Pretrial Reform Task Force
Final Recommendations ReportPretrial Reform Task
Force
Final Recommendations ReportFebruary 2019

Intisar Surur, Esq.
Andrea Valdez, MPA
Special thanks to the Washington Center for Court Research (WSCCR) for their consultation.
1

Contents
Message from the Executive Committee:..................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Pretrial Services ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Pretrial Services Recommendations ................................................................................................... 12
Risk Assessment .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Risk Assessment Tool Considerations ................................................................................................. 16
Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................ 18
Data Collection Recommendations..................................................................................................... 20
Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 24
Appendix A. Pretrial Reform Task Force Charter .................................................................................... 24
Appendix B. Materials Developed by the Racial and Ethnic Considerations Workgroup ....................... 29
Appendix C. Pretrial Data Analysis – Needs Assessment ........................................................................ 34
Resources .................................................................................................................................................... 362

Message from the Executive Committee
We are honored to lead Washington’s Pretrial Reform Task Force as its Executive Committee.
As members of the Washington State Minority and Justice Commission, the Superior Court
Judges’ Association, and the District and Municipal Court Judges’ Association, we are pleased torepresent these organizations and work together to find ways to improve pretrial practices in
Washington.
We embarked upon this endeavor to improve Washington’s pretrial practices in June 2017.
Over the past 18 months, we asked stakeholders from across the state to participate in learning
more about Washington’s pretrial practices and participate in proposing improvements tothem. The Task Force’s stakeholders worked diligently to learn more about Washington’s
pretrial systems, local pretrial improvements, and national pretrial reform efforts. We would
like to thank the Task Force’s stakeholders for their countless hours of work and dedication.
In addition to our diverse stakeholder participants, the Task Force partnered with the Pretrial
Justice Institute (PJI), a national organization striving to make pretrial practices safer, fairer, andmore effective. We thank them for their support. PJI’s technical expertise, encouragement andadvice has been invaluable.
In crafting the following report and recommendations, the Task Force addressed the many
complex issues related to pretrial practices at the national, state, and local levels. These
recommendations serve as an important step towards improved pretrial practices in
Washington State.

Sincerely,

Justice Mary I. Yu
Washington State Supreme Court
Minority and Justice Commission

Judge Sean P. O’Donnell
King County Superior Court
Superior Court Judges’ Assoc.

Judge Mary Logan
Spokane Municipal Court
District and Municipal
Court Judges’ Assoc.
3

Executive Summary
The Task Force divided into three subcommittees: (1) Pretrial Services; (2) Risk Assessments; and (3)Data Collection. The Executive Committee appointed Chairs to lead the each subcommittee and tasked
the respective subcommittees with developing recommendations that address the following issues:

Pretrial Services:• What services are currently provided to people accused of crimes?
• What are the costs of the pretrial programs?
• Which services are the most effective?

Risk Assessment:• What are the best practices for assessing risk?
• What are the considerations for adoption of a risk tool?
• How to account for racial and ethnic impact?

Data Collection:• What are the current state and local pretrial populations?
• How to ensure uniform data collection for those populations?
• How to provide meaningful analysis of that data?
This report outlines the work of and the data collected by the subcommittees. Using the informationcollected, the subcommittees developed recommendations on best pretrial practices. In weighing their
inclusion in this final report, the Executive Committee focused on ensuring items were easily understoodand actionable by local jurisdictions. In implementing these recommendations, jurisdictions should
strive for: transparency and open communication with their partners; inclusivity of ideas based inevidence-based best practices; and a commitment to begin and follow through on pretrial reforms.
Summaries of each subcommittee’s recommendations are below.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Pretrial Services
1) Governments should bear the cost of pretrial services rather than the accused: Accused persons
cannot and should not be required to incur additional costs or debts as a result of their participationin pretrial services. Pretrial services include, but are not limited to: electronic monitoring, drug andalcohol monitoring, mental/behavioral health treatment, and court reminders.
2) Court Reminders: The available research consistently shows that pretrial court date reminders
through texts, emails, mail or phone calls are an effective method to reduce the risk of failure toappear, and should be available to all defendants.
3) Voluntary Service Referrals: Referrals such as mental and/or behavioral health treatment,
vocational services, or housing assistance should be offered to assist defendants maintain court
attendance and supervision compliance, and prevent re-arrest. Referrals should be individualized,
4

