defendants Being Interviewed--and to
Interviewers"). Whether or not a jurisdiction provides confidentiality,
advisement should, at a minimum--

o Establish the agency as a neutral third party.

o Clarify the role of the agency as an information gatherer, provider of
information to the court, and potential monitor of postrelease behavior.

o Explain the purpose of the interview.

o Inform the defendant that the interview will include questions on living
situation, family, employment, other community ties, and prior criminal
history, but will not ask about the current charge.

o Explain the voluntary nature of the interview and inform the defendant
that he or she has a right to speak with an attorney before answering any 
 questions and can refuse to answer any questions. 

o Explain how the interview information will be used.

o Inform the defendant of the potential negative consequences of giving
false information.

A number of agencies provide defendants with a written copy of the
advisement, ask them to sign it, and file the signed copy (see appendix F
for examples of advisement forms used in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York). 

In conducting the interview, program personnel typically use standardized
interview forms that enable them to collect essential information quickly.
Sample interview forms and related materials are provided in appendixes
A (Kentucky), B (District of Columbia), and C (Harris County, Texas). In
some jurisdictions, interviewers use computers to record interview
information. The information then can be easily added to preprinted report
forms for presentation to the court and also can be easily stored for future
use.

Interviewing recently arrested defendants is not an appropriate assignment
for someone who is untrained in interviewing techniques or who is easily
provoked or distracted. Working conditions are seldom ideal, and many
defendants can be difficult to interview. Program administrators need to
train staff to deal with defendants who may be drunk or "high" on drugs,
mentally or physically impaired, or simply uncooperative. Some may not
speak English, and a bilingual staff member or an interpreter may be
needed. Program staff may use a number of techniques to conduct
productive interviews (see "Conducting Defendant Interviews: Practical
Suggestions for Pretrial Interviewers").

Obtaining Information From Other Sources 

Often, a pretrial services program will have information about a defendant
in its own records because of prior arrests, interviews, and supervised
release in the same jurisdiction. Additionally, depending on the time and
resources available for the investigation, pretrial services staff may use the
following resources either as primary sources of information about
defendants or as a means to verify defendant-supplied information.

Arresting agents or officers have information regarding the charge,
circumstances of the arrest, and the defendant's criminal record. Many law
enforcement agencies record limited personal information about the
defendant, such as date of birth, address, employment, and substance
abuse history.

Criminal record retrieval systems include the FBI's National Criminal
Information Center (NCIC), the National Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System, and State criminal history repositories. The
State repositories, generally organized as a branch of the State police or
State bureau of investigation, are primary sources of criminal records.
These systems may also provide prior addresses, aliases, names of
probation or parole officers, and motor vehicle information. To access
these systems, agencies must secure appropriate authorization.

Probation, community corrections, and parole agencies can provide
personal information, criminal history, and record of compliance with
supervision (including court appearances, violations, and pending charges)
if a defendant has been on probation or parole. To facilitate access to this
information, pretrial services program administrators need to develop
ongoing information-exchange relationships with these agencies.

Correctional institutions have information such as dates of incarceration
and the existence of detainers filed against defendants. Pretrial agencies
need to advise the court promptly of any detainers because this status may
preclude releasing a defendant. 

Motor vehicle departments can supply information about driving
violations and records of traffic court appearances. Their records also often
contain descriptions of defendants and addresses for verifying information
provided by the defendant.

County court records relating to marital status, child support, and property
ownership may prove useful in assessing family and community ties.

Credit bureaus, for a fee, will provide employment, residential, and
financial data about individual defendants. However, since a defendant
must sign a release form before these records are requested, credit bureau
records cannot usually be accessed in time for the initial appearance.

Family members can often provide documents-including lease agreements,
pay stubs, utility bills, or passports-that are evidence of a defendant's
community ties and employment status.

Employers are the most reliable source of information regarding a
defendant's current work status. However, some defendants may be
reluctant to have their employer contacted because they fear that
information about their arrest will get them fired. Most pretrial services
programs respect this concern and seek to verify a defendant's reported
employment status without disclosing the arrest to the employer.
Telephone directories and professional licensing agencies can corroborate
a defendant's claim of self-employment.

Given the time constraints associated with preparing pretrial services
reports and recommendations, it may not be possible to secure a
defendant's written release for obtaining information from third parties.
However, pretrial services agencies that participate in detention reviews
and postrelease supervision of defendants should consider developing a
release-of-information form to facilitate information gathering from
hospitals, clinics, past employers, or other entities.

Verification 

Verification of information provided by defendants is an integral part of
pretrial services program operations. Indeed, many pretrial services
practitioners believe that verifying defendant information is the most
important function their programs perform.

The extent of verification may vary depending on the seriousness of the
charge and the nature of the information (see "Verification Strategies and
Techniques"). As a top priority, agencies need to verify information about
the defendant's identity and about places where he or she can be contacted
if released (e.g., addresses and phone numbers). Information that cannot be
verified by the time it is presented to a judicial officer should be labeled as
unverified.

Most verification is provided by family members or personal references.
However, defendants may request that employers and other specific
individuals not be contacted. Because defendants are presumed innocent
and contacting specific individuals may cause them harm (e.g., loss of a
job), pretrial services personnel need to exercise caution in deciding which
individuals should be contacted and how they should be approached.

In selecting the individuals to be contacted, agency personnel should
consider the relative importance of the verification source, the potential
damage to the defendant's livelihood or personal relationships if the person
learns about the defendant's arrest, and possible danger to third parties.
Staff should use the least intrusive methods necessary to obtain and
corroborate relevant information.

Most programs seek to verify information provided by the defendant from
at least one independent source, and some require two sources. The most
common method of verification is telephone contact with an employer,
friend, spouse, or other relative. Sometimes, however, a defendant cannot
supply phone numbers for any references, and often it is impossible to
contact a reference even when a phone number is given. Programs
sometimes use field investigators to contact references who cannot be
reached by phone. 

Because the defendant's first court appearance ordinarily takes place
within 48 hours after arrest (and sometimes considerably sooner),
obtaining verification before this first appearance can be difficult. Some
programs will not present unverified information. Others will present the
information, noting that it has not been verified. The latter approach
enables judicial officers to consider possible options and, if appropriate, to
order release subject to verification of information provided by the
defendant.

No matter what action is taken with respect to release or detention at the
defendant's first appearance before a judicial officer, there are often good
reasons to initiate or continue the verification process. For example, if a
defendant has substance abuse or mental health problems, pretrial services
program personnel may need to talk with previous treatment providers to
design (or refine) an appropriate supervision plan. Followup verification
can lead to release of some defendants who would otherwise remain in jail
throughout the pretrial period. It can also strengthen a program's
supervision capability and add to its credibility with the court and other
organizations involved in the criminal justice process.

Verification of information can be particularly important in the case of
defendants who are not released at the initial appearance. A number of
jurisdictions have assigned pretrial services programs responsibility for
reviewing the status of defendants after they are detained or unable to
make bail at the initial hearing. Courts will often review the cases of
defendants in this situation, but judicial officers typically want to be able
to consider verified information about the defendant's background and
community and family ties before reducing the defendant's bail, altering
the conditions of release, or rescinding an initial detention order.

Analyzing the Information: Approaches to Risk Assessment 

Once information has been collected, it must be analyzed for use in the
release/detention decision. Some pretrial services programs simply convey
information about defendants to the judicial officer responsible for the
decision, but most analyze the data and use it as a basis for
recommendations. The analysis process--risk assessment or risk
classification--is a key step in both the court's release/detention
decisionmaking process and, if the decision is to release the defendant, the
management of the risks of nonappearance and pretrial crime.

Risk assessments seek to take account of factors identified through the
defendant interview, the verification process, and information acquired
from other sources. Subjective risk assessments are based on program staff
members' consideration of the relative weight to be given to different
factors. Objective risk assessments use instruments such as point scales or
pretrial release guidelines that assign weights to variables such as nature
and seriousness of the current charge, seriousness of prior record,
employment status, housing situation, family ties, and the existence and
nature of mental health or substance abuse problems. (The point scale used
in Monroe County, New York, is provided in appendix D, and the Pretrial
Release Guidelines Matrix and the Risk Classification Worksheet used in
Philadelphia are provided in appendix E.)

All three principal sets of national standards in the pretrial release field
favor the use of objective criteria, principally on the grounds that they are
fairer and more consistent. Thus, for example, the commentary to the
NAPSA Standard on evaluating the nature and degree of risk posed by
release of a defendant maintains that use of objective criteria is "the only
way to remove arbitrariness and approach equal treatment for all
defendants."[2]

In practice, pretrial services programs approach the risk assessment
process in several different ways. The most recent available data, from the
1989 survey conducted by the National Association of Pretrial Services
Agencies, indicate that among State and local programs--

o About 25 percent use an objective system (point scale, risk matrix, or
pretrial release guidelines).

o Another 25 percent use a subjective system only.

o About 40 percent use some combination of an objective system plus
subjective input from program staff members.

o Fewer than 10 percent of the programs provide background information
 only, with no attempt to assess risk.[3]

In the Federal system, all pretrial services programs make some kind of
risk assessment, but almost 69 percent of the Federal programs surveyed
in 1989 relied exclusively on subjective risk assessments.

Risk assessments are designed to give judicial officers information--and,
in most instances, recommendations or options--that they can use in
making the release/ detention decision and setting appropriate conditions.
Using the available information, pretrial services programs assess the risk
that a defendant will fail to appear for scheduled court dates and consider
what release conditions could minimize that risk. In many jurisdictions,
programs also seek to assess dangerousness and consider what conditions
could be imposed that would minimize the risk to public safety.

The pretrial release guidelines approach, now most fully developed in
Philadelphia, goes an important step beyond simply providing information
to the judicial officer responsible for the release/detention decision. It
provides essential information, but it does so in a format that structures the
judicial officer's exercise of discretion, suggesting a specific option (or
range of options) thought to be appropriate for defendants who fall within
a particular category on the guidelines matrix. The guidelines matrix used
in the new Philadelphia program (see appendix E) has two primary
dimensions: charge severity, divided into 10 categories from least to most
serious; and predicted risk of misconduct--that is, failure to appear (FTA)
or rearrest--derived from empirical analysis of factors that include
community and family ties, employment, education, prior record, and
treatment needs. The predicted risk dimension is divided into 4 levels, and
the matrix thus has a total of 40 cells or categories of defendants. Each
category has a distinct combination of charge severity and predicted risk
of misconduct, and each has a presumptive option (or range of options)
concerning release conditions.

The presumptive options for each category are set by a court policy group
based on two types of inputs: (1) analysis of data showing what actually
was done, and with what outcomes in terms of variables such as FTA and
rearrest, in prior court cases that involved defendants with similar charges
and risk factors; and (2) the considered judgments of members of the court
policy group concerning what should be done in each category of cases,
taking account of both the results of past practices and any goals with
respect to the systemic impacts of the totality of release/detention
decisions in the jurisdiction (see "Implementing Pretrial Release
Guidelines: Philadelphia's Experience").

Providing Information and Recommendations to the Court 

All pretrial services programs provide background information to the court
on defendants they have interviewed, and most also make
recommendations concerning conditions that could be imposed to help
minimize risks of flight and dangerousness.

Reports to the court vary widely in format and mode of presentation. In
some jurisdictions, a very detailed written narrative is prepared, but in
most courts a fairly simple short form report is used. Typically, the report
will include a summary or outline of the basic information the program
has obtained from the defendant and other sources, with brief notes about
factors that program staff want to bring to the court's attention. The
recommendations section of the report, if there is one, may also suggest
conditions of release that will help minimize the risks that have been
identified. For example, if the defendant has a history of drug or alcohol
abuse, the program might recommend periodic drug testing plus
participation in a substance abuse treatment program. If the offense
charged involves domestic violence, the program might recommend that
release be conditioned on the defendant's having no contact with the
complainant while the case is pending.

In both examples, the pretrial services program also may be able to
suggest specific options. Drug court may be a possibility for the substance
abuser, or there may be an outpatient or residential substance abuse
treatment program with an available slot. For the defendant charged with
domestic violence, program staff can verify the existence of an alternative
residence and perhaps arrange for use of an electronic surveillance device
that will help ensure that the "stay away" condition is met.

Although the NAPSA Standards call for a representative of the pretrial
services program to be available at the time the initial release/detention
decision is made by a judicial officer, data from NAPSA's 1989 survey
indicate that this occurs in only about 60 percent of the State and local
jurisdictions that have pretrial programs.[4] Those who advocate the
presence of an agency representative in court point to three functions that
the staff member can perform:

o Present the information and recommendation(s) to the court.

o Respond to any recommendations or questions about the information
asked by the court, prosecutor, or defense counsel.

o Once the release/detention decision is made, explain any conditions of
release and sanctions for noncompliance to the defendant and ensure that
the defendant knows of the next court date and other requirements.

When a program representative is not present in court, the reason is
generally lack of staff or scheduling conflicts, but sometimes this is a
conscious policy choice on the part of the program. Programs that use an
objective risk assessment scheme (e.g., a point scale or pretrial release
guidelines) often feel that the objective data are sufficient, and these
programs are less likely to have a representative in court than programs
that rely on subjective risk assessments or some combination of objective
and subjective approaches.

Supporters of pretrial services programs disagree on the advisability of
making specific recommendations to the court. The NAPSA Standards
support recommendations, and, in fact, in the 1989 NAPSA survey more
than 70 percent of the State and local programs and 95 percent of the
Federal programs routinely made recommendations concerning defendants
they had interviewed.[5] Another 20 percent of the State and local
programs and 5 percent of the Federal programs made recommendations
when asked to do so by the court in specific cases.

Critics of the practice argue that making recommendations amounts to
advocacy concerning release or detention, and that advocacy should be left
to the prosecutor and defense counsel. Critics also note that some types of
information that are relevant to the release/detention decision--including
information about the circumstances of the offense, the weight of the
evidence, and the likelihood of conviction--are generally not available to
pretrial services program personnel, resulting in recommendations based
on incomplete information. The more appropriate role for the program,
they maintain, is simply to provide information about the defendant and
about possible release options, organized in a fashion that will help the
judicial officer make a sound decision. This approach would not preclude
pretrial services programs from analyzing the available information, but it
would more clearly separate the program's information-gathering and
analysis functions from the judicial decisionmaking process that provides
for input from prosecution and defense. 

Proponents of recommendations maintain that they are a logical extension
of the risk assessment process. Presenting recommendations, they note,
simply informs the court of how the risks of flight and pretrial crime can
be minimized if the defendant is released and indicates whether--on the
basis of information known to the program--the risks are manageable.
Proponents recognize that there may be other information, not available to
the pretrial services program, that can affect the decision. It is also
possible to develop recommendations that are based on analysis of both
the types of information typically collected by pretrial services agencies
and the information ordinarily presented by prosecutors. That is the
approach taken in the pretrial release guidelines system used in
Philadelphia, where the guidelines matrix score reflects both the
seriousness of the offense and the predicted risk of flight or pretrial crime.

------------------------------

Notes

1. National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA),
Performance Standards and Goals for Pretrial Release, Standard III,
Washington, DC: NAPSA, 1978. 

2. Ibid., commentary to Standard XI.

3. NAPSA Survey Report, 72-76.

4. Ibid., 88-89. 

5. Ibid., 67-68.

------------------------------

Obtaining Information for Release/Detention Decisionmaking in Domestic
Violence Cases

Cases involving charges of assault or battery committed by a person who
lives with or is closely related to the victim pose particular challenges for
the courts and for pretrial services programs. As understanding of the
pervasiveness and seriousness of domestic violence has increased in recent
years, some pretrial services programs have developed special procedures
to obtain relevant information for judicial officers who must make
decisions about pretrial release or detention in these cases. The Kentucky
Pretrial Services Agency, for example, has developed a special addendum
to its standard defendant interview form for use only in cases in which
charges involve violence or threats of violence. The addendum includes
questions designed to provide information to the judicial officer about--

o Whether the defendant lives with (or has lived with) the alleged victim
and, if so, for how long.

o The defendant's relationship with the alleged victim, as described by
the defendant.

o Whether the defendant believes the relationship will continue.

o Whether the defendant or the alleged victim has filed for divorce and,
if so, when.

o Whether the defendant and the alleged victim have children in
common. 

o Whether the defendant drinks alcohol and, if so, how often.

o Whether the defendant thinks he or she has a substance abuse problem.

o Whether the defendant is currently going to counseling and, if so, what
type of counseling, where, and how frequently.

o Whether the defendant is currently subject to a court order prohibiting
contact with the alleged victim.

o Whether the defendant has previously had a restraining order filed
against him or her.

o Whether the defendant has been charged with violating a restraining
order any time in the past 2 years.

o If the defendant lives with the alleged victim, what alternative
residence the defendant can use while the case is pending.[a]

In addition to interviewing the defendants in cases involving domestic
violence, pretrial services programs can use other sources to find
information directly relevant to the judicial officer's release/detention
decision and the framing of conditions governing release. State criminal
history repositories and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) are
especially important sources of information about defendants in cases
involving domestic violence. Besides maintaining criminal history
information, NCIC also maintains a Protection Order File that can be
accessed to provide information about the existence and nature of any
orders of protection or injunctions against harassment that previously have
been issued against the defendant. In a case involving charges of domestic
violence, the existence of previous or current protection orders against the
defendant is highly relevant to the judicial officer's release/detention
decision and the establishment of conditions of release.