offered voluntarily rather than as a condition of release, and should involve little or no cost to theindividual.
4) Stakeholder Involvement: A local stakeholder group can make actionable recommendations toimprove the practices and outcomes of the pretrial system, and can ensure the success of reforms
by soliciting input from all participants and by making informed decisions as a team, rather thanseparate and distinct entities.
5) Transportation support: Offering free or subsidized transportation to defendants for court
appointments can help ensure low-income people and people with disabilities can attend theircourt-ordered appointments.
Risk Assessment
The Task Force takes no position on whether local jurisdictions should, or should not, adopt a pretrial
risk assessment (PTRA) tool. But the Task Force does recommend that jurisdictions choosing to employ a
PTRA consider the following minimum criteria before the adoption or creation of a PTRA.
6) Identify Desired Goals: A jurisdiction should clearly identify what it intends to accomplish in order todetermine whether the use of a PTRA has been successful in reaching its stated goals, such as
reducing the jail population or increasing pretrial release.
7) Defining Terms: A PTRA must have clear, operational definitions for “FTA” and “new offense” andjurisdictions should train all court partners on their usage. 1
8) Comparative Data: Jurisdictions should collect data relevant to the identified goals before, during,
and after implementation of the PTRA in order to measure the PTRA’s performance.
9) Clarify Interpretations of “Risk”: Jurisdictions must (a) understand the different kinds of “risk” a tool
may measure for (non-violent versus violent offenses), (b) differentiate the factors courts must
consider under Washington’s criminal rules to address the likelihood of an individual’s failure toappear (FTA), danger to the public, or interference with the administration of justice, and (c) have a
deep understanding of the risk “scoring” provided by the tool.
10) Validation for Predictive Accuracy and Race Neutrality: The PTRA must be validated using local dataprior to adoption and periodically throughout its use in order to ensure the PTRA is predicting new(violent) 2 offenses and FTAs with accuracy and precision.
11) Disproportionate Racial Impact of a PTRA 3: Jurisdictions must examine whether the PTRA has or is
likely to have a disproportionately negative effect on certain racial, ethnic, or socio-economic
groups. This should occur before implementation of the PTRA and then periodically throughout its
use.
12) Community Participation: The adoption and utilization of a PTRA should be transparent and should
engage communities of color, marginalized groups, and victims’ rights groups in the development,
implementation, and validation of any jurisdiction’s PTRA.
13) Planning and Implementation: Many organizations, including the National Center for State Courts,
have developed materials to help jurisdictions plan for the phases of implementation. A list of

1 For example, “FTA” could mean any failure to appear, or only a failure to appear that results in the issuance of a warrant.

Similarly, a “new offense” could mean an arrest, a charge, or a conviction. CrR and CrRLJ 3.2 (a)(2)(a) address risk to “commit aviolent crime” but do not define how commission of a violent crime is to be measured: arrest, charge or conviction.
2 Only the PSA measures for commission of a violent offense. See above.
3 More than 100 civil rights organizations have endorsed a letter that sets forth opposition to the use of risk assessment tools
and algorithms as a substitution for ending money bail. This “Shared Statement of Civil Rights Concerns” is available here:
http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/criminal-justice/Pretrial-Risk-Assessment-Full.pdf.

5

Resources, following the Appendix, provides reports and tools for jurisdictions to use in the planningstages of implementation.
Data Collection14) Collect and Record Data: Jurisdictions should collect and record complete information at all pointsof the pretrial system, including: defendant demographics; booking and first appearance;
release/detention decisions and bail; and, release, new criminal charges and failure to appear.
15) Data Analysis: Jurisdictions should conduct data analysis on all pretrial elements related to: timefrom booking to arraignment; pretrial releases and detentions; and pretrial outcomes.
16) Data Analysis Results: Jurisdictions should use the results of the data analysis to evaluate pretrial
services and conduct improvements as necessary.
17) Data Dissemination: Jurisdictions should provide data analysis to stakeholders and/or the public ona regular basis.
18) Pretrial Services Data: If implementing a pretrial program, jurisdictions should collect and analyze atall points of the pretrial services program, to: measure program success, identify areas of
improvement, and support adherence to best practices.
19) PTRA Data: Jurisdictions that implement a pretrial risk assessment tool should collect data to assess(a) the concurrence between supervision level or detention status and their assessed risk; (b) thepercentage of cases with release eligible defendants who received a risk assessment; and (c)percentage of judge‘s release decisions that differ with a risk assessment tool recommendation.