------------------------------

a. Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts, Kentucky Pretrial
Services Manual, Lexington, KY: Kentucky Administrative Office of the
Courts, 1998: 10-12.

------------------------------

Contacting Verification Sources Who Also May Be Victims

A difficult issue facing pretrial services programs in domestic violence
cases is whether program staff members should have any contact with the
alleged victim and, if so, for what purposes and with what limitations.
When the defendant and the alleged victim live together, the latter often
will be the most logical person to verify information elicited in the
defendant interview. Additionally, a domestic violence victim's views
about releasing the defendant and about possible conditions of release
(including the defendant's living situation and the inclusion of orders of
protection) are highly relevant to the judicial officer's decision. However,
some pretrial practitioners feel that a policy of contacting the alleged
victim may undermine the program's capacity to work effectively with
defendants, both in obtaining information in initial interviews and in
subsequently monitoring compliance with conditions of release. In
jurisdictions that have a separate victim assistance program, that program
can interview the alleged victim and provide information directly to the
court without the pretrial services program having to be in contact with
both parties.

------------------------------

 Exclusionary Policies

The 1989 national survey of pretrial release programs found that a high
percentage of programs excluded some defendants from the interview
process. Overall, 63 percent of the State and local programs automatically
excluded certain categories of defendants from being interviewed, solely
on the basis of the charges against them. Charge-related exclusions were
mostly for charges of violent offenses, distribution or sale of drugs, and
probation and parole violations. Additionally, many programs
automatically excluded defendants charged with drunk driving or with a
record of prior failures to appear. The reasons given for the exclusionary
policies include State statutes, policies established by the local court, and
program staff limitations.[a] 

Commentary to the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies
Standards cautions that "the offense charged may have no effect on the
likelihood of appearance in court or committing pretrial crime," taking 
the position that "no person should be excluded from release consideration
solely on the basis of the offense charged." As this commentary suggests,
the effect of broad exclusionary policies is likely to mean the unnecessary
detention of persons who are unable to make even a low money bail but
who do not pose serious risks of flight or dangerousness.

------------------------------

a. Segebarth, K.L., Pretrial Services and Practices in the 1990s: Findings
From the Enhanced Pretrial Service Project, Washington, DC: National
Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA), 1991: 44-51. The
survey, conducted in 1989, obtained responses from 201 State and local
pretrial services programs and 64 Federal programs. The report of survey
findings is hereafter cited as NAPSA Survey Report.

------------------------------

Using Videoconferencing for Defendant Interviews and Reports to the
Court

The rapid development of video technology makes it possible to conduct
interviews of newly arrested defendants very shortly after arrest, even
though the arrestee may be in a distant location. This is a particular
advantage in rural areas, where low case volume may make it difficult to
maintain full-time staff to conduct interviews and provide other pretrial
services. The technology can also be used in large urban areas, however,
where newly arrested persons are held in separate police lockups.

In the Sixth Judicial District of Virginia, videoconferencing is used to
conduct interviews of newly arrested defendants in a three-county area that
covers approximately 1,400 square miles. The video equipment is located
in each of the three jails in the district and in the office of Southside
Community Corrections and Pretrial Services, located in the town of
Emporia. A single pretrial services officer conducts interviews with
defendants in each jail beginning at 6 a.m. After the information is verified
(usually by phone), the officer faxes a report and recommendations to the
clerk of each court in which there will be an initial appearance calendar.
The courtrooms in each county are also part of the videoconferencing
network, so the pretrial officer can also be available by video to answer
questions or to provide additional information the judicial officer requests.

A similar approach is used in Monroe County, Florida, for persons
arrested over the weekend in the Middle and Upper Keys. Interviews and
initial arraignments are conducted by video; the pretrial services officer is
based in the program's office in Key West.

The use of videoconferences as a mechanism for conducting interviews is
not limited to rural areas. As noted in chapter 1, Philadelphia's pretrial
services program now conducts about 60 percent of its interviews by
video. Program administrators expect to be doing all or virtually all of the
interviews via video in the near future.

Whether video interviewing is done in a rural or urban area, the ground
rules for conducting the interview are basically the same as for conducting
inperson interviews. It should be made clear to the defendant that the
interview is voluntary and that the results will be used to help the judicial
officer make decisions concerning pretrial detention or release.
Furthermore, the interview should be conducted in a secure, private
setting.

------------------------------

Cautions to Defendants Being Interviewed-and to Interviewers

District of Columbia pretrial officers are trained to tell defendants that a
judicial officer will use the information they provide to decide whether to
release them. Officers also inform defendants that the interview is
voluntary and that the information will not be used later to prove the
defendant guilty. Interviewers are cautioned--

o Not to discuss the charge.
o Not to develop any kind of relationship with the defendant beyond the
interview's purpose. 
o To complete a disclosure form if the interviewer knows the defendant.

------------------------------

Conducting Defendant Interviews: Practical Suggestions for Pretrial
Interviewers

A number of pretrial services programs have prepared manuals or
guidelines designed to help staff members conduct effective interviews.
Suggested interview techniques include the following:

o Maintain control of the interview, but do not intimidate or bully the
defendant. More information is obtained at this stage by a friendly
interviewer, especially in jurisdictions where defendants can opt out of
the pretrial services interview. If the defendant is truly uncooperative,
come back after he or she has cooled down.

o Be prepared to clarify standard interview questions by rephrasing.
Even where an interpreter is not required, many defendants have had less
education than the average person. Many are unfamiliar with the 
stylized language of the criminal justice process. Interviewers need to
adapt standard questions to get through to defendants.

o Do not permit the defendant to sidetrack the interview by providing
irrelevant information. Experienced interviewers can help new staff hone
their skills in directing the conversation toward obtaining needed
information. Remind defendants that the purpose of the interview is to
provide the court with information that may support their release.

o Do not provide legal advice. Even if defendants are aware that the
interviewer is not a lawyer, they may assume that, since the interviewer
works in the justice system, he or she is a good source of either legal 
advice or inside information on how the system actually works. For
example, a defendant might ask whether the judge is a lenient or harsh
sentencer or whether the interviewer thinks a plea to a lesser charge
would result in a specific sentence. Interviewers need to say that these
are questions they cannot answer and instruct defendants to discuss these
matters with their lawyers.

o Do not recommend an attorney or comment on the qualifications of
specific attorneys. Recommending an attorney compromises the
professional stature and independence of the agency. Furthermore,
commenting on attorney qualifications is unprofessional and is likely to
lead to severe criticism of the interviewer.

o Do not discuss information about the offense charged. This is a subject
for discussion between the defendant and counsel, or for the police or
prosecutor to address.

o Do not argue with the defendant. If a defendant appears to be providing
contradictory answers or to be omitting essential details, the interviewer
can confront the defendant about the discrepancies or omissions but 
should do so professionally.

o Do not complete answers for defendants who hesitate on specific
questions. Suggesting responses diminishes the likelihood of obtaining
reliable information in a situation that already may motivate some 
defendants to fabricate.

------------------------------

Verification Strategies and Techniques

In a 1996 Program Training Supplement, the Pretrial Services Resource
Center (PSRC) provides useful guidance for pretrial services program staff
involved in interviewing defendants and verifying information.[a] PSRC
emphasizes that pretrial services agencies should attempt to verify at least
the following information:

o Address.
o Length of residence in a particular county or city.
o Means of support and education.
o Drug or alcohol use and substance abuse treatment history.

PSRC has a number of useful suggestions for verifying this information:

o After completing the interview, pretrial staff should obtain from the
defendant the names of potential references, each reference's relationship
to the defendant, and a telephone number where each reference can 
be reached.

o At a minimum, pretrial staff should try to obtain at least three reference
sources, each with a different phone number.

o Staff should be particularly mindful to verify information that is
directly related to a recommendation for release. For example, if the
program is considering recommending release contingent on the
defendant living at a certain residence, staff must determine whether the
placement is acceptable to the owner of the residence.

o The verifying source should be advised of the identity of the agency,
the identity of the staff member placing the call, and the identity of the
defendant who has provided the source's name to verify information that
may affect the court's decision concerning release.

o The verifying source should be told that participation is voluntary.

o Every effort should be made to avoid leading the verifying source and
thus to ensure independent responses. Verbatim quotes may be
appropriate.

------------------------------

a. Kennedy, S., D.A. Henry, J. Clark, and J. Juszkiewicz, Pretrial Issues:
Pretrial Release and Supervision Program Training Supplement,
Washington, DC: Pretrial Services Resource Center, 1996: 23-26.

------------------------------

Implementing Pretrial Release Guidelines: Philadelphia's Experience

The pretrial release guidelines used in Philadelphia are not meant to be
straitjackets. Bail commissioners and judges are free to depart from them
in making release/detention decisions in specific cases, but they are
expected to follow the guidelines in the great majority of cases. This has,
in fact, happened in Philadelphia, where the guidelines approach
implemented in 1995 was designed primarily to maintain a level of release
at least as high as the level required by the emergency procedures put in
place by a Federal court in 1987, while greatly reducing the high FTA and
rearrest rates that had been associated with the emergency procedures. The
commissioners charged with release/detention decisionmaking in the
Philadelphia Municipal Court followed the presumptive option in more
than 60 percent of the cases during the first year of implementation. One
result of the new approach was a sharp reduction in the FTA rate, from
nearly 50 percent under the federally imposed emergency procedures to
approximately 25 percent during the first year of the new program. At the
same time, the system was able to maintain the jail population at a stable
level.[a]

A major advantage of the guidelines approach is that it enables analysis of
pretrial release outcomes by category of defendant, so that policymakers
and practitioners can learn the results of specific approaches for handling
defendants with particular charge and risk characteristics. The resulting
feedback enables the policy group to adjust the guidelines if necessary,
focusing on how to address issues posed by defendants in one or a few of
the 40 categories. The feedback may also suggest changes in operational
policies, such as the timing or nature of specific supervisory activities. In
Philadelphia, for example, researchers found that defendants who appeared
at a pretrial services orientation meeting scheduled a few days after release
date were far more likely to appear for scheduled court dates than those
who did not. The finding suggests the importance of the orientation
meeting and also points to a possible need to revise operating procedures
for identifiable categories of defendants who tend to skip this meeting.[b]

A key feature of the guidelines approach in Philadelphia has been the close
collaboration between researchers and criminal justice policymakers. The
court policy group has applied research findings in developing the
guidelines matrix and in shaping the release and supervision options
available for defendants who fall into each category on the matrix.
Because the recommendations for each defendant reflect the considered
judgments of experienced judges and other practitioners as to how to deal
with similar cases, they have a high degree of acceptance by judicial
officers responsible for the release/detention decision.

------------------------------

a. Goldkamp, J.S., M.K. Harris, and M. White, Pretrial Release and
Detention During the First Year of Pretrial Release Guidelines in
Philadelphia-Review and Recommendations, Philadelphia: Crime and
Justice Research Institute, 1997: 7-18.

b. Ibid., 25-27.

------------------------------

Chapter 3
Pretrial Supervision Strategies: Risk Management for the Released
Defendants

Key Points

o Defendants on pretrial release pose two main types of risks:
nonappearance for scheduled court dates and commission of pretrial
crime. Pretrial services programs, working with the courts and other
justice system agencies, can help manage and minimize these risks.

o The reasons for nonappearance vary widely, but the majority of
defendants who fail to appear will return to court once contacted.

o Pretrial services programs use three main approaches to manage the
risk that some defendants may fail to appear for scheduled court events:

--Gathering information relevant to assessing the risk of nonappearance
and initiating followup action if a court date is missed.

--Using monitoring and reminder techniques to try to anticipate and
avoid nonappearance.

--Immediately contacting a defendant who misses a court appearance to
resolve the problem and minimize disruption of the court process.

o Pretrial services programs manage the risks to public safety by doing
the following:

--Monitoring released defendants' compliance with conditions designed
to minimize the risk of pretrial crime.

--Providing direct "intensive" supervision of some categories of
defendants. 

--Responding promptly to information indicating a defendant has
violated conditions imposed by the court.

o Conditions of release should be related to the type of risk posed by the
released defendant. Examples of types of conditions used include the
following:

--Requirements for phone or inperson check-ins with the pretrial services
program.

--Restrictions on a defendant's movements, including curfews, "stay
away" orders, and electronic monitoring and house arrest.

--Testing and treatment for drug and alcohol abuse.

o Defendants with substance abuse and mental health problems make up
a significant proportion of court caseloads and jail population. The key
roles that pretrial services programs can play in developing innovative
programs to deal effectively with these persons include the following:

--Obtaining essential information about their substance abuse and mental
health problems.

--Assessing the nature and extent of the risks of flight and dangerousness
posed by these defendants, taking into account the defendants'
substance abuse and mental health needs and the clinical and
programmatic resources that can be used to help address the needs if
the defendant is released.

--Monitoring the defendants' compliance with any conditions of release.

--Coordinating the provision of treatment and other services to these
defendants.

------------------------------

This chapter focuses on ways in which pretrial services programs, working
closely with the courts they serve and with other justice system agencies,
can help to manage and minimize the two key risks--nonappearance and
dangerousness--that are of greatest concern to policymakers in developing
pretrial release policies and practices.

The risks that defendants will fail to appear in court, intimidate victims or
other witnesses, or commit crimes while on release vary across a broad
spectrum of probability. Most defendants fall somewhere in the middle of
the risk spectrum: While they are not appropriate candidates for
completely unrestricted release, neither are they so dangerous (or so likely
to flee the jurisdiction) that they need to be jailed prior to trial. The
challenge for pretrial services--indeed, for the entire criminal justice
community, especially the judges and other judicial officers who are
ultimately responsible for the release/detention decision--is to find risk
management strategies and techniques that will be effective for these
middle-ground defendants and thereby minimize the use of pretrial
incarceration.

Managing the Risk of Nonappearance 

Pretrial services programs manage the risk that some defendants will fail
to appear for scheduled court events in three main ways:

o Gathering and periodically updating information relevant to assessing
the risk of nonappearance and initiating followup action if necessary.

o Using a variety of monitoring and reminder techniques to try to
anticipate and avoid possible nonappearance problems.

o Immediately contacting a defendant who misses an appearance to
resolve the problem and minimize disruption of the court process.

Information: The foundation for managing risk of flight

When released defendants miss a court appearance, it is often not because
they are fleeing from prosecution but, rather, for other reasons ranging
from genuine lack of knowledge about the scheduled date to forgetfulness
(see "And Then the Dog Ate My Subpoena"). Nevertheless, the missed
appearance disrupts the court's schedule, delays the case, inconveniences
victims and other witnesses, and wastes valuable time. Many of the
problems caused by defendants failing to appear can be minimized by
improving communication between the court and the defendant, with
pretrial services playing a key role in the process (see "Minimizing
Failures to Appear"). 

The foundation for good communication is the information the pretrial
services program staff gathers-especially information about the names,
addresses, and phone numbers of the defendant, the defendant's spouse and
other family members, and the defendant's employer. Once a defendant is
placed on pretrial release, this basic information is supplemented by
information related to the following: 

o The defendant's compliance with requirements for phone and inperson
check-ins with the pretrial services program.

o The defendant's compliance with other conditions of release, such as
providing urine samples for drug tests, participating in a drug or alcohol
treatment program, and obeying a curfew.

o Upcoming court dates for the defendant. 

o The defendant's appearance record for scheduled court dates.

Monitoring and reminder strategies

The check-in procedures used by many pretrial services programs provide
opportunities for program staff to remind defendants of upcoming court
dates and tell them where to go at the courthouse. During a check-in call
or visit to the program's office, program staff can inquire about changes in
address or employment and obtain updated information regarding where
and how to contact the defendant. The check-ins also help defendants
realize that the court is serious about expecting them to appear when
scheduled. Practitioners note that defendants are quick to perceive how a
system really operates--whether a system is too overworked to care if
certain "nonserious" defendants show up or, conversely, whether it has the
determination to stay in contact with defendants, enforce its orders, and
maintain its schedules.

Comprehensive pretrial services programs take advantage of each and
every contact with defendants to remind them of their obligations and
update the program's own information base. In the District of Columbia,
for example, defendants reporting for drug testing are also reminded of
their upcoming court dates and other release conditions. Their current
addresses are routinely double-checked to ensure accuracy or to discover
changes. Defendants responding to telephone curfew checks are also
reminded of their court dates and asked the same questions regarding the
addresses and phone numbers where they can be contacted. If the
defendant does abscond, the documented evidence of multiple reminders
can be used in subsequent "bail jumping" prosecutions, further reinforcing
the accountability the public expects.

Followup on no-shows

As any dental office receptionist can attest, some people do not appear for
appointments regardless of reminders. Pretrial services programs that have
established specialized failure-to-appear units universally report that most
wayward defendants are not "on the lam" but, rather, can be quickly
reached at home or at work.

Once contacted, defendants--even those with outstanding bench
warrants--often can be persuaded that their best option is to turn
themselves in before they are arrested. Of course, judges whose calendars
have been disrupted because a defendant fails to show up are entitled to an
explanation. Pretrial services agencies, in their role as neutral gatherers of
information, can be helpful in investigating the circumstances of the
no-show and verifying any explanation of the behavior. Sometimes staff
can corroborate an excuse directly from the agency's existing records-for
example, finding out whether a data entry mistake was made while
recording the next court date. Regardless of whether an excuse is valid,
program staff personnel can also provide information regarding the
defendant's willingness to come to court once contacted about a failure to
appear. 

Managing Risks to Public Safety 

The possibility that a released defendant will commit a crime--especially a
violent offense--is undoubtedly the risk of greatest concern to the judicial
officer who must make the release/detention decision, to other justice
system practitioners, and to the general public. Since the accuracy of no
risk assessment instrument or approach is even close to 100 percent, any
jurisdiction that releases a significant number of defendants during the
pretrial period must seek to manage the risk that such release poses to
public safety (see "Using Research to Help Develop Knowledge and
Shape Pretrial Release Supervision Policy and Practice").

A pretrial services program's capacity for direct super-vision of released
defendants is often limited by both lack of law enforcement powers and
lack of resources. Nevertheless, the program can play an important role in
managing the risk to public safety by--

o Monitoring released defendants' compliance with court-imposed
conditions that are designed to minimize the risk of pretrial crime.

o Providing direct "intensive" supervision of some categories of
defendants.

o Responding promptly to violations of conditions of release.

Monitoring conditions of release

Judicial officers can establish a wide variety of conditions of release, only
some of which are within the capacity of a pretrial services program to
monitor. Examples of release conditions that pretrial programs have been
asked to monitor include restrictions on movement, "stay away"
conditions, curfews, and house arrest and electronic monitoring.

Restrictions on movement usually require a defendant to live in a
designated area and to stay away from certain neighborhoods or
high-crime areas. For example, the U.S. Pretrial Services Agency for the
District of Oregon supervises a number of defendants charged with
gang-related crimes who, as a condition of release, are barred from the
neighborhoods of rival gangs. 

Stay-away conditions are typically imposed in domestic violence cases or
cases in which the defendant is ordered to avoid the alleged victim of the
crime and any witnesses. In Tucson, Arizona, the Pima County Pretrial
Services Agency not only monitors defendants' compliance with such
conditions but also helps find alternative housing for defendants who must
vacate their own homes as a condition of release. In Cincinnati, Ohio, the
Hamilton County Department of Pretrial Services uses a monitoring
device that is placed within an electronic bracelet. If the defendant
approaches a residence that he or she is supposed to stay away from, an
electronic receiver in the home warns the alleged victim and signals a
monitoring station that alerts the local police.

Curfews seek to reduce the potential risk that defendants will engage in
criminal behavior by limiting the amount of time they spend in the
community. To be effective, curfews must be monitored, and pretrial
services programs do this in a variety of ways. In Santa Clara County,
California, the Office of Pretrial Services relies on correctional officers at
the local jail to make telephone calls to defendants with curfew conditions.
In the same State, the San Mateo County Bar Association Release on Own
Recognizance Program, which operates 24 hours a day, uses its own staff
to contact defendants and to ensure that curfews are observed.

House arrest and electronic monitoring prevent defendants from leaving
home unless the court or the supervising pretrial services agency gives
permission. In the U.S. District Court for Oregon, if a defendant who is
under house arrest or on electronic monitoring leaves home without
permission, a private-sector monitoring company under contract to the
court notifies the pretrial services agency on a 24-hour basis. The duty
officer then attempts to resolve the issue by telephone. If it appears that the
defendant has left the residence, the officer immediately goes to the home,
accompanied by a U.S. marshal, to determine the defendant's status.

Direct supervision 

No pretrial services program has the capacity to directly supervise released
defendants around the clock. However, some programs have developed a
supervision capacity that, for certain categories of cases, goes well beyond
simply monitoring defendants' compliance with conditions imposed by the
court. The District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency, for example,
uses drug testing and a halfway house to help supervise relatively
high-risk defendants (see "Using Drug Testing as a Tool for Risk
Assessment and Risk Management"). Effective supervision often involves
collaboration with other agencies.

To some extent, direct supervision is simply a more intensive form of
monitoring of release conditions--for example, frequent check-ins and
drug tests at the pretrial services agency, requirements for participation in
drug treatment sessions that occur several times a week with attendance
reported promptly to the pretrial services program, required residency in a
halfway house, or curfew checks by program staff. Often, effective
supervision involves monitoring by the pretrial services agency
supplemented by operational collaboration with other agencies, such as the
police (residential curfew checks) or jail officials (correctional officers
telephoning defendants who have curfew requirements, as in Santa Clara
County).

Responding to violation of release conditions

Some released defendants will fail to comply with their conditions of
release. The pretrial services program's credibility and effectiveness within
the criminal justice community depends to a significant extent on how it
responds to such failures because violations of release conditions are often
a precursor to FTA or criminal conduct. Responding quickly demonstrates
that the defendant's activities are being monitored and that noncompliance
will result in swift action (see "Learning From Drug Court's Immediacy").

Not every violation of a condition of release must be reported to the court.
Indeed, judges generally are not interested in holding hearings on reports
of minor infractions of release conditions. For example, if a released
defendant misses a telephone check-in appointment, the pretrial services
program staff should promptly contact the defendant but probably need
not inform the court. A clear explanation to the defendant of the need for
compliance with the check-in requirement, perhaps coupled with a
requirement for more frequent check-ins, may be more effective than a
report to the court that could set in motion a revocation of release. 

The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA)
Standards recommend that the pretrial services agency exercise some
discretion in evaluating the seriousness of any noncompliance, taking into
account the nature of the condition, the reason for noncompliance, and the
seriousness of the violation.[1] Thus, while a single missed telephone
check-in might not require a report to the court, repeated failure to check
in would indicate a need for court action.

The Pretrial Services Resource Center recommends that, consistent with
the NAPSA Standards, programs should collaborate with the courts to
develop standard procedures for responding to violations, including
procedures for--

o Handling minor violations without reporting them to court.

o Submitting written reports to the court on more serious violations.

o Sending written notice of the alleged violation to the defendant, the
defendant's attorney, and the prosecutor.

o Conducting court hearings on more serious violations, with notice of
the hearing dates and the alleged violations sent to the defendant, the
defendant's attorney, and the prosecutor.[2]

In considering how to respond to a violation, both the pretrial services
program and the court have a range of options that the NAPSA Standards
divide into three general categories:

o Remedial actions designed to address a problem that poses a risk of
nonappearance or pretrial crime--for example, if the program learns that a
defendant has been using drugs or alcohol, remedial action could include
imposition of requirements for drug testing, participation in a drug or
alcohol abuse treatment program, or mental health counseling.

o Restrictive sanctions that limit a defendant's freedom of movement and
associations and may require electronic monitoring or adherence to a
curfew.

o Punitive sanctions that punish the defendant for non-compliance and
may include imposition of a fine or jail sentence.[3] 

As a practical matter, determining effective punitive sanctions can
sometimes be difficult because many jails are overcrowded and many
defendants are indigent. Supervised community service is another possible
sanction for violation of release conditions.

Supervision of Defendants With Special Needs 

Many persons arrested by the police have problems of drug abuse, alcohol
abuse, or mental illness. Arrests for possession of illegal drugs, public
intoxication, and driving while intoxicated (DWI) make up a large
proportion of the total arrests in many jurisdictions, and drug and alcohol
abuse are contributing factors in the commission of many other types of
crimes. A number of jurisdictions report having significant numbers of
mentally disabled persons (some of whom also abuse drugs or alcohol) in
their justice systems. Many of these individuals could be released from jail
before trial if judicial officers responsible for the release/detention
decision had reliable information about the nature and extent of their
problems, and if adequate mechanisms were available to supervise
defendants in the community and provide them with needed services.

For pretrial services programs and the courts they serve, these defendants
pose special challenges. Four sets of operational questions are especially
important in relation to defendants with special needs.

How can program staff learn about the existence of special needs? 

In some instances, the problems and needs of a newly arrested defendant
will be glaringly obvious from physical signs such as slurred or incoherent
speech, glazed eyes, or the odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath.
Sometimes, the nature of the charge--for example, possession of a
controlled substance or DWI--will indicate the existence of a substance
abuse problem and need for treatment. In the District of Columbia and
other jurisdictions that routinely administer drug tests to newly arrested
defendants, positive urine test results will indicate at least the likelihood of
a drug problem. And, as noted in chapter 2, most pretrial services
programs routinely ask defendants during the initial interview about their
physical and mental health, including alcohol and drug abuse. 

Some problems or needs may not be readily apparent and will require
further inquiry. Some programs ask followup questions to develop more
detailed information about substance abuse and physical and mental health
issues and to gain a better sense of the nature and extent of the defendant's
needs. Often, asking a few additional questions of defendants who appear
to have substance abuse or mental health problems can provide valuable
information in making a referral for clinical assessment or in taking other
action.[4] Other special needs are sometimes suggested by defendants'
responses to questions about employment, living situations, and medical
needs. 

How should program staff use information about defendants' substance
abuse and mental health needs in making risk assessments and presenting
information or recommendations to the court? 

The preliminary screening that can be done in a postarrest interview before
a defendant's initial court appearance is, of course, necessarily limited in
scope and depth. It is far short of a clinical assessment, but--if conducted
by a trained interviewer--the screening can help identify problems that can
be addressed through appropriate education or treatment. The screening
can also be an important tool in assessing the nature and extent of the risks
of flight and dangerousness posed by the defendant and in framing
suggestions or recommendations concerning conditions of pretrial release.
Information about a defendant's special needs is only one of many factors
that go into a risk assessment, but knowledge of these needs (and of the
clinical and programmatic resources in the community that could be
applied to help address the needs) will enable the pretrial services program
to suggest realistic options to the courts.

What types of resources can be used to meet the special needs of released
defendants? 

The types of programmatic and clinical resources that can be used to help
provide supervision and meet special needs of released defendants will
vary from one community to another. Courts and pretrial services
programs use several types of programs, and the defendant's participation
in the program generally is one of the conditions of release. 

Halfway houses provide shelter and food for defendants who are homeless
or have no stable community ties. Halfway houses also may provide
counseling and treatment services and may limit the risk of pretrial crime
by reducing the amount of time the defendant spends in an unstructured
setting. The U.S. Pretrial Services Office in the Western District of Texas
makes extensive use of a halfway house in San Antonio under a contract
arrangement. The halfway house provides job placement services; drug
counseling; Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous groups;
and, in conjunction with Pretrial Services and the Bureau of Prisons,
counseling to defendants who are awaiting sentencing. In addition, the
facility has instituted a day reporting program for some defendants.

Testing and treatment for drug and alcohol use are conditions that courts
can impose in cases involving defendants who are known to abuse drugs
or alcohol. Pretrial services programs often play a key role in arranging
different treatment modalities, including detoxification programs,
residential and outpatient facilities, 12-step programs, day-treatment
programs, mentally ill chemically addicted (MICA) programs, methadone
maintenance, and acupuncture. These services are paid for by a variety of
means, including grants, contracts, private health insurance, Medicaid,
veterans' benefits, and occasionally, the defendants themselves. Some
pretrial services agencies use their own personnel to provide limited
treatment, such as group counseling, directly to defendants.

Mental health treatment is available in many communities, and it is
common for pretrial programs to recommend that defendants with mental
disabilities be released on the conditions that they participate in a mental
health treatment program and take prescribed medication. Followup
supervision can help ensure these conditions are met.

Behavior modification programs are rarely used by the courts as a
condition of pretrial release because participation may be seen as an
admission that the defendant has committed the behavior of which he or
she has been accused. Nevertheless, some pretrial services agencies
provide such programs directly or make referrals, normally on a voluntary
basis. For example, the Salt Lake City Pretrial Services Agency provides
an anger management class once a week for defendants charged with
domestic violence. The San Mateo County Bar Association Release on
Own Recognizance Program refers defendants to a private treatment
program contracted by the county to provide anger management treatment
to pretrial defendants. Most defendants referred have been charged with
domestic violence, and they attend until their cases are closed. 

Employment training and placement services are another resource that can
be used for defendants on conditional release. Unemployment is often
associated with criminal behavior, and provision of job training--whether
in house or on a referral basis--can help meet the needs of jobless
defendants. For example, the U.S. Pretrial Services Agency for the
Southern District of New York has been developing its own in-house
employment placement program. Program elements include a
comprehensive directory of job placement services, access to the New
York State Department of Labor's computerized job bank, and an
employment referral service. An employment readiness group assists
defendants in writing resumes, preparing for interviews, and assessing
career potential. 

What role should program staff play in monitoring and supervising special
needs defendants who are released conditionally? 

A few pretrial services programs provide a broad range of services for
defendants with special needs. The District of Columbia Pretrial Services
Agency routinely administers drug tests for defendants who are released
on the condition that they participate in a program that includes periodic
reporting and urine testing. In Milwaukee, the pretrial services program
(Wisconsin Correctional Services) conducts an intensive supervision and
treatment program for defendants charged with a second offense of DWI
that includes outpatient therapy, participation in self-help groups,
attendance at victim-impact panels, random alcohol and drug testing, and
telephone and inperson contacts with program staff. 

The Milwaukee program also provides in-house clinical mental health
treatment for some categories of defendants, using staff psychiatrists and
nurses, dispensing medicine from its own pharmacy, and providing
housing for program participants. The scope of the Milwaukee program's
services is exceptional, however. In most jurisdictions, the role of a
pretrial services program simply involves maintaining contact with the
defendant (and sometimes with a treatment provider) to ensure that the
defendant is complying with required participation in the program and
reporting to the court on an "as needed" basis.

During the past decade, many jurisdictions have developed drug and other
innovative programs designed to deal with some categories of defendants
who have substance abuse and mental health problems. Where pretrial
services programs have existed in the jurisdiction, they have generally
played key roles in the design and implementation of these
innovations--primarily because of their capacity to obtain, analyze, and
transmit information rapidly about newly arrested defendants to judicial
decisionmakers. As the scope of these programmatic innovations expands
in future years, the potential role of pretrial services programs--helping to
identify eligible defendants, monitoring compliance with program
conditions, and providing direct supervision and other services in some
instances--is likely to become even more important. Effective performance
of these functions will help achieve five broadly shared policy objectives:

o Reduce unnecessary detention.

o Increase public safety. 

o Reduce jail crowding.

o Reduce substance abuse by program participants.

o Improve participants' mental and physical health.

Interjurisdictional and "Courtesy" Supervision 

Supervision of defendants released by another jurisdiction and permitted
to live outside the jurisdiction of arrest has become an increasingly
significant part of the risk management work of some pretrial services
programs. Federal pretrial services agencies provide such courtesy
supervision for each other as a matter of national policy, and the NAPSA
Standards recommend that all pretrial services agencies make
arrangements to call on each other for assistance in both factual
investigations and supervision of released defendants when necessary.