6

Introduction
Approach
Washington State’s Pretrial Reform Task Force was established on June 22, 2017 with the goals of
examining current pretrial practices in Washington and developing consensus-driven recommendations
for local jurisdictions to consider when improving their pretrial systems. The Washington State Minority
and Justice Commission, Superior Court Judges’ Association, and District and Municipal Court Judges’
Association co-sponsored this effort. Task Force membership consisted of 55 stakeholders, including
representatives from all court levels, all branches of government, community organizations, and theprivate sector.
An Executive Committee, comprised of a representative each of the sponsoring organizations, led theTask Force. Over 18 months, the Executive Committee hosted regular meetings for all Task Forcemembers. The Executive Committee formed three subcommittees and three work groups that
conducted research and made recommendations regarding: (a) pretrial release and effective pretrial
services, (b) court practices for assessing risk and reviewing concerns regarding actuarial risk assessment
tools, and (c) uniform data collection. The Executive Committee made the final decision as to the Task
Force’s final recommendations.
Guiding Principles
Underpinning the work of the Task Force was a commitment to reform pretrial practices that havecontributed to high rates of pretrial detention while respecting local court culture and practices. In
addition to the federal and state constitutional presumptions of innocence and a statewide court rulethat presumes release, the Task Force’s work and recommendations were guided by three centralprinciples.
•

Improve the implementation of evidence-based practices
Under current practices in Washington, many courts have limited information about anindividual when making pretrial release or detention decisions and have limited pretrial services
to offer as an alternative to jail. As a result, in an effort to ensure community safety,
incarceration rates may be unnecessarily high due to an absence of less restrictive alternatives
to full incarceration. In other words, but for the lack of pretrial services as an alternative to jail,more people accused of crimes and awaiting trial could safely be released. Up to 77% of thepeople in Washington’s jails are being held pretrial, meaning they have not been convicted of acrime. 4 Decisions to detain individuals have a profound impact on their livelihood, home, andfamily.
The federal and state pretrial services field is developing and encouraging the use of evidencebased practices. This includes entities such as the Bureau of Justice Assistance, National Instituteof Corrections and private foundations. Washington courts should better understand andimplement successful pretrial services, programs, and conditions that are proven to be effectivein advancing justice.

4

See figure 4.

7

•Support judicial discretion
The ability of judges to make individualized decisions based on an individual’s actual risk is ofparamount importance given the presumption of release and the impact of detention. Judges
should be afforded all the information and tools readily available to support their ability to makeinformed release decisions. The recommendations within this report are not intended tominimize the unique role of a judge or limit judicial discretion. Instead, their purpose is toprovide judges with additional support and tools for making pretrial decisions that are incompliance with the federal and state constitution, current laws, and applicable court rules.

•

Maximize justice for all
Focusing the following recommendations on the needs of individuals who come into contact
with the criminal justice system is critical. That contact starts with pretrial decisions and the very
first decision can have significant consequences on a person’s job, housing, and family life.
Consistent with Washington law and its court rules, the best practice is to ensure the fewest
number of people are detained pretrial, with the fewest possible conditions, and without
jeopardizing public safety. Accused individuals should not be detained pretrial solely because of
their inability to post a bond or pay for their release. Nor should these individuals bear the costsof monitoring if released pretrial. Every entity in the criminal justice system should take steps toensure that the systems in place and the reforms to be implemented do not have adisproportionate impact on a person because of his or her race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic position, or otherwise. Finally, pretrial reform efforts should be transparent and theirefficacy should be publicly available. If aligned with evidence-based practices and informed
judicial decision-making, these pretrial reform efforts can be successful.