Interjurisdictional supervision is especially important when a defendant
lives in a county or State other than the one in which the arrest took place.
As noted in commentary to the NAPSA Standards, judicial officers are
much more likely to release transients on nonfinancial conditions if a
background check has been done and agreement for supervision of the
transient defendant has been reached with the pretrial services program in
the defendant's home jurisdiction.[5]

------------------------------

Notes

1. National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA),
Performance Standards and Goals for Pretrial Release, commentary to
Standard X, Washington, DC: NAPSA, 1978.

2. Kennedy, S., D.A. Henry, J. Clark, and J. Juszkiewicz, Pretrial Issues:
Pretrial Release and Supervision Program Training Supplement,
Washington, DC: Pretrial Services Resource Center, 1996: 49.

3. NAPSA, Performance Standards and Goals for Pretrial Release,
commentary to Standard VI.

4. For examples of tools that programs can use to help identify some
special needs, see Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Simple
Screening Instruments for Outreach for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse
and Infectious Diseases--Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) no. 11,
Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1994.

5. NAPSA, Performance Standards and Goals for Pretrial Release,
commentary to Standard IX.

------------------------------

"And Then the Dog Ate My Subpoena"

In 1995, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel chronicled excuses defendants
offered for not appearing for scheduled court events:

The hard-working staff in Milwaukee County's intake court has heard
nearly every possible excuse [to explain] why people missed court dates
and had to be dragged in on a warrant. Last month they decided to start
keeping track of them. The no. 1 reason: 33 people said illness prevented
them from coming to court. That was followed by "I was in jail" (22
people); "I forgot" (20); "I did not know when to come back" (20); 
"I was here" (18); "I don't know" (17); "I had a death in the family" (16);
and "I was working" (14). Five people were afraid to go to jail; three
were in drug treatment; two said a family member had been kidnapped;
two said they were drinking or on drugs; two had a fire in their house.
And one, believe it or not, gave this refreshing answer: "I accept full
responsibility for not showing and have no excuse."

------------------------------

Minimizing Failures to Appear

Rob Schwab, assistant administrator of the Pretrial Services Program in
San Mateo, California, has examined failure-to-appear (FTA) rates and
ways to reduce them:

[D]efendants fail to appear in court for many reasons. While some
defendants willfully fail to appear, for most people the reasons are more
complicated. A defendant may have lost the paperwork on the current
case and have either forgotten s/he must appear or not know whom to
contact to find out where and when to appear. Many defendants do not
understand what they are supposed to do or fully comprehend the
seriousness of the charges against them and the penalties for missing
court. Many defendants are afraid of the criminal justice system and are
too fearful to ask simple questions. Many wrongfully equate a citation to
appear on a misdemeanor as the functional equivalent of a parking
citation. Other defendants think they have a valid excuse because they
must work or have child care or transportation difficulties.

When the San Mateo program realized that it had several categories of
defendants with unacceptably high FTA rates, it initiated some simple
notification and reminder procedures. The procedures led to immediate
and dramatic improvements. According to program director Roman
Duranczyk:

Our research, and research in other jurisdictions, shows that many
failures to appear can be averted by reminding the defendants of their
upcoming court appointments. Under the O.R. [Own Recognizance]
Program court notification system, defendants receive reminders by
phone and letter before every court appearance. The result has been a
significant decrease in the failure to appear rate and subsequent
incarceration of defendants on bench warrants. We have had a positive
effect on both defendants and the criminal justice system by explaining
to these individuals how the system works, answering their questions,
and explaining the importance of coming to court.

------------------------------

Using Research to Help Develop Knowledge and Shape Pretrial Release
Supervision Policy and Practice

As Philadelphia has undertaken major reforms in its pretrial release
practices, including initiation of new pretrial release guidelines,
researchers at the Crime and Justice Research Institute have worked with
policymakers to mount a series of experiments designed to learn more
about how to minimize failure to appear and pretrial crime on the part of
released defendants. In a 1998 report analyzing the results of four
control-group experiments that focused on alternative notification and
supervision practices, the researchers drew two main conclusions: (1) it is
critically important for supervisory staff to have an effective means of
reaching defendants directly to notify them of upcoming court dates and to
respond to noncompliance with conditions of release; and (2) it is essential
to have a system that employs meaningful consequences, imposed quickly
when violations occur or when defendants fail to comply with conditions.
Most of the needed responses, they noted, do not have to include
confinement, but there probably does need to be some capacity to use
confinement selectively.[a]

Reflecting on the lessons learned through these experiments, plus their
understanding of the context in which pretrial release takes place in
Philadelphia, the researchers suggested that the following combination of
elements is likely to be most effective in reducing misconduct on the part
of released defendants: 

o Effective risk assessment to identify defendants who, on the basis of
analysis of previous cases, appear to be at greatest risk of misconduct.
(In Philadelphia, the risk assessment is an integral part of the pretrial
release guidelines process.)

o Implementation of a comparatively simple supervision regimen, with
achievable conditions, very accurate information (including reliable
information on how to contact the defendant directly), and vigilant
monitoring by staff.

o Procedures to ensure that defendants attend the first stage of the
pretrial release orientation process (at which conditions and expectations
are explained by program staff and contact information is confirmed), 
using transportation provided by the police if necessary.

o Rapid followup on instances of noncompliance, including use of a
range of different types of consequences.

o Use of drug treatment as an integral part of pretrial release for
defendants with substance abuse problems.

o Development of partnerships with other entities involved in initiatives
focused on community crime problems--including the police, probation,
and community organizations--to enhance the prospects for effective
community-based supervision.[b]

------------------------------

a. Goldkamp, J.S., and M.D. White, Restoring Accountability in Pretrial
Release: The Philadelphia Pretrial Release Supervision Experiments,
Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research Institute, 1998: 154-157.

b. Ibid., 159-160.

------------------------------

Using Drug Testing as a Tool for Risk Assessment and Risk Management

In 1984, with initial funding from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ),
the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency started a pilot program
to conduct drug testing of defendants. The program had two purposes: 

o To provide better risk assessment information to judicial decisionmakers
by incorporating information about drug test results for newly arrested
defendants into the agency's report presented at the defendant's first 
appearance.

o To enhance available release options by permitting judges to require
periodic drug testing as a condition of release.

The D.C. pilot program had several significant results. First, it
demonstrated that it was feasible to administer drug tests to all newly
arrested defendants using an onsite facility (with the requisite lab
equipment) at the courthouse. Second, researchers found that arrestees
who tested positive were significantly more likely to be rearrested for a
new crime if released. This association was strongest when other risk
factors (such as prior criminal record and unemployment) were not
present. For example, employed persons who tested positive for drug use
were twice as likely to be rearrested as employed persons who tested
negative.

Third, the pilot program provided the foundation for an "intensive
supervision" program designed to enable pretrial release of defendants
who would remain in detention if there was no method to monitor closely
their compliance with release conditions, which included remaining drug
free. The target group for the intensive supervision program consisted of
defendants not released at first appearance. The program components
included residence for at least 2 weeks in a halfway house at the onset of
the release period, twice-weekly drug testing, and immediate action to
return to the halfway house defendants who violated the conditions. 

The intensive supervision program succeeded in meeting three key
objectives: 

o The jail population was reduced, saving jail space. 

o Drug use among the released defendants was low (only 3.5 percent
tested positive for the presence of illegal drugs).

o Although the released defendants were clearly at high risk for pretrial
crime, they had very low rearrest rates--7.8 percent on any charge and
only 3.5 percent on felony charges.

Program administrators in the District of Columbia believe the results
provide two important reasons for pretrial services agencies to conduct
drug testing. First, the results indicate that knowledge about a defendant's
drug use is potentially useful for judges in setting conditions of pretrial
release. Second, the results suggest that drug testing, especially when
coupled with rapid response to violations, can help improve pretrial
monitoring and reduce the risk of criminal behavior by released
defendants.[a] 

Other research has produced less clear-cut results, however. A later
NIJ-sponsored study examined the effectiveness of drug testing with
newly arrested persons as a means of predicting pretrial misconduct at
eight sites, including the District of Columbia. Researchers found that,
although some evidence indicated that drug test results could predict
failure to appear or rearrest for some circumstances and in some of the
sites, the evidence was inconsistent. For some sites, the tests did not
predict either type of misconduct. For others, the test results could predict
either rearrest or failure to appear (FTA), but rarely both. Some evidence
indicated that a positive test for opiates (heroin, for example) would help
predict rearrest and that a positive test for cocaine would help predict
FTA.[b]

While the later NIJ study is inconclusive with respect to the predictive
power of drug testing with new arrestees, proponents of drug testing note
that other key purposes of testing were not addressed in the research.
These purposes include identifying needs for drug treatment at an early
stage of the pretrial process (and thus facilitating the delivery of needed
services, possibly including participation in a drug court program) and
helping to supervise released defendants. The D.C. program continues to
make extensive use of drug testing, both to help set conditions of release
and to monitor compliance with release conditions.

------------------------------

a. Toborg, M., J. Bellassai, A. Yezer, and R. Trost, Assessment of Pretrial
Urine Testing in the District of Columbia, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1989; Visher, C.,
"Using Drug Testing to Identify High-Risk Defendants on Release: A
Study in the District of Columbia," Journal of Criminal Justice 18(4)
(1990); Carver, J., "Pretrial Drug Testing: An Essential Step in Bail
Reform," Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law 5 (1991).

b. Rhodes, W., R. Hyatt, and P. Scheiman, "Predicting Pretrial Misconduct
With Drug Tests of Arrestees: Evidence From Eight Settings," Journal of
Quantitative Criminology 12 (3) (September 1996): 315-346.

------------------------------

Learning From Drug Court's Immediacy

During their short history, drug courts have relied on incremental
sanctions to respond to a program participant's relapse into drug use.
When urine testing shows that a defendant has used drugs in violation of
program conditions, the drug court judge will typically impose a
sanction--for example, require more frequent court appearances, require
more frequent drug testing, order the defendant to spend a day in the jury
box observing drug court proceedings, or order the defendant to spend one
or more nights in jail. The sanction is not necessarily severe, but it is
imposed rapidly (often within a day or two of the positive test result), and
repeated relapses result in progressively more severe sanctions.
(Conversely, when drug court participants show progress by consistently
participating in treatment program activities and testing negative, the
restrictions are relaxed.)

Drug court judges and other practitioners believe that a critical element of
program effectiveness is the immediacy of the court's response. Action is
taken quickly, while the relapse is still fresh in the participant's mind and
the consequences are closely linked to the violation of program conditions.

Many drug courts use a "pre-plea" model, in which drug court participants
are in a pretrial release status and participation in the drug court program
(including compliance with program requirements) is a condition of
release. However, the policy of immediate response to noncompliance and
the use of escalating sanctions need not be limited to participants in a drug
court program. These can be used to help strengthen the credibility of the
regular court and the pretrial services program with respect to use of a
wide range of release conditions.

------------------------------

Chapter 4
Sharing Pretrial Services Information for Use Beyond the
Release/Detention Decision

Key Points

o Information collected by pretrial services programs can be valuable in
the work of other justice system agencies and institutions, including--

--Police departments and other law enforcement agencies in serving
warrants and helping to supervise defendants on conditional release.

--Local corrections agencies in classifying defendants to meet their
medical needs and to allocate space and personnel.

--Courts in imposing sentences and managing special dockets.

--Diversion programs and social service providers in making decisions
about program eligibility and delivery of specific types of services.

o While information sharing can be helpful in achieving many justice
system objectives, the personal information collected by pretrial services
programs is of a very sensitive nature. Pretrial services programs, and
the jurisdictions in which they operate, need to establish policies to
ensure that the information is not misused.

Integrated justice information systems--computer-based systems that
enable instantaneous exchange of information about persons and events
across the boundaries of different agencies and institutions--are now
operational in a few jurisdictions and are being developed in many others.
It is important for pretrial services program administrators to be involved
in developing policies and plans for an integrated system to take advantage
of information-sharing opportunities and to help establish appropriate
safeguards for information that should remain confidential.

------------------------------

The primary function of pretrial services programs is the collection of
information that is mainly used in the pretrial release/detention
decisionmaking process and to monitor compliance with conditions of
release. However, this information often can be valuable to other justice
system agencies. By sharing some types of information while ensuring
appropriate protection for information that should be treated
confidentially, pretrial services programs can significantly contribute to
the administration of justice in ways that extend beyond their core
functions. This chapter describes how information can be shared
productively with other justice system agencies and discusses important
limitations on the dissemination and use of information gathered by
program staff.

Sharing Information With Other Agencies

Pretrial services programs need to know the following to fashion an
effective policy for information sharing:

o What types of information other agencies may need.

o How to exchange the information easily.

o Under what circumstances information collected by the pretrial services
 program should be released to others.

Sharing information with law enforcement agencies

Because pretrial services programs contact many agencies and individuals
in the community to track defendants' whereabouts and activities, law
enforcement agencies may find their information very useful--for example,
for serving warrants on defendants who fail to appear for scheduled court
dates, for locating defendants wanted on other warrants, and for assisting
in the supervision of defendants on conditional release.

Sharing information with law enforcement also can help achieve the goals
of a pretrial services program. Rapid execution of bench warrants issued
when a defendant fails to appear for a scheduled court date--through an
arrest if necessary--contributes to the perception among defendants and the
general public that the system is serious about obligations to return to
court and will act quickly if necessary. This perception can help reduce
failure-to-appear rates. Police officers can also assist programs in verifying
information obtained through interviews with defendants and in
supervising conditions of release. In Kentucky, the statewide pretrial
services agency calls on local police to locate individuals needed for
verification purposes.

Sharing information with jail officials

At some point, generally early in the process, the corrections department
or the sheriff's office will perform its own risk assessment or classification
of defendants who remain in jail pending trials. This process typically
involves examining the defendant's prior criminal record, demographic
information, and need for medical or substance abuse treatment services.
Often, the process duplicates much of the information gathering already
performed by pretrial services interviewers.

By sharing its information with jail classification staff, the pretrial services
program can save time and avoid duplication of effort. Sharing this
information can be especially valuable when an arrestee needs
detoxification or other medical services. In Cincinnati, the intake
information gathered by the Hamilton County Department of Pretrial
Services is the primary source of information for jail classification. In San
Mateo County, California, the Bar Association's Release on Own
Recognizance Program collects the initial intake data and performs the
classification assessment for the sheriff's office. In Philadelphia, the
pretrial services program identifies individuals who seem to exhibit mental
disorders during the initial interview and informs jail officials so that these
persons can receive prompt attention from the jail's psychiatric unit.

Sharing information for sentencing purposes

In addition to using information provided by pretrial services programs for
initial release/detention decisionmaking and for reviewing compliance
with conditions of pretrial release, judicial officers in some courts find the
information can be valuable at the time of sentencing

First, much of the information collected by pretrial services programs
before the initial release/detention decision--including information on
residence, family ties, employment, physical and mental condition, use or
abuse of alcohol or other drugs, and prior criminal record--is identical to
information ordinarily collected by probation staff in preparing
presentence investigation reports. In jurisdictions where information
collected at the pretrial stage is routinely shared with the probation staff,
major cost savings can be achieved by avoiding duplicated work. While
probation staff responsible for presentence reports may need to update the
information and tap some additional resources, the pretrial services
program collects basic information that can serve as a foundation for the
presentence report. Furthermore, in cases where there is no presentence
investigation report (true of a high proportion of misdemeanor
convictions), the pretrial services report can provide valuable information
to the sentencing judge that may not be available from any other source.

Second, when pretrial services programs are responsible for supervising
defendants released on nonfinancial conditions, they routinely collect
monitoring information that can be helpful at sentencing. In Harris
County, Texas, the Pretrial Services Agency prepares almost all of its
information reports in automated format. Staff continue to update the
interview information throughout the pretrial period and include updated
information in the county's Justice Information Management System. The
information is then available to probation staff, the court, and other
criminal justice agencies in the county.

Third, as jurisdictions begin experimenting with "fast tracking" some
types of cases (including felony charge cases), there is growing interest in
using information gathered by pretrial services programs to help shape an
early disposition in lieu of conducting a separate presentence
investigation. Since much of this information is often obtained from
defendants who have not had an opportunity to consult with counsel, this
is an area in which particular attention must be paid to issues of
confidentiality and protection of defendants' due process rights (see
"Potential Uses of Information Collected by Pretrial Services Programs").

As one predictor of postadjudication compliance with conditions of
probation, the defendant's record of compliance with court-ordered
conditions of pretrial release can be of use to judges at sentencing. While
the sentencing judge should take into account factors beyond a defendant's
pretrial "track record," information on compliance with conditions of
pretrial release can add a significant new dimension to the court's final
decision. For example, a defendant who cannot comply with pretrial
conditions--such as observing a curfew or remaining drug free--probably
needs a more structured setting following conviction. Conversely, a
defendant who has adhered to all of the requirements imposed during the
pretrial period has already demonstrated a capacity to comply with
possible probation conditions. 

In some instances, information may suggest the need to continue specific
kinds of social service programs. For example, if a defendant has already
participated in three different drug programs and one program has proved
to be particularly suited to his or her specific treatment needs, this
information can permit a judge to tailor probation conditions to the
individual in a way that otherwise would not be possible. The Maricopa
County (Phoenix), Arizona, Pretrial Services Agency is one of a number
of programs that provide memorandums to the court reporting on the
compliance record of supervised defendants.

Sharing information for use in differentiated case management and in
conducting special dockets

A number of courts have developed forms of differentiated case
management that involve using special dockets to handle particular
categories of cases. Drug courts, in operation in more than 400
jurisdictions as of 1999, are perhaps the best known example. Other
special dockets have been developed for domestic violence cases and for
driving while intoxicated (DWI) and driving under the influence (DUI)
cases.

Typically, these special courts involve a close link between court case
processing and a community-based treatment or other intervention
program. Defendants who meet a set of eligibility criteria can participate
in the special court program, often with an incentive such as dismissal or
reduction of the charge (if it is a pretrial program) or sentence reduction (if
it is a postadjudication program). Pretrial services programs can serve as
frontline screeners for program eligibility for two main reasons: (1) they
have already collected much of the information needed to determine
program eligibility during the initial interview, and (2) they can collect
additional relevant information while interviewing defendants whose
criminal charges make them likely candidates for these programs.
Examples of differentiated case management include the following:

o The District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency uses information
from defendant interviews and drug tests, plus prior record checks, as the
foundation for reports that help judges set conditions of release--including
participation in the Superior Court's drug court program--for
substance-abusing defendants.

o The Berkeley (California) Own Recognizance Project provides the local 
 drug court with information about defendants' criminal records, drug use 
 history, alcohol use, mental health history, and living arrangements to
help the court decide on the eligibility and suitability of potential drug
court participants.

o In New York City, the innovative Midtown Community Court, which
handles misdemeanor and ordinance violation cases stemming from
arrests in midtown Manhattan, uses information provided by the
Criminal Justice Agency (the city's pretrial services agency) at first
appearance to help link defendants with appropriate social services,
including drug, alcohol, and mental health treatment. In addition to
information routinely collected in the pretrial interview, the agency
provides the court with information about the defendant's current and
prior substance abuse and treatment and about other social service needs.

Sharing information with diversion programs and social service providers

In their initial interview and verification process, pretrial services
programs can gather information about the defendant's appearance,
memory, capacity to respond to questions, emotional state, psychiatric
history, and past or current medications. Although this type of information
should not be used as the basis for diagnosis, it can be helpful to jail
officials, the court, prosecution and defense lawyers, and mental health
treatment providers regardless of whether the defendant is released or kept
in detention. For example, the information may suggest the need for a
forensic examination to determine the defendant's capacity to stand trial or
for medication or counseling to enable the defendant to function if
released from custody. 

Pretrial diversion programs provide an option of deferred prosecution for
certain categories of defendants who are willing to participate in some
type of treatment or perform community service. Information gathered and
verified by the pretrial services program can assist the court and diversion
program in determining defendants' eligibility and in preparing case
management plans. 

Sharing information with researchers

Pretrial services program records can be an extraordinarily valuable source
of data for researchers and, of course, for evaluation of the program itself.
The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA)
Standards encourage the use of information about defendants for research,
provided that no defendant can be identified by any label (such as name or
docket number) in the researchers' report.[1]

Limitations on Information Sharing

Information sharing of the type described at the start of this chapter can be
helpful in achieving many justice system objectives, but it is important to
remember that information about the defendant's employment, living
situation, substance abuse history, physical and mental health problems,
and prior criminal history is personal and of a highly sensitive nature.
Furthermore, much of the information is collected initially from
defendants who are emotionally distraught and generally have had no
contact with a defense lawyer prior to the interview. 

While the information obtained through the interview and from other
sources can be valuable for making the release/detention decision and for
setting conditions of release, the pretrial services program and other justice
system policymakers must ensure that the information is not misused (see
"Confidentiality Issues: Setting Limits on the Sharing of Information
Collected by Pretrial Services Programs"). A number of relevant questions 
can arise, including the following:

o What if the defendant makes self-incriminating statements during the
interview?

o What if the defendant admits to a condition, such as drug or alcohol
abuse, that could affect the sentence that would be imposed if there were
a conviction?

o Should the names of persons who have verified information about the
defendant be included in a document that will be part of a public record
if (1) the defendant does not consent, or (2) the verifier does not
consent?

o To what extent should information about the defendant's physical and
mental health be available to persons or agencies not directly involved in
the release/detention decision?

Given the sensitive nature of the information, coupled with the need to
obtain information from defendants who likely would be uncooperative if
they knew that what they said could be made available to others, it is
important for pretrial services programs--and the justice systems within
which they operate--to develop realistic policies that will ensure
appropriate confidentiality and establish limits on information sharing.

A few jurisdictions have done this by court rule. Kentucky's Criminal Rule
4.08, for example, requires that all information collected by the statewide
pretrial services agency be kept confidential except for use by--

o The court in imposing conditions of release.

o Law enforcement officials if the defendant fails to appear.

o The court in reviewing compliance with conditions in connection with
modification of the conditions or sentencing or probation.

o The court in imposing a sentence.

o The probation officer preparing the presentence report or the defense
attorney, at the court's discretion. 

o Evaluators of the pretrial release program, when authorized by order of
the Supreme Court.

State legislators have historically been reluctant to expand the scope of
privileged communications beyond those that exist under common law
(such as husband-wife, patient-doctor, parishioner-clergy). However, it is
possible for pretrial services programs to establish their own
confidentiality policies and to work out agreements with courts and
prosecutors to protect information they have collected from being subject
to subpoena.

The Pretrial Services Resource Center recommends that the information
collected by pretrial services programs generally be treated as confidential,
subject to limited exceptions. In addition to use by courts to make release/
detention decisions and to respond to violations of release conditions, the
Resource Center recommends allowing pretrial information to be used--if
relevant--in perjury proceedings and in situations where it can be applied
to impeach the testimony of a witness, but not for purposes of determining
a defendant's guilt.[2]

Finally, as noted in chapter 2, many pretrial services programs routinely
advise defendants about the extent to which the information they provide
will be treated as confidential, who can have access to it, and how it can be
used.

The Role of Pretrial Services in Integrated Justice Information Systems

There is growing interest in many jurisdictions in the development of
integrated justice information systems--automated systems that enable the
instantaneous exchange of information about persons and events across the
"boundaries" of the different agencies and institutions that make up the
criminal justice system.[3] These systems can eliminate duplicative
information collection and data entry, minimize personnel costs, and provide
decisionmakers with comprehensive and rapid access to information (see "Pretrial
Services Programs as a Central Point of Data Collection in an Integrated Justice
Information Management System: The Harris County Approach"). With
advances in computer technology, the technological barriers to integration-
-such as the use of different computer hardware and software systems by
agencies and institutions involved in the justice system--have become less
formidable. Future obstacles to integration are likely to be more serious at
the policy level--for example, concerns about which agencies should be
part of the integrated system, which agencies have "ownership" of what
data, what information should be shared with other organizations, and
what information should be kept within a single agency--than at the
technical level. New technology will make it feasible both to share
information broadly and to protect the confidentiality of information that
should not be disseminated.

Because pretrial services programs collect a great deal of information that
can be useful for both decisionmaking and investigative purposes, it is
important to consider what role these programs should play--and how the
information they gather should be both used and protected from
inappropriate use--in an integrated system. Pretrial services program
administrators have a responsibility to establish clear policies with respect
to the sharing of information they collect. They must also be prepared to
consider how information that should remain confidential can be protected
when the program functions in an integrated system. Other justice system
administrators and policymakers need to ensure that pretrial services
pro-grams are involved in the discussions and negotiations as policies
governing information sharing in an integrated system are developed.

------------------------------

Notes

1. National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, Performance
Standards and Goals for Pretrial Release, Standard XII, Washington, DC,
1978: NAPSA.

2. Kennedy, S., D.A. Henry, J. Clark, and J. Juszkiewicz, Pretrial Issues:
Pretrial Release and Supervision Program Training Supplement,
Washington, DC: Pretrial Services Resource Center, 1996: 69-71.

3. Justice and Technology in the 21st Century: Findings and
Recommendations from the Report of the National Task Force on Court
Automation and Integration, Sacramento, CA: SEARCH, the National
Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 1998.

------------------------------

Potential Uses of Information Collected by Pretrial Services Programs

Justice system practitioners can use information gathered by pretrial
services programs in many ways, including the following: 

o Jail officials can use the information to--

--Identify defendants in need of detoxification or other medical services.

--Provide a foundation for the jail's own risk assessment and
classification.

o Judicial officers and court staff can use the information to--

--Help set conditions of release.

--Enforce compliance with conditions of nonfinancial release.

--Help identify defendants eligible for diversion programs and for
special dockets (e.g., drug court, driving under the influence (DUI)
court, domestic violence court).

--Link defendants with needed medical and social services.

--Help shape early case dispositions (especially when no separate
presentence investigation report will be prepared).

o Probation departments can use the information to--

--Avoid duplication of work in obtaining basic background information
needed for preparation of presentence investigation reports.

--Learn about performance on pretrial release to help shape
recommendations for presentence investigation reports.

o Police departments can use the information to--

--Locate defendants wanted on warrants issued for failure to appear and
other offenses.

--Monitor the activities of medium- to high-risk defendants on pretrial
release, using information about their residence and the conditions
imposed by the courts.

o Researchers can use the information to--

--Learn about pretrial release/detention practices in the jurisdiction and
about the performance of different categories of defendants released on
nonfinancial conditions.

--Provide feedback to program administrators and other justice system
policymakers.

------------------------------

Confidentiality Issues: Setting Limits on the Sharing of Information
Collected by Pretrial Services Programs

Information collected by pretrial services programs has many uses
unrelated to the release/detention decision or to pretrial supervision of
released defendants:

o In investigating other crimes, police officials may want to use
information regarding the defendant's residence and the names and
phone numbers of the defendant's associates.

o In administrative proceedings or civil lawsuits, welfare agencies and
estranged domestic partners may want to use information about a
defendant's residence, employment, and associates.

o Prosecutors may be interested in a defendant's statements to a program
interviewer, in the results of drug tests for use in prosecuting the
defendant, or in persuading the defendant to become an informer or 
cooperating witness in the prosecution of other persons.

Pretrial services programs have generally taken the position--as set forth in
Standard XII of the NAPSA Standards on Pretrial Release--that
information obtained in the course of the program's investigation and
during postrelease supervision should remain confidential with certain
limited exceptions. A primary concern is that defendants would not
cooperate in the pretrial interview if they knew that information they
provided could be used against them or could be used to investigate their
references. The commentary to NAPSA Standard XII sets forth some
principles that may be used as the basis for developing a workable policy
on information sharing:

o Information obtained during the agency's investigation or during
monitoring of conditions of release should not be admissible on the issue
of innocence or guilt.

o Extraneous prejudicial information (for example, defendants' statements
about arrests that did not result in convictions) should not be included in
reports submitted to the court.

o Information should be given to police to execute warrants for failure to
appear but should be limited to information necessary to execute the
warrant.

o Information about the defendant's behavior and compliance with
release conditions should be available for use in presentence
investigation reports.

o Information that is not already public should not be released to any
individual organization outside the criminal justice system without the
expressed permission of the defendant at or near the time the 
information is to be released.

The pretrial services program should have a written policy on the extent to
which defendants and criminal justice personnel can have access to
defendants' files:

o Information in defendants' files may be used for research, information
management reports, and evaluation, but only if no individual defendant
can be identified in the report of the research.

o Access to agency files for research purposes should be denied except
under close supervision and pursuant to a written agreement setting forth
the purposes of the research and the conditions under which access has
been granted.

o Pretrial services staff and records should not be subject to subpoena,
except for purposes of prosecuting a defendant for noncompliance with
conditions of release.

------------------------------

Pretrial Services Programs as a Central Point of Data Collection in an
Integrated Justice Information Management System: The Harris County
Approach

Interviewers in pretrial services agencies in some large jurisdictions--
including Harris County (Houston), Texas, Maricopa County (Phoenix),
Arizona, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia--now
enter the data online during the interview.

The Harris County automated, integrated Justice Information Management
System illustrates what can be accomplished through use of technology
when the pretrial services agency is the principal entry point for
information into the system. An operations manual for the Harris County
Pretrial Services Agency outlines some key features of the report the
program prepares: 

The report is integral to many criminal justice system processes. It is the
most comprehensive assessment of a defendant's background available at
the probable cause hearing as well as subsequent hearings such as the
preliminary assigned court appearance. To insure the report's availability
at the latter hearing, the Justice Information Management System's
computer is programmed to print two extra copies of the report every
morning at four o'clock. One copy is forwarded to the District Clerk's
office and one to the District Attorney's office. The report becomes part
of the permanent file and is available for review and use at subsequent
proceedings. The report's automated format allows those with clearance
to review updates to the information initially compiled.

The Harris County information management system meets all of the
following expectations for such a system when the pretrial services agency
is the principal group providing the information:

o Speed. Pretrial services interviewers enter the information into the
computer at the same time that they conduct the initial factfinding
interview--ordinarily within 12 hours following arrest and prior to the 
defendant's initial appearance before a magistrate.

o Nonduplication. The integrated approach avoids both duplicative
gathering of the information and reentry of the same data by other
agencies.

o Instant access. Immediate, systemwide online availability of the report
speeds decisionmaking throughout the justice system and should
improve the quality of decisions.

o Data integration. Advances in electronic data interchange technology
make full integration of the entire justice system technologically
feasible.

o Confidentiality not compromised. Security protections can be built into
the integrated automated system to preserve confidentiality by limiting
access to system users approved for access to particular types of
information.

------------------------------

Chapter 5
Looking Toward the Future: Key Issues for Policymakers and
Practitioners 

Key Points

o As of 1999, pretrial services programs were operating in more than 300
State and local jurisdictions and in the Federal system, but many courts
still lacked (1) the essential information typically collected by pretrial
services programs and (2) access to the monitoring and supervision that
pretrial programs provide. Even where pretrial services programs are
well established, many challenges remain.

o Key operational and development issues in the pretrial services field
include the following:

--How to provide effective pretrial services for the increasing number of
juveniles being prosecuted as adults.

--How to use new technology to enhance the quality and effectiveness of
pretrial decisionmaking, supervision, and the provision of needed
services.

--How to develop systems for effectively using delegated release
authority (including field citations, stationhouse release, and release by
jail officials), through linkages between the releasing authorities and
pretrial services programs to minimize failure-to-appear (FTA) rates.

--How to bring effective pretrial services programs to jurisdictions that
do not yet have them.

o With the development of pretrial services programs, increased use of
citation release, and enactment in many States of statutes establishing a
presumption of release on nonfinancial conditions, courts today rely far
less on commercial surety bail than in earlier years. However,
commercial bail remains a frequently used option in most jurisdictions.
Issues related to the continued use of commercial surety bail are likely to
be at the forefront of policy development in the pretrial services field in
the years ahead, with advocates for the commercial bail industry
clashing with proponents of pretrial services programs on a number of
issues. The policy area in which there is perhaps the sharpest
disagreement involves the concept of equal justice. Proponents of the 
surety bail system take the position that arrested persons should be
responsible for the costs of their release. Critics, including proponents of
pretrial services programs, note that under a surety bail system:

--Innocent persons who are arrested must pay the cost of bond despite
their innocence.

--Poor defendants often remain in jail, while affluent defendants facing
similar charges (and with similar prior records) are able to gain their
freedom by posting bond.