Findings and Recommendations
This report describes the findings of the Task Force subcommittees and the Executive Committee’s
recommendations specific to three areas of focus: pretrial services, risk assessment, and data collection.
Stakeholders, unsurprisingly, did not agree on everything. Accordingly, each of the nineteen
recommendations are best considered when viewed in the context of all of the other recommendations;none should be viewed as a single attempt at reform. Rather, each should be thoughtfully approached
as a part of the collective nineteen recommendations. Jurisdictions should work closely with theirstakeholders to assess the needs of their court and communities, and implement appropriate strategies.

8

Pretrial Services
Washington law and its court rules presume that a person charged with a non-capital offense will be
released on their personal recognizance pending trial. Accordingly, courts can only impose pretrial
conditions or detention when the risk of failing to appear, committing a violent crime, or obstructing theadministration of justice outweighs an individual’s liberty interest.
The Task Force researched consensus that, so long as the services do not negatively affect court
appearance rates and community safety, the widest variety of pretrial services should be available tocourts in order to maximize the number of people eligible for release from pretrial detention and tominimize or eliminate the costs imposed on these individuals. 5 The legal limitations governing therelease of an accused, the availability of pretrial services, and effectiveness of those services are
discussed in turn below concluding with the Executive Committee’s recommendations.
Legal Limitations
Pretrial conditions of release affect an individual's constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution allows the placement of pretrial release conditions if those conditions arereasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective and do not amount to "punishment." If a
pretrial condition passes muster under the Fourth Amendment, the condition may but not necessarily
will be lawful under Washington’s Const. Art. I, Sec. 7. That is because Article I, Section 7 encompasses
the privacy expectations protected by the Fourth Amendment and in some cases may provide greater
protection to Washington citizens than the Fourth Amendment. 6
The government has a number of compelling interests that may impact the number and type of pretrial
release conditions that may be imposed on an accused person awaiting trial. Some of these compellinginterests include: community safety, following court orders, and appearing in court. Pretrial releaseconditions authorized by CrR 3.2 and CrRLJ 3.2 are intended to further these compelling interests, rather
than a means of imposing punishment.
In Washington, Criminal Rule (CrR) 3.2 and Criminal Rule for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CrRLJ) 3.2
govern conditions of pretrial release. “Any person, other than a person charged with a capital offense,shall at the preliminary appearance…be ordered released on the accused’s personal recognizancepending trial…” 7 This presumption of release may be overcome if the court determines that such
recognizance will not reasonably assure the accused's appearance when required, or when there isshown a likely danger that the accused will commit a violent crime, seek to intimidate witnesses, orotherwise interfere with the administration of justice. 8
If the court determines that the accused is not likely to appear if released on personal recognizance, it
may impose a condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure appearance. 9 Possible
conditions are set out in CrR 3.2(b) and CrRLJ 3.2(b); and the court must impose the least restrictive of
these conditions in any given case. 10

5 Id.

6

Blomstrom v. Tripp, 189 Wn.2d 379, 384, 402 P.3d 831, 834 (2017).
CrR 3.2(a) and CrRLJ 3.2(a).
8 Butler, 137 Wn. App. 515 (2007) (citing CrRLJ 3.2(a) and CrR 3.2(a)).
9 CrRLJ 3.2(b) and CrR 3.2(b).
10 Id.
7

9

CrR 3.2 (d)(10) and CrRLJ 3.2(d)(10) also allow the court to impose any condition other than detention toprevent interference with the administration of justice and protect the community. 11 However, this rule
is not without limits. The court may not impose “onerous or unconstitutional” provisions when lesser
conditions are available. 12 Doing so is an abuse of judicial discretion. 13
Availability of Pretrial Services
In a recent survey, there were 32 identified active or former pretrial service programs in Washington
State. 14 Pretrial services are clustered in several geographic areas of the state, with the areas of South
Puget Sound, Northwest, Southwest and Central Washington generally well covered (see Figure 2). Large
gaps in pretrial services were indicated in Eastern Washington and the Olympic Coast.
Figure 2. Geographic Location of Pretrial Service Programs

Washington State Courts with Pretrial Services
Asotin County District Court
Asotin, Columbia, and Garfield Superior Court
Battle Ground Municipal Court
Blaine Municipal Court
Clallam District Court
Clark County District Court
Everett Municipal Court
Everson-Nooksack Municipal Court
Federal Way Municipal Court
Grant County District Court
King County Superior Court
Kitsap County Superior Court