--Responsibility for the actual release decision is moved away from a
judicial officer who is accountable to the public to a private
entrepreneur (the bondsman) who is accountable to no one.

o The exercise of judicial discretion has long been at the heart of pretrial
release/detention decisionmaking, but the effects of judicial officers'
unfettered exercise of discretion in this area has begun to be questioned.
One challenge for the future is how to more effectively structure judicial
decisionmaking in the pretrial process without making the process a
mechanical one that eliminates judges' discretion in setting conditions of
release.

o There is a striking lack of recent research on pretrial services programs
and on pretrial release/detention decisionmaking in local jurisdictions.
Although some difficult methodological problems must be overcome, it
is important to begin building a base of current knowledge about key
issues, including the relative effectiveness of different release/detention
strategies and program options. At the national level, pretrial services
program leaders can work with justice system policymakers,
practitioners, and funding agencies to shape a national agenda that
includes focused research in single jurisdictions and multijurisdictional
comparative research.

o Demonstration programs can provide the opportunity to test the
viability of combining new technology with programmatic innovations
to achieve system improvements. Developing and evaluating
demonstration programs that incorporate new technology and the best
current practices used by pretrial services programs naturally
complement a comprehensive research strategy and will provide useful
input for education and training programs.

o If pretrial services programs are to reach their full potential, it will be
important to develop a full range of education and training programs at
every level-national, State, and local. The newly established Pretrial
Justice Institute can serve as a focal point for educational leadership in
the pretrial services field, but the challenge of developing a full range of
programs is one that warrants response from justice system agencies,
professional associations, and funding agencies at every level of
government.

------------------------------

Although pretrial services programs were in operation in more than 300
State and local jurisdictions and in all of the Federal districts in 1999, most
American courts are still making critically important pretrial
release/detention decisions without having either the information that
pretrial services programs typically collect or access to the monitoring and
supervision that these programs can provide. How to bring effective
pretrial services programs to jurisdictions that do not yet have them is one
of the key issues for the future. But, even in jurisdictions where pretrial
services programs are well established, many issues are unresolved and
new challenges continue to arise. This chapter focuses on eight key policy
and operational areas that policymakers and practitioners need to address
to develop the field and implement a full range of effective pretrial release
and supervision policies: 

o Juvenile defendants in adult courts.

o Use of new technology.

o Delegated release authority.

o The role of commercial surety bail.

o Judicial discretion and effective management of release/detention
decisionmaking.

o Research needs.

o Demonstration programs.

o Education and training.

In several of these areas, some pioneering work has already been done, but
there are a great many unanswered questions and much remains to be
learned if pretrial services programs are to reach their full potential. 

Juvenile Defendants in Adult Courts

All States provide for juveniles to be prosecuted as adults under some
circumstances, and in most States the circumstances under which charges
against juveniles can be prosecuted in adult criminal courts have
broadened considerably in recent years. Data from the U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, indicate that during the 1990-94
period approximately 1 percent of all felony defendants in criminal courts
in the Nation's 75 largest counties were juveniles,[1] and practitioners
report that the proportion is increasing. The growing practice of prosecuting
juveniles as adults poses significant problems for local justice systems and
for decisions about detention and release:

o Federal laws and the laws of most States require that juveniles held in
the same detention facility as adults be kept separate in "sight and
sound" from adult inmates. While juveniles charged as adults are still
housed in juvenile detention facilities in some jurisdictions, in many
places they are held in the adult jail. Most adult jails are ill equipped to
house juveniles, and they seldom have the types of educational programs
and other activities found in juvenile detention facilities. Often,
renovations and additional staff are needed to help manage the juvenile
jail population.

o Cases involving juveniles prosecuted as adults are likely to take
considerably more time to reach disposition in adult criminal courts than
in juvenile court. Slow case processing exacerbates the problem of
pretrial detention of juveniles, especially when they are held in adult
jails.

o Although juveniles prosecuted in adult court are generally charged with
 serious crimes, a significant percentage are charged with nonviolent
offenses. Furthermore, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics data,
about a quarter of these juveniles ultimately will not be convicted of any
charge, and more than 30 percent of those convicted will not be
sentenced to jail or prison.[2] It is likely that some of these juveniles will
 not pose significant risks of flight or dangerousness and could be safely
released prior to trial if judicial officers could feel confident that they
would be adequately supervised. 

o Procedures and criteria used by pretrial services programs and courts in
 collecting information and making release/ detention decisions in cases
involving adults are often inappropriate for juveniles. Juvenile
defendants often lack stable housing, employment, and other ties to the
community, and they are likely to have needs for education, counseling,
and adult supervision that are significantly different from the needs of
adult defendants. If released prior to trial, they need supervision by
persons experienced in working with youths.

A few pretrial programs have begun developing ways of providing needed
services to juveniles and to the adult courts that must handle these cases.
In Tucson, Arizona, the pretrial services program in the Pima County
Superior Court is working with researchers at the University of Arizona to
develop and test an effective locally validated risk needs assessment
instrument that can be used for pretrial decisionmaking in cases involving
juveniles. The assessment instrument is expected to take account of the
juveniles' living situations and prior records but will also focus on
substance abuse treatment needs, mental health issues, education, housing,
and other areas identified in field tests. By using this type of instrument, it
should be possible to identify juveniles who do not pose a serious risk of
flight or of danger to the community and to develop a structured
supervision plan that will make it possible to release them before trial. In
implementing the project, the Pima County Pretrial Services Program will
work with the juvenile court, adult probation department, and adult
detention center to establish a juvenile treatment team that coordinates
delivery of needed services. The team will work with local resource
agencies and will take advantage of an integrated information system now
under development.

As States continue to expand the categories of cases in which juveniles can
be charged as adults, developing programs like the one in Pima County
will become increasingly important. Their development should be based
on longstanding principles of effective pretrial services, modified to
consider the unique needs of juveniles and coupled with careful research
and the type of innovative use of modern technology that the Pima County
program is modeling. Noteworthy features of the Pima County program
include the following:

o The program is using careful research to develop criteria and instruments 
that focus on a key objective of effective pretrial service programs--
maximizing the number of defendants who can be released from
detention without posing unacceptable risks of flight or danger to the
community.

o The program uses the concept of differentiated case management (see
chapter 4), recognizing that making detention/release decisions in cases
involving juveniles requires different information than is required for
decisions about adults and that different approaches to monitoring and
supervision will be needed for juveniles who are released.

o The information-sharing approach, using modern computer technology
that includes shared software, will provide for rapid exchange of
information among organizations with no history of such exchange. The
approach will enable decisions about release--and about actions to be
taken in response to noncompliance with conditions of release--to be
made rapidly and on the basis of far more comprehensive information
than has previously been available.

o In providing for an early needs assessment and delivery of services
designed to meet the needs of individual juvenile defendants, the
program draws on strategies commonly used in juvenile courts and,
more recently, in some adult drug courts. The early assessment, coupled
with the pretrial services program's capacity to monitor and supervise
juveniles who are released, should minimize the risks of flight and
dangerousness. The program's approach also should reduce jail
crowding, provide needed services to this group of defendants, and offer
an opportunity for juveniles in trouble with the law to begin to turn their
lives around.

As of mid-1999, the Pima County program was gathering data to develop
the juvenile risk needs assessment. 

Use of New Technology

The development of new technologies--and their introduction into the
workplace--continues to accelerate in virtually all sectors of society,
including the criminal justice system. In the pretrial services field,
practical applications of new technology include the following:

o The Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) to identify
newly arrested defendants and rapidly retrieve criminal history
information.

o Laptop and handheld computers to enter data from defendant interviews 
 into the pretrial services program's automated database for use in
conducting risk assessments, preparing reports for the court, and
subsequently tracking defendants.

o Videoconferencing to interview defendants who are in detention in
remote locations.

o Urinalysis and barcoding technology to record, store, and transmit
information on drug test results.

o Computer systems to analyze raw data on charge severity and
defendants' prior record, community ties, and social service needs and to
produce objective risk assessments and release/supervision 
recommendations.

o Automated telephone call-in systems (sometimes using new voice
recognition technology) to facilitate defendants' check-ins and to notify
or remind defendants of upcoming court dates or other activities.

o Electronic monitoring of defendants released from detention but required 
to stay at home or remain within a limited area.

o Case tracking software to help monitor program caseloads and
individual defendants' compliance with conditions of release. 

o Satellite tracking and global positioning systems to enable close
monitoring of the whereabouts of high-risk defendants on pretrial
release. 

o Electronic mail to facilitate the exchange of information about
defendants with other agencies and with the courts.

While many pretrial services programs are using some of these
innovations, there remains considerable scope for broader and more
effective use of technology by jurisdictions interested in reducing
unnecessary detention (see "Using Technology to Improve Pretrial
Services and Reduce Jail Crowing in Rural Areas").

New technologies can be used to provide more comprehensive and reliable
information to judicial officers responsible for release/detention decisions
than has previously been available, and can do so more rapidly than in the
past. New technologies can also facilitate more effective monitoring,
supervision, and provision of needed services and thus permit possible
significant reductions in jail populations.

Delegated Release Authority 

One of the principal tools used to minimize unnecessary detention in many
jurisdictions is the delegation--to law enforcement agencies or, in some
places, to a pretrial services program--of authority to release arrested
persons before their first court appearance. Because delegated release not
only holds the potential for very significant savings but also involves risks
to system credibility if not well implemented, this is an area that warrants
close attention for the future.

There are four main types of delegated release authority:

o Field release, or field citation, typically takes place at or near the
location where the arrest is made and is commonly used in traffic cases
and cases involving relatively minor misdemeanors and ordinance
violations. The arresting public officer issues a citation directing the
individual to appear in court on a specific date to answer the charge(s)
specified on the citation.

o Station house release takes place, as the name implies, at the police
station. Like field release, it is generally used in nonfelony cases. At the
station house, the arrestee is issued a citation or summons directing him
 or her to appear in court on a specified date. Station house release is a
more costly and time-consuming process for the police officers than
field citation because they must transport the person to the station, but it
has the advantage of allowing time to ascertain or verify the arrestee's
identity through a check of computerized criminal history records and
contacts with the arrested person's family, friends, or employer. In a very
real sense, police officers developing this information act as pretrial
services program personnel. Alternatively, the police can work with an
established pretrial services program, communicating via telephone or
electronic mail to obtain information needed for a station house release
decision. Particularly if the individual is not released at the station
house, information developed during the identification and verification
process conducted at this stage can be valuable for subsequent pretrial
information collection.

o Jail release, usually by the sheriff or jail administrator, is a third possible
point of release before the individual's initial court appearance.
Typically, an arrested person is booked into the jail, a thorough
identification and prior record check are conducted, and-if the charges
and prior record information indicate that the individual meets
established criteria--the arrestee is released on a citation to appear in
court on a specified date. A number of local jails and corrections
departments have their own pretrial services or "release on
recognizance" units that conduct record checks and may also interview
arrestees and verify interview information. If the individual is not
released directly by the jail, the information will be made available to
the judicial officer at first court appearance. Release from jail on
nonfinancial conditions prior to initial court appearance commonly
occurs in misdemeanor and ordinance violation cases in many
jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions also authorize release of persons
charged with nonviolent felonies. 

o Release by a court-linked pretrial services program is operationally
similar to jail release, and the program is often located at or in close
proximity to the jail. In some States and localities, pretrial services
programs have authority to release arrested persons before their first
court appearance in certain categories of cases. Program staff interview
the defendant, verify key items of information, conduct prior record
checks, and sometimes consult with a duty judge before making a
release/detention decision. Release policies followed by the program are
set by the court, and the scope of authority is generally limited to
relatively minor cases. Some programs, however, are authorized to
release defendants charged with noncapital felonies.

Proponents of delegated release authority cite a number of significant
advantages to these procedures, including cost savings, alleviation of
pressure on already overcrowded jail facilities, and less reliance on money
bail as a means of obtaining pretrial release. The cost savings are greatest
when field citations are used, but there are some disadvantages to the field
citation procedure. In particular, because it has often been difficult to
identify the defendant reliably (and, therefore, difficult to obtain
information on the defendant's prior record at the point of arrest), police
officers cannot be confident that the individual is not wanted on a warrant
and has no history of previous arrests that would suggest a need for further
investigation. Taking the arrestee to the station house makes it easier to
investigate the arrestee's identity and obtain information relevant to
assessment of the risks of nonappearance and pretrial crime. Although
release from the jail is a more time-consuming and staff-intensive process
and adds costs, it provides the opportunity for more thorough
identification and prior record checks.[3]

All of these types of release save public agencies money and intrude less
in the lives of defendants than booking the individual into jail and bringing
him or her before a judicial officer for a decision about release or
detention. Citation release, however, has been criticized for resulting in
unacceptably high rates of failure to appear (FTA) and a consequent loss
of justice system credibility in the eyes of defendants and the general
public.[4] FTA rates in cases where citations have been issued appear to
vary widely across jurisdictions. One reason for high rates in many
jurisdictions is the lack of systematic followup to remind defendants of
court dates and to take prompt action when those who receive citations do
not appear. The lack of followup is especially likely to be a problem in
cases where the first court appearance date is more than a few days in the
future and when there has been no initial verification of the arrestee's
address, employment, and other ties to the community.

Because citation release is such a valuable mechanism for minimizing
pretrial detention and enabling effective use of police officers' time, it is
important for policymakers to address the flaws in existing systems that
lead to unacceptably high FTA rates. Five components of a citation release
system are especially important to improving the process:

o The nature and quality of the information available to the decisionmaker.
To release an arrestee, the decisionmaker needs to be certain of the
individual's identity and requires information about the charge, the
defendant's prior record, the existence of any outstanding warrants, the
defendant's living situation, risks posed by the defendant, and methods
to address the risks. Effective utilization of modern information
technology should greatly increase the reliability and completeness of
the information available to citation release decisionmakers and should
provide rapid access to essential information. Direct linkages between
the citation release decisionmaker and a pretrial services program can
help provide essential information quickly.

o Criteria for release. Most citation release programs limit eligibility to
persons charged with nonfelony offenses who live in the jurisdiction,
have no outstanding warrants, have no obvious medical or mental health
problems making them unable to care for themselves, and have no prior
record indicating they could be a danger to the community. Criteria for
release by jail officials and pre-trial services programs may be broader
because the decisionmakers have access to a broader range of
information and the capacity to arrange for supervised release.

o Qualified decisionmaker. Even though the criteria for release may be
clear, the release/detention decision should be made by a trained officer
who is knowledge-able about the criteria; familiar with the statutory
framework governing citation release; and able to use the information to
decide whether the person should be released before the initial court
appearance and, if so, under what conditions.

o Prompt review by a judicial officer. Under the citation release statutes
of many States, persons released on citation must appear in court within
a specified period so that a judicial officer can initiate formal advisement
of the charges and consider any modification in conditions of release.
Often, of course, charges that result in citation release are resolved at the
defendant's first court appearance. Optimally, the first appearance will
take place within a few days following issuance of the citation to
maximize the likelihood that the defendant will appear, minimize
case-processing delays, and ensure that the initial conditions of release
set by use of the citation are subject to judicial review. Particularly if the
first appearance is not scheduled within a few days, it will be helpful to
have a notification or reminder process in place. This is a logical
responsibility for the pretrial services program but requires good
communication links between the citation release decisionmaker and the
program.

o Capacity for rapid followup in event of nonappearance. If a citation
release system is to have credibility with practitioners (including law
enforcement officers) and with defendants, it is important to be able to
take action promptly if a defendant fails to appear. When a pretrial
services program is in place in the jurisdiction, it should be able to
initiate immediate contact with the nonappearing defendant. Often, this
will result in the defendant coming voluntarily to court; if not, the law
enforcement agency that released the defendant should quickly execute a
warrant. Implementing followup requires information exchange
capability and knowledgeable staff members who are trained to act
promptly when a defendant fails to appear.

As policymakers and practitioners increasingly focus on the "front end" of
criminal case processing, policies governing the exercise of delegated
release authority should receive increased scrutiny. When well crafted and
effectively implemented, delegated release can produce significant savings
in public resources and reduce the unnecessary use of pretrial detention.
When poorly designed and implemented, however, delegated release
procedures contribute to delays and to loss of credibility and respect for
the justice system.

The Role of Commercial Surety Bail

With the development of pretrial services programs, increased use of
citation release, and, in many States, the enactment of statutes that
establish a presumption of release on nonfinancial conditions, courts
across the Nation can now rely less on commercial surety bail than in the
past (see "Pretrial Services Programs and the Use of Financial Conditions
of Release"). Nevertheless, release on commercial surety bail occurs in
most jurisdictions, and the option is used in more than a million cases a
year.

The fact that significant economic stakes are involved means that issues
related to the use of commercial surety bail are likely to be at the forefront
of policy development in the pretrial services field for years to come. Five
issues are especially salient:

o Costs to taxpayers of alternative approaches.

o FTA rates.

o Rates of pretrial crime.

o Scope of program responsibilities.

o Consistency with basic justice system goals, including informed
decisionmaking and even-handed justice.

Costs to taxpayers

Proponents of commercial surety bail maintain that a surety bondsman's
services are free to the taxpayer, whereas the cost of pretrial services
programs is borne by the taxpayer. Critics of surety bail respond that the
surety bail system is not really "free" to taxpayers, since it increases the
costs incurred by having to maintain larger jails to hold persons financially
unable to post a surety bond. They note, too, that at least some defendants
(including some who may not be guilty of any charges) are also taxpayers
who will be unable to earn money--and may lose their jobs--if they are
jailed. Critics also emphasize that reliance on a profit-oriented surety bond
system results in a different kind of cost to the public--an unacceptable
delegation, to a private entity, of the real authority to determine who
obtains pretrial release and who remains in detention. 

FTA rates

Advocates of commercial security bail maintain that defendants "released"
by pretrial services agencies have higher FTA rates than defendants
released on surety bail. They cite data from the National Pretrial Reporting
Project (NPRP)[5] indicating that FTA rates for defendants on surety
release are lower than the rate for defendants on conditional release. They
add that, since bondsmen cannot afford to have a high FTA rate, they are
careful in selecting defendants for release and in ensuring that they appear
in court.

There are, however, serious methodological problems in using the NPRP
data to make comparisons between the performance of defendants released
on surety bail and those released under the supervision of pretrial services
programs. Proponents of pretrial services programs note, first, that the
great majority of defendants on nonfinancial conditional release have been
released by the court, not by a pretrial release program. Second, they note
that the NPRP data on FTA rates do not identify defendants who have
been interviewed by a pretrial services program, have been the subject of a
program recommendation, or have been under the supervision of a
program. Many defendants on nonfinancial release may have been placed
there by the court without any involvement of a pretrial services program
and without any provision for supervision. Furthermore, NPRP data from
some individual jurisdictions indicate that the FTA rates of defendants on
pretrial release were lower than the rates of defendants on surety bail.[6]

The effectiveness of FTA rates of release on surety bail--in comparison
with release pursuant to interviews, recommendations, and supervision by
a pretrial services program--is a complicated subject that warrants further
research. A related topic that also warrants research is the extent to which
the financial incentives cited by advocates of commercial surety bail
actually have the desired effects. Critics of commercial bail have noted
that, although most States have statutes and regulations governing
commercial bail and requiring forfeitures of bond when a defendant
absconds, enforcement is often lax and forfeiture rates are low. They also
note that most absconders are brought back to court by the police, not by
bondsmen.

Pretrial crime rates

There are no definitive research findings on the relative effectiveness, in
terms of minimizing pretrial crime, of release on commercial surety bail
compared with release on the recommendation of a pretrial services
program and under program supervision. The NPRP data show rearrest
rates for defendants on surety bail that are slightly lower than the rearrest
rates for defendants on conditional release. However, as with FTA rates,
there are serious methodological problems with such comparisons because
it is not possible to know, from the NPRP data, the extent to which pretrial
services programs were involved in interviewing or supervising defendants
on conditional release.

Scope of program responsibilities

Pretrial services programs vary in the scope of the ser-vices they provide
to courts, but even small-scale programs provide a different and much
broader range of services than commercial surety bondsmen. Surety bail
bondsmen do not provide information needed for judicial decisionmaking
and provide a more limited range of supervision services.

Equal justice

This is the dimension on which the philosophies and operations of
commercial surety bail bondsmen and pretrial services programs are most
diametrically opposed. Proponents of commercial surety bond take the
position that arrested persons (or their families) should be responsible for
bail bond fees and costs. As one wrote, "the person who got himself
arrested and incarcerated has some personal accountability and is,
therefore, responsible to participate in arranging for his own release and
securing the assurances of his future court appearances." The same
proponent notes that "the cost of this system is underwritten by the
defendant and/or others working with him."[7]

However, this position ignores the fact that a significant number of
defendants who post bail--and thus help underwrite the cost of a
commercial surety bail system--are never found guilty of any charge. In
addition, a commercial surety bond system enables defendants who can
post bail to gain freedom before trial, while poor defendants facing similar
charges (and with similar prior records) remain in jail. Perhaps the most
serious problem with reliance on commercial security bail from a justice
system perspective is that it moves responsibility for the actual release
decision away from a publicly accountable judicial officer to a private
entrepreneur whose main interest is profit and who is accountable to no
one.[8]

Judicial Discretion and Effective Management of Release/ Detention
Decisionmaking

One of the principal challenges facing criminal justice policymakers and
practitioners is how to structure the exercise of judicial discretion in the
release/detention decisionmaking process. Statutes often list factors that
judicial officers should take into consideration in establishing conditions
of release, but the weight to be given to information concerning potentially
relevant factors is within the judicial officer's discretion. Different judicial
officers, faced with the same set of facts, often come to widely different
decisions about release conditions, and the decisions have very different
results in terms of detention rates, jail crowding, FTA rates, and rearrest
rates.

In the view of some critics, the consequence of maintaining the long
tradition of unstructured discretion is likely to be a continuation of the
chronic jail crowding crises so prevalent in localities across the country, at
least until fiscal realities demand an alteration of these practices. They
note that, although the advent of pretrial services programs has made more
information available to judicial officers responsible for release/detention
decisions, these officers rarely receive guidance on how to use the
information either in individual case decisionmaking or in shaping policy
to govern the overall systemic impact of their decisions. Ultimately,
however, communities are going to have to consider the resource
implications of release/detention decisions that are made without clear
policy guidelines to structure the exercise of judicial discretion. In the
words of one group of researchers who have focused on pretrial
decisionmaking:

[T]he day of judicial license in confinement decisionmaking without
regard for impact on the justice system or on local resources may soon
be over. Even with Federal assistance, local jurisdictions do not have the
resources to construct sufficient jail capacity to keep up with poorly
managed judicial processes and endless popular policies to increase the
use of confinement. There are fiscal as well as rational limits to the
privilege and responsibility attached to judicial discretion in justice
processing. Discretion needs to be reasonably exercised and effectively
managed, with clear goals, adequate information, and suitable
alternatives.[9]

Developing viable policies in this area will require taking a system
perspective, rather than focusing solely on decisionmaking in individual
cases. One major challenge for the future is how to structure judicial
discretion in a sensible fashion that takes account of the systemic impact
of decisions on individual cases. For the trial court, and for other
institutions and agencies in the community that are concerned about the
related problems of jail crowding, community safety, and pretrial release
practices, several sets of questions must be addressed with respect to the
role of the judiciary in the management of release/detention
decisionmaking:

o Goals. What should courts and communities seek to accomplish in this
policy area? To what extent, if at all, should courts take into account jail
crowding and related public resource issues (1) in individual case
decisionmaking during the pretrial period, and (2) in considering the
formulation of policies that could structure the exercise of judges'
discretion in release/detention decisionmaking? Broadly stated, it is
important to develop goals for an effective pretrial
release/decisionmaking process in six main areas: 

-----Maximizing personal liberty.

-----Providing for consistent decisionmaking in cases involving similarly
situated defendants. 

-----Ensuring community safety.

-----Ensuring that released defendants appear for scheduled court dates.

-----Avoiding jail crowding.

-----Avoiding new jail construction and related costs.

Is it possible for courts to work collaboratively with others in
establishing goals for pretrial decisionmaking that address all of these
areas and that seek to achieve systemic objectives through the totality of
release/detention decisions?

o Mechanisms for accomplishing goals. If unfettered judicial discretion
is a major contributor to jail crowding and unnecessary use of pretrial
detention, are there viable mechanisms for structuring discretion that
will be acceptable to the courts and to individual judicial officers? Can
the very promising pretrial release guide-lines approach pioneered in
Philadelphia (see the side-bar "Using Research To Help Develop
Knowledge and Shape Pretrial Release Supervision Policy and Practice"
in chapter 3) be replicated elsewhere? Are there other alternatives to
structure the exercise of judicial discretion in a fashion that will achieve
core policy goals? Are there other mechanisms, in addition to those
focused on the exercise of discretion in the release/detention decision,
that are essential components of a sound pretrial release/detention
decisionmaking system?

o Responsibilities of the court with respect to monitoring jail population
levels and minimizing case processing delays. Should courts pay attention
to the population (and population makeup) of the jail? How, if at all,
should courts and individual judicial officers adjust their release/detention
policies to take account of jail population levels and the length of pretrial
confinement? Should courts adopt case processing standards and practices
that will minimize delays in cases involving both released and detained
defendants to help ensure community safety and return to court (for
released defendants), and to help reduce jail crowding and shorten the
period of pretrial incarceration for defendants detained in jail?

o Responsibilities of the court with respect to development and use of
options for supervising "high-risk" defendants and defendants with special
needs. If judicial officers are to exercise discretion effectively, they need
to have a far broader range of effective supervisory options than is
available in most jurisdictions. What role can and should courts play in the
development of an appropriate range of supervisory options for defendants
released prior to trial? How can courts and judicial officers learn about the
effectiveness of different supervisory options for different categories of
defendants? (See "Measuring the Overall Effectiveness of Pretrial Release
Systems.")

Research Needs 

With the exception of the research on pretrial release guidelines, there has
been very little empirically grounded research on pretrial release/detention
decisionmaking practices and outcomes since the mid-1980s. There is not
even an accessible base of current information on the operations of pretrial
services programs or on pretrial release/detention decisionmaking in the
jurisdictions within which these programs function. The last national
survey of pretrial services programs was conducted by the National
Association of Pretrial Services Agencies in 1989. In the decade that has
passed since the survey was completed, little research has been done on
the issues the survey identified, and the survey findings have not been
updated.

Every 2 years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics sponsors research that tracks
a sample of felony cases filed in urban trial courts. The resulting reports
provide some interesting aggregate data on arrests, release rates, FTA
rates, and rearrest rates, and can be helpful in identifying national trends.
However, the reports do not present data on individual jurisdictions,
descriptions of how local systems actually operate, or cross-jurisdictional
comparisons that would be helpful in identifying jurisdictions that have
well-functioning systems.

Research is expensive, and in the pretrial release field there are difficult
methodological problems that must be overcome--particularly to compare
jurisdictions. Jurisdictions vary widely with regard to the types of release
systems they have, the way they define similar phenomena, their
operational procedures, the types of statistical information they gather, and
many other factors that make it difficult to conduct cross-jurisdictional
research. Even within a single jurisdiction, records relevant to evaluating
pretrial release program effectiveness are typically kept by several
different agencies, and sometimes it can be difficult to gain access to them.
Despite the methodological problems, however, it is important to begin
building a base of current knowledge about issues of pretrial release and
detention at all jurisdictional levels:

o At either the local or national level, the starting point for developing a
viable research strategy is with descriptions of overall pretrial
release/detention systems in single jurisdictions, coupled with quantitative
data showing the number and proportion of cases, by case type category,
that follow each major path. Without good descriptions of these
systems descriptions that show the full range of release processes and
supervision options and that indicate which alternatives are employed
under what circumstances it is impossible to know how any single
program or practice (for example, release on recognizance, various kinds
of supervised release, surety bail, or the jail itself) fits into the overall
system. Sound descriptions are an essential foundation for research on the
relative effectiveness of different alternatives for specific categories of
defendants.

o At the single-jurisdiction level, it is essential to know the extent to which
each major pretrial option is used, and for what types of cases and
defendants, to measure the comparative effectiveness of existing
release/detention options. In addition to examining questions about
comparative release rates, FTA rates, and rearrest rates, researchers should
also study some of the operational variables that may bear upon
effectiveness. For example, are there particular components of supervised
release in a jurisdiction that contribute to sharply reduced rates of pretrial
crime and nonappearance? If so, what are they? Could some defendants
now in detention in other jurisdictions be safely released if these
supervision techniques were used? Are there some types of supervisory
options that could be used to meet the needs of defendants who have
special needs and do not fit the conventional profile of "good risks"?

o At the national level, pretrial services program leaders can work with
justice system policymakers and practitioners and with national funding
agencies to shape and define a national agenda that could include both
focused research in single jurisdictions and multijurisdictional
comparative research. A national research strategy should include at least
the following elements:

---Ascertaining the views of persons in the field regarding key issues and
alternative program models, supplementing the information in this report.

---Developing baseline descriptive data on local systems, programs, and
key issues through surveys, observation, and interviews.

---Refining the criteria for measuring detention/release effectiveness that
have been used in prior research. 
---Formulating workable definitions of key terms (for example, release
rate, FTA rate, bench warrant) to enable cross-jurisdictional comparisons
of local systems and individual pretrial services programs in terms of
critical measures of effectiveness. 

---Selecting specific local system models (or program models) to be
studied.

---Formulating a detailed plan for measuring the relative effectiveness of
the different models, taking into account the inevitable problems in
comparative analysis that will be caused by variations in even basically
similar models. 

---Developing an organizational base (or set of bases) for the conduct of
research by researchers who have proven methodological capabilities and
are familiar with the subject matter.

---Providing for the research results to be published and widely
disseminated in readable, nontechnical formats, including use of the
Internet.

Demonstration Programs 

Demonstration programs can provide an opportunity to test the viability of
combining new technology with programmatic innovations to achieve
ambitious system improvement goals focused on better "front-end"
decisionmaking. It should be possible to design and evaluate
demonstration programs that incorporate cutting edge information
technology, rapid charging by experienced prosecutors working from well-
prepared police incident reports, and the most modern practices of pretrial
services programs. For example, a demonstration project could incorporate
the following:

o Using the best current practices in gathering and verifying information
about newly arrested defendants. 

o Preparing risk assessments for consideration by judicial officers who
work within a framework that structures the exercise of discretion in
making release/detention decisions. 

o Supervising defendants (including medium- to high-risk defendants) in
the community.

o Using new technologies (e.g., drug testing, electronic monitoring) as
appropriate.

o Providing or arranging for services for defendants with special needs
(for example, substance abuse treatment, medical or psychiatric care,
temporary shelter).

o Following up immediately on any failure to appear for a scheduled court
appearance.

o Providing information to the court and the probation department that is
relevant to sentencing and postadjudication supervision.

The evaluation component of a demonstration program or set of programs
is critically important, not simply to learn whether a program is effective
(and, in particular, whether it is more effective than alternative
approaches), but to learn why. Developing and evaluating demonstration
programs is a natural complement to a comprehensive research strategy
and will also help strengthen education and training efforts at the national
and local levels.

Education and Training 

Although the initial stages of criminal case processing are crucially
important, there are few vehicles for educating practitioners and
policymakers about the policy issues involved in front-end
decisionmaking, the legal and historical framework within which the
policy issues arise, or the advantages and disadvantages of alternative
policy choices.

Some training for pretrial services practitioners does take place at national
conferences (for example, the annual conference of the National
Association of Pretrial Services Agencies) and at meetings of State
associations. Additionally, a number of pretrial services agencies conduct
in-house training. However, cross-disciplinary training is rarely provided,
and many key decisionmakers whose policy and individual case decisions
have a major impact on system operations including police officials, jail
officials, judicial officers, court staff members, prosecutors, defense
counsel, social services providers, and city and county executives have
never had a chance to (1) learn about the effects of their decisions on other
system actors or on systemic problems such as jail crowding, (2) explore
the range of pretrial release and supervision alternatives, or (3) consider
the pros and cons of alternative approaches to organizing the front-end
information gathering and decisionmaking process.

If pretrial services programs are to reach or approach their potential, it is
important to develop a full range of education and training programs at
every level national, State, and individual local programs. At the national
level, one promising development is the establishment of a new Pretrial
Justice Institute organized under the auspices of the Pretrial Services
Resource Center. Established with the assistance of startup grant funding
from the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice,
the institute develops and conducts training for pretrial services
practitioners and for policymakers and practitioners whose decisions affect
the quality of justice at the pretrial stages of criminal cases. (See chapter 6,
"Where To Get Additional Help.")

One of the challenges for policymakers and practitioners who are
concerned about the future of pretrial services and improvement of front-
end decisionmaking is to develop a broad range of education and training
opportunities. The new Pretrial Justice Institute may serve as a focal point
for innovation in the field, but the challenge is one that warrants response
from justice system agencies, professional associations, and funding
bodies at every level of government.

------------------------------

Notes

1. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Juvenile Felony Defendants in Criminal
Court, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1998: 1.

2. Ibid., 4 5 (tables 8 and 10)

3. Whitcomb, D., B.P. Levin and M.J. Levine, Citation Release,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
1984: 17 19.