Okanogan District Court
Pacific Municipal Court*
Pierce County Superior Court
Port Orchard Municipal Court
Puyallup Municipal Court
Seattle Municipal Court
Skamania County District Court
Snohomish County*+
Spokane County District Court
Spokane County Superior Court
Spokane Municipal Court
Thurston County+

11 CrRLJ 3.2(d)(10) and CrR 3.2(d)(10).

Butler, at 519 (held that conditions that defendant undergo alcohol evaluation and attend three self-help meetings per week were not least
restrictive means to ensure defendant’s presence in court).
13 Id. at 524.
14 Superior Court Judges’ Association. (September 2018). Pretrial Services Survey.
12

10

Washington State Courts with Pretrial Services (cont.)
Lake Forest Park Municipal Court
Thurston County District Court*
Lower Kittitas District Court
Upper Kittitas County District Court
Mason County Superior Court*
Whatcom County District Court
Milton Municipal Court
Yakima County Courts* Indicates the program is no longer active+ Unclear in reporting if respondent represented a District, Municipal, or Superior Court

A major misconception of pretrial reform is that in order to implement change there must be expensive
pretrial services programs with multiple employees to staff them. However, many jurisdictions in
Washington offer some kind of pretrial services, even without a formal program. The reasons for thisvary based on caseload, need, and costs. Yakima County, for example, significantly improved
appearance rates and pretrial outcomes by focusing their reform efforts on providing court datereminders and having defense counsel present at the first appearance.
Currently, jurisdictions across Washington offer a wide variety of pretrial services. The Pretrial Services
Survey found over 10 different kinds of pretrial services available, shown in Figure 3. Drug and/or breath
testing is the most common service, with office visits and electronic monitoring also commonly used by
the responding programs. Other types of services offered include ignition interlock monitoring, No
Contact Order modifications, pretrial probation monitoring, and bus passes.
Figure 3. Pretrial Service Activities

Other
Mental health treatment/evaluation
Home visits by law enforcement
Service referrals
Home visits by pretrial staff
Robo-texting
Office visits
Drug/breath testingElectronic monitoring
Call/reminders for courts
0

5

10

15

20

N = 26

Effectiveness of Pretrial Services
The Task Force examined some of the more commonly available pretrial services and found limited dataon efficacy. The findings are described below. It is critical to note that all pretrial services and/or
supervision individually relate to that particular defendant’s risk of: (1) failing to appear; (2) committing
a violent offense while on pretrial release; or (3) interfering with the administration of justice.
Drug Testing: Limited research shows that although use of drug testing by pretrial programs has
increased significantly over the years, the studies that examine their effectiveness are unclear as to11whether drug testing improves pretrial outcomes. In other words, defendants that had drug testing as acondition of pretrial release were no more likely to appear for court or not commit an offense while on
release than those who did not have drug testing imposed as part of their release. 15
Electronic Home Monitoring: Home monitoring and house arrest are the most high-cost and intensive
forms of pretrial services. Research results have been mixed – several studies show that electronic homemonitoring, as a condition of pretrial release, has not been shown to reduce pretrial failure. It has beensuggested that electronic monitoring can be a viable alternative to detention for higher-risk individuals,
while achieving similar rates of court appearance and community safety. 16 As with other pretrial
services, more research is needed.
Substance Use Disorder Treatment and Other Services: Defendants may benefit from referral services
to substance use disorder treatment, mental health services, or other interventions. Evidence points to:(1) focusing those services on defendants at highest risk, with the exception of mental health services
which should be offered to all those in need; and (2) tailoring service offerings to individualized risk of
pretrial failure to appear or recidivism. Currently in Washington State, treatment services that are
offered by pretrial programs are generally not voluntary. 17
Court Date Reminders: While there may be very little data to support the recommendation of a specificpretrial supervision condition, court date notification reminders have proven to be an exceptionallyeffective practice that has yielded significant increases in defendant’s appearance rates.
Many jurisdictions have adopted this protocol throughout the nation and even here in Washington State
reminders have proven to be effective. In New York, text-message reminders improved appearance
rates by 26% for low-level offenses. 18 In Washington, Yakima County implemented an automated text
and call message reminder as part of the court’s case management system. This practice helped Yakima
County reach a 75% appearance rate.
Spokane County has also started using an automated text-messaging system that reminds defendants of
their upcoming court dates. Their program relies on the Spokane County Public Defenders’ Office tosend text message reminders to their clients prior to their court dates. Spokane County has already seen
improvements to its appearance rates after use of its new communication system. 19

Pretrial Services Recommendations
Defendants may be required to use pretrial services, whether offered through a formal program or not,to ensure their participation in court appearances and reduce the likelihood of a new charge while on
pretrial release. In proposing the following recommendations, the Task Force considered the limited
number of evidence-based pretrial services currently available in Washington. These recommendations
also consider best practices related to strengthening the pretrial systems that serve the accused.
1)

Government bear the cost of pretrial services: To ensure equal justice for all and to reduce theimposition of legal financial obligations on those involved in the criminal justice system especially at

15 Id.

16 Lowenkamp, C.T., VanNostrand, M. (November 2013). Exploring the Impact of Supervision on Pretrial Outcomes. Retrieved from:https://www.arnoldfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/LJAF_Report_Supervision_FNL.pdf
17
Superior Court Judges’ Association. (September 2018). Pretrial Services Survey.
18 Cooke, B. Diop, B.Z., Fishbane, A., Hayes, J., Ouss, A. Shah, A. (January 2018). Using Behavioral Science to Improve Criminal Justice Outcomes.
Retrieved from: http://www.ideas42.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Using-Behavioral-Science-to-Improve-Criminal-Justice-Outcomes.pdf
19 Id.

12

2)

3)

4)

5)

a pre-adjudication stage, the government rather than individuals should bear the cost of pretrial
services. That means that the use of alternative services should not require individuals to incur
unnecessary costs or debts. These include, but are not limited to: electronic monitoring, drug andalcohol monitoring, mental/behavioral health treatment, and court reminders.
Court Reminders: The available research consistently shows that pretrial court date reminders
reduce the risk of failure to appear. Text messages, emails, mail, and phone calls are equallyeffective. This can be a cost-effective and time-efficient method of encouraging defendants with alow flight risk to return on time to court.
Voluntary Service Referrals: The National Institute of Corrections recommends offering defendants
service referrals that may help secure court attendance and supervision compliance, and prevent rearrest. 20 Such referrals can include, but are not limited to: mental and/or behavioral healthtreatment, vocational services, or housing assistance. For example, a stable housing environment
can improve a defendant’s likelihood of timely court appearance. The services offered to defendantsshould be individualized, voluntarily rather than a condition of release, and should involve little orno cost.
Stakeholder Involvement: The formation of a stakeholder group representing all stakeholders
implementing pretrial practices has led to successful reform efforts locally in Yakima County andacross the country. Stakeholders should include, but are not limited to: judges, prosecuting anddefense attorneys, pretrial and/or probation services departments, clerks, jail administration,community representatives, members of the bail bond community, and law enforcement. A local
stakeholder group can examine all parts of the pretrial system and make actionable
recommendations to improve the practices and outcomes of the system. In the Yakima County
example, a local workgroup came together to change their practices by moving up the date ofarraignment and assigning defense counsel at the first appearance. A well-functioning stakeholder
group can ensure the success of reforms by getting buy-in from all participants and by making
informed decisions as a team, rather than separate and distinct entities.
Transportation support: The Task Force strongly encourages jurisdictions to consider offering freeor subsidized transportation to defendants for court appointments. Bus, rail, or transit system
passes can help ensure low-income people and people with disabilities can make their courtordered appointments. While this is not a traditional “service” offered by the courts, several
jurisdictions in Washington anecdotally report that it is an important feature for defendants in theirpretrial systems.

Risk Assessment
Best Practices for Assessing Risk
CrR 3.2 and CrRLJ 3.2 set forth Washington’s legal framework for making pretrial release and detention
decisions in superior court and district/municipal courts, respectively. These rules establish apresumption of release for all defendants. That presumption may be overcome only upon a showingthat there is a likelihood that a defendant will: (1) fail to appear (FTA); (2) commit a new violent offense;or (3) interfere with the administration of justice.
In making each determination, CrR 3.2 and CrRLJ 3.2 set forth specific corresponding factors that the
court must consider. For example, when a FTA is at issue judges must consider relevant facts including
20

Id.

13

but not limited to: warrant history, employment, ties to family and the community, enrollment inschool, reputation, character, mental condition, and criminal history. Similarly, when the risk of a violent
re-offense is at issue, judges must consider, among others: the nature of the charge, the accused
person’s criminal record, and his or her past or present threats of violence or use of a deadly weapon.
In a perfect world, judges would have access to all relevant information relating to a specific defendant.
In reality, judges often have access to very little information to inform their pretrial release or detention
decisions, such as the current charge and sparse details laid out in a probable cause affidavit. Counsel
may not be present to represent the interest of the defendant. Judges should receive more information
when making pretrial release and detention decisions.
To assist in collecting data to support judges in making these difficult pretrial decisions, jurisdictions
often use pretrial risk assessment (PTRA) tools. PTRA tools seek to provide judges with information
about how a particular person would likely act. PTRAs are actuarial tools that use data to determine therisk of failure to appear and risk of committing a violent offense while on pretrial release. Several
jurisdictions in Washington are actively using pretrial risk assessment tools.
Table 1. Washington Jurisdictions Using Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools
Tools identified:
SAFER (Spokane Assessment for
Evaluation of Risk)
PSA (Arnold Foundation Public Safety
Assessment)
ASRA (Adult Static Risk Assessment)
VPRAI (Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment
Instrument)
Ohio Risk Assessment System – Pretrial
Assessment Tool
Other

Number of
responses
2
1
2

Jurisdictions
Spokane County Superior Court,
unidentified court
Yakima County*

1

Whatcom County District Court, Thurston
County*Clark County District Court

1

Blaine Municipal Court

3

Lower Kittitas District Court, Pierce County
Superior Court, Seattle Municipal Court,
Federal Way Municipal Court

A similar trend can be seen nationally and on the federal level. As shown in Table 2, a majority of states(29) have adopted some type of PTRA tool. Federal courts are also using PTRA tools and have specificallyadopted the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) as part of their pretrial detention or release determinations.
Table 2. States Using Pretrial Risk Assessments 21
State/Jurisdiction

Risk Assessment(s) Used

Percent of population coveredby risk assessment

Arizona
California

PSA statewide
PSA

100.0%
2.9%

21 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts.

14

Table 2. States Using Pretrial Risk Assessments (cont.)
Colorado
Connecticut
District ofColumbia
FloridaHawaii
Illinois
KansasKentuckyLouisiana
MarylandMichiganMinnesota
NevadaNew Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
OregonPennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
FederalCPAT
locally validated tool

87.4%
100.0%
100.0%COMPAS, VPRAI, PSA, and a locally validated
tool
ORAS statewide
PSA
locally validated tool
PSA statewide
locally validated tool
VPRAI and locally validated tool
VPRAI/PRAXIS and locally validated tool
locally validated tool
NPR
PSA statewide
PSA
locally validated tool
PSA
ORAS, PSA, and SCPRAI
locally validated tool
locally validated tool and PSA
PSA statewide
PSA
PSA
PSA statewide
VPRAI
PSA and SAFER
PSA
PTRA

8.9%
100.0%
46.2%
20.1%
100.0%
8.4%
27.6%
27.2%
22.3%
89.1%
100.0%
32.5%
43.2%
10.4%
29.3%
19.5%
9.6%
100.0%
34.3%
16.5%
100.0%
85.3%
10.3%
25.7%
100.0%* Any states not listed are not using pretrial risk assessments

There are concerns associated with the use of PTRA tools. Generally, they stem from the fact that PTRA
tools consider criminal history as part of the algorithmic calculation of risk. Some argue that implicit andovert racial bias, patterns of policing of minority neighborhoods, and the historical correlation between
poverty and crime and the overlap of poverty and race taint criminal histories for persons of color. 22 Theargument, therefore, is that the use of criminal history in a PTRA may inadvertently incorporate racialbias, which disproportionately affects persons of color in a structural and institutionalized way. 23 That
22 See Appendix B—report titled, “Risk Assessments and Racial