4. Ibid., 20 21.

5. The name of this project has been changed. It is now the State Court
Processing Statistics (SCPS) program of the U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics.

6. Kennedy, S., and D.A. Henry, Commercial Surety Bail: Assesing Its
Role in the Pretrial Release and Detention Decision, Washington, DC:
Pretrial Services Resources Center, 1996: 3 4.

7. See "Improvements in Pretrial Release," undated paper submitted to the
Justice Management Institute by the National Association of Bail
Insurance Companies (NABIC) with letter from Jerry Watson, Counsel for
NABIC, to Bruce Beaudin, dated November 5, 1996.

8. Kennedy and Henry, Commercial Surety Bail, 5.

9. Goldkamp, J.S., M.R. Gottfredson, P.R. Jones, and D. Weiland,
Personal Liberty and Community Safety, New York and London: Plenum,
1995: xiii.

------------------------------

Using Technology to Improve Pretrial Services and Reduce Jail Crowding
in Rural Areas

Perhaps the most obvious area for using new technology is the provision
of pretrial services in rural justice systems. All too often, limitations of
staff and resources mean that judicial officers in rural areas have little
information about the defendant or about available release options,
especially for defendants who have substance abuse problems or other
special needs. New technologies make it possible for rural justice systems
to put needed information into the hands of judicial officers very quickly
and to develop effective means for monitoring and supervising defendants
released on nonfinancial conditions, including the following: 

o Electronic mail to transmit information about the charges and the
defendant from the police to the prosecutor, the court, and a centrally
located pretrial services program very shortly after arrest.

o Automated Fingerprint Identification System technology to identify the
defendant and, combined with automated searches of State and national
databases, to obtain information rapidly about prior criminal history and
any court orders intended to protect the alleged victim.

o Videoconferencing by centrally located pretrial services program staff to
conduct interviews of defendants held in a police station or local jail at a
distant location and to present reports to a judicial officer at first
appearance (already being done in the Sixth Judicial District of
Virginia).

o Automated databases to identify resources--including social services
organizations and participation in treatment sessions--into an automated
database for electronic transmission to the pretrial services program and
the court.

o Electronic monitoring and telephone contact, when necessary, to ensure
that the defendant remains in a specified location, with support and
followup provided by the pretrial services program or staff from other
agencies.

------------------------------

Pretrial Services Programs and the Use of Financial Conditions of Release

The NAPSA Standards oppose the traditional money bail system. Standard
V states that "the use of financial conditions of release should be
eliminated." Despite the strong position taken in the Standards and
notwithstanding the history of the bail reform movement, almost half of
the State and local programs surveyed by NAPSA in 1989 reported
recommending the use of money bail as a condition of release in at least
some cases. The survey did not explore the reasons why this practice has
continued, nor did it ascertain the frequency with which the programs
actually recommend the use of money bail. One possibility is that limited
resources may restrict a program's capacity to monitor compliance with
nonfinancial conditions of release and that money bail is recommended in
these situations.

------------------------------

Measuring the Overall Effectiveness of Pretrial Release Systems

Researcher John Goldkamp has suggested that one possible way of
measuring the effectiveness of a jurisdiction's pretrial release system is to
look at the percentage of defendants who (1) are released, and (2) do not
fail to appear for scheduled court dates or commit crimes during the
pretrial period. Thus, if all of the defendants arrested in a jurisdiction
could be released without a subsequent failure to appear or rearrest during
the pretrial release period, pretrial release in the jurisdiction would be
100-percent effective. If 90 percent of all defendants were released and 80
percent did not fail to appear or get rearrested, the "effectiveness rating"
would be measured as 90% x 80% = 72%. If only 50 percent were
released, and 86 percent of those defendants did not fail to appear or get
rearrested, the effectiveness rating would be 50% x 86% = 43%.[a]

One advantage of this approach is that it focuses attention on achieving
high overall release rates as well as on minimizing the FTA and rearrest
rates of defendants who are released. As Goldkamp has noted, ineffective
release results from needless detention of defendants who, if released,
would neither fail to appear nor commit pretrial crime, as well as from
mistakenly releasing defendants who abscond or commit crimes.

------------------------------

a. Goldkamp, J.S., H.R. Gottfredson, P.R. Jones, and D. Weiland, Personal
Liberty and Community Safety, New York and London: Plenum Press,
1995: 148-153, 272-273; Goldkamp, J.S., "Judicial Responsibility for
Pretrial Release Decisionmaking and the Information Role of Pretrial
Services," Federal Probation 57 (1) (March 1993): 31. See also Clarke,
S.H., "Pretrial Release: Concepts, Issues, and Strategies for Improvement,"
Research in Corrections 1 (3) (October 1988): 21.

------------------------------

Chapter 6
Where to Get Additional Help

Key Points

Sources of information or direct assistance for jurisdictions and individual
practitioners interested in improving pretrial release/detention
decisionmaking and related services include the following: 

o Standards adopted by major national organizations.

o National nonprofit organizations that provide training and technical
assistance.

o Federal agencies that provide assistance through grants and other
mechanisms.

o National and State associations. 

o Local and State pretrial programs.

o Books, monographs, and articles.

------------------------------

A number of resources are available to policymakers and justice system
practitioners who want to learn more about pretrial services programs
generally or about how to improve specific aspects of pretrial services
program operations. This chapter provides information on the following:

o National standards addressing pretrial services issues.

o National nonprofit organizations that provide training and technical
assistance on pretrial issues. 

o Potential Federal funding sources for research and demonstration
projects.

o National and State associations of pretrial services agencies and pretrial
practitioners. 

o Local and State pretrial services programs that can be contacted for
information. 

o Literature in the field.

National Standards 

Three national organizations have developed standards that address issues
in the pretrial services field:

o National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) Standards.
Performance Standards and Goals for Pretrial Release and Diversion.
Washington, DC: National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies,
1978; second edition, 1998. Considered the principal set of national
standards in the field, the 13 standards cover policy, organizational, and
operational issues. 

o American Bar Association (ABA) Standards. American Bar Association
Standards for Criminal Justice. Chapter 10, "Pretrial Release." Chicago:
American Bar Association (revision approved in 1985; commentary
added in 1988). In 1999, the Criminal Justice Section of the ABA
established a committee to review and make recommendations for
revision of the standards.

o National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) Standards. National
Prosecution Standards, Alexandria, VA: National District Attorneys
Association, 1991.

National Nonprofit Organizations That Provide Training and Technical
Assistance

The principal national organization dedicated to improving pretrial
release/detention decisionmaking processes is the nonprofit Pretrial
Services Resource Center (PSRC). Established in 1977, PSRC maintains a
clearinghouse on pretrial issues and practices, conducts research, publishes
articles, distributes a newsletter (The Pretrial Reporter) six times a year,
and provides a wide range of training and technical assistance services. In
1999, PSRC established a Pretrial Justice Institute with a separate board of
regents. The institute's mission is to develop educational curriculums
focused on key issues in the pretrial services field and to conduct training
programs for pretrial services practitioners and others whose work affects
the quality of pretrial justice. For more information, contact:

Pretrial Services Resource Center
D. Alan Henry, Director
1325 G Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-638-3080
Web page: www.pretrial.org

Other nonprofit organizations working in the criminal justice field also
provide technical assistance to jurisdictions that are interested in
improving pretrial processes. For more information, contact:

Justice Programs Office, American University
Joseph A. Trotter, Director
Brandywine Building, Suite 660
4400 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20016-8159
Phone: 202-885-2875

The Justice Management Institute
Barry Mahoney, President
1900 Grant Street
Denver, CO 80207
Phone: 303-831-7564

Potential Federal Funding Sources

Several U.S. Department of Justice agencies are potential sources of
funding for research, technical assistance, training, or demonstration
projects focused on pretrial services and related issues. For more
information about potential funding opportunities, contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistance
Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
Phone: 800-421-6770
Web page: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja

National Institute of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
Phone: 202-307-2942
Web page: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

Community Corrections Division
National Institute of Corrections
320 First Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20534
Phone: 800-995-6423
Web page: www.nicic.org

The State Justice Institute (SJI), a nonprofit organization created by
Federal statute, is a potential source for funding projects designed to
improve pretrial processes. SJI makes grants to support innovative projects
and provides technical assistance to help improve the administration of
justice in State court systems. For more information, contact: 

State Justice Institute
1650 King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-684-6100
Web page: www.clark.net/pub/sji/home.htm

National and State Associations

The principal professional association in the field is the National
Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) with more than 500
members. NAPSA publishes a quarterly newsletter (NAPSA News) and
membership directory and conducts an annual conference and training
institute. For more information, contact:

Cindy Fraleigh, NAPSA Services Director
NAPSA Service Office
P.O. Box 280808
San Francisco, CA 94128-0808
Phone: 650-588-0212

or

John DuPree, President
NAPSA
c/o Seventh Judicial Circuit Court
251 North Ridgewood Avenue
Daytona Beach, FL 32114-4492
Phone: 904-239-7780
Web page: www.napsa.org

There are a number of State associations of pretrial services agencies or
pretrial practitioners, including associations in California, Florida,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The State
associations sponsor conferences and training programs and provide
opportunities for networking and exchange of information and ideas by
pretrial services practitioners.

Local and State Pretrial Services Programs and Practitioners

The following agencies have generously provided information for this
study and may be contacted for further information or assistance:

-- Maricopa County Pretrial Services Agency
Perry M. Mitchell, Administrator
Superior Court of Arizona
111 South Third Avenue
West Court Building, 2d Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-506-1304
Fax: 602-506-2260

-- Pima County Pretrial Services
Kim Holloway, Director
110 West Congress Street, 8th Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: 520-740-3310
Fax: 520-620-0536

-- Berkeley Own Recognizance Project
Susan Bookman, Director
2400 Bancroft Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone: 510-548-2438
Fax: 510-841-0132

-- San Mateo Bar Association
Roman Duranczk, Administrator
303 Bradford Street, 2d Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Phone: 415-363-4181
Fax: 415-369-9643

-- Pretrial Services, 16th Judicial Circuit of Florida
Robin Rooks, Director
323 Fleming Street, 2d Floor
Key West, FL 33040
Phone: 305-292-3469
Fax: 305-292-3515

-- Kentucky Pretrial Services and Court Security
John Hendricks, General Manager
100 Millcreek Park
Frankfort, KY 40601-9230
Phone: 502-573-1419
Fax: 502-573-1669

-- Philadelphia Pretrial Services Agency
Nathaniel A. Johnson, Director
121 North Broad Street, 2d Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19138
Phone: 215-683-3700
Fax: 215-683-3703

-- Harris County Pretrial Services Agency
Carol Oeller, Director
1310 Prairie, Room 170
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: 713-755-5440
Fax: 713-755-2929

-- D.C. Pretrial Services Agency
Susan W. Shaffer, Director
400 F Street N.W., Room 310
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-727-2911
Fax: 202-727-9852

Literature in the Field 

There is an extensive body of literature on issues of bail, pretrial release,
and provision of pretrial services. Because an understanding of the history
of bail and the bail reform movement is important for addressing 
contemporary issues in the field, the books, monographs, and articles
listed below include leading relevant works dating back to 1963.

Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Federal Corrections and
Supervision Division. Monograph on Pretrial Services Supervision.
Washington, DC: Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 1992.

American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Standards, Chapter 10:
Pretrial Release. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 1985.

Ares, C.E., A. Rankin, and H. Sturz. "The Manhattan Bail Project: An
Interim Report on the Use of Pre-Trial Parole." New York University Law
Review 38 (1963): 67.

Austin, J., B. Krisberg, and P. Litsky. "The Effectiveness of Supervised
Pretrial Release." Crime and Delinquency 31 (1985): 519.

Beaudin, B.D. "Bail in the District-What It Was; Is; and Will Be."
American University Law Review 20 (1971): 432.

Cadigan, T.P. "Technology and Pretrial Services." Federal Probation 57
(March 1993): 48-53.

Carver, J.A. "Pretrial Drug Testing: An Essential Step in Bail Reform."
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law 5 (1991).

Clarke, J., and D.A. Henry. The Pretrial Release Decision-Making
Process: Goals, Current Practices and Challenges. Washington, DC:
Pretrial Services Resource Center, 1996.

Clarke, S.H. "Pretrial Release: Concepts, Issues, and Strategies for
Improvement." In Research in Corrections. Washington, DC: Robert J.
Kutak Foundation and National Institute of Corrections, 1988.

Foote, C. "The Coming Constitutional Crisis in Bail." University of
Pennsylvania Law Review 113 (May-June 1965): 959, 1125.

Freed, D.J., and P.M. Wald. Bail in the United States: 1964. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice and Vera Foundation, Inc., 1964.

Goldkamp, J.S. "Judicial Responsibility for Pretrial Release
Decisionmaking and the Information Role of Pretrial Services." Federal
Probation (March 1993): 28-35.

Goldkamp, J.S. Two Classes of Accused: A Study of Bail and Detention
in American Justice. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1979.

Goldkamp, J.S., and M.D. White. Restoring Accountability in Pretrial
Release: The Philadelphia Pretrial Release Supervision Experiments.
Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research Institute, 1998.

Goldkamp, J.S., M.R. Gottfredson, and S. Mitchell-Herzfeld. Bail
Decisionmaking: A Study of Policy Guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 1981.

Goldkamp, J.S., M.K. Harris, and M. White. Pretrial Release Guidelines
and Detention During the First Year of Pretrial Release Guidelines in
Philadelphia: Review and Recommendations. Philadelphia: Crime and
Justice Research Institute, 1997.

Goldkamp, J.S., P.R. Jones, and D. Weiland. Personal Liberty and
Community Safety: Pretrial Release in the Criminal Court. New York and
London: Plenum Press, 1995. 

Hall, A., E. Gaynes, D.A. Henry, and W.F. Smith. Pretrial Release
Program Options. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, 1984.

Institute on the Operation of Pretrial Release Projects. Bail and Summons,
1965. New York: National Conference on Bail and Criminal Justice, 1966.

Kennedy, S., and D.A. Henry. Commercial Surety Bail: Assessing Its Role
in the Pretrial Release and Detention Decision. Washington, DC: Pretrial
Services Resource Center, 1996.

Kennedy, S., D.A. Henry, J. Clark, and J. Juszkiewicz. Pretrial Release
and Supervision Program Training Supplement. Washington, DC: Pretrial
Services Resource Center, 1996.

Lotze, E., J. Clark, D.A. Henry, and J. Juszkiewicz. 
The Pretrial Services Reference Book. Washington, DC: Pretrial Services
Resource Center, 1999. 

Mahoney, B., et al. An Evaluation of Policy-Related Research on the
Effectiveness of Pretrial Release Programs. Denver, CO: National Center
for State Courts, 1975.

Mullen, J., et al. Pretrial Services: An Evaluation of Policy Related
Research. Cambridge: Abt Associates Inc., 1974.

National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals.
Task Force Report: Corrections. Chapter 4, "Pretrial Release and
Detention." Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.

National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies. Performance
Standards and Goals for Release and Diversion. Washington, DC:
National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, 1978; second edition,
1998.

National Conference on Bail and Criminal Justice. Proceedings and
Interim Report of the National Conference on Bail and Criminal Justice.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice and Vera Foundation, Inc.,
April 1965.

National District Attorneys Association. National Prosecution Standards.
Alexandria, VA: National District Attorneys Association, 1991.

Ryan, D.B. "The Federal Detention Crisis: Causes and Effects." Federal
Probation 57 (March 1993): 54-63.

Segebarth, K. Pretrial Services and Practices in the 1990s: Findings From
the Enhanced Pretrial Services Project. Washington, DC: National
Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, 1991.

Singer, L.R. "The Bail Problem: Release or Detention Before Trial." In
Law and Order Reconsidered: Report of the Task Force on Law and Law
Enforcement to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of
Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

Thomas, W.H., Jr. Bail Reform in America. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1976.

Thomas, W.H., Jr., et al. Pretrial Release Programs. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1977.

Toborg, M.A. Pretrial Release: A National Evaluation of Practices and
Outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, 1981.

Toborg, M.A., et al. Commercial Bail Bonding: How It Works.
Washington, DC: Toborg Associates, Inc., 1986.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Pretrial Services
Programs: Program Brief. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance,
1990.

Visher, C.A. "Using Drug Testing to Identify High-Risk Defendants on
Release: A Study in the District of Columbia." Journal of Criminal Justice
18 (1990).

Wice, P.B. Freedom for Sale: A National Study of Pretrial Release.
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co., 1974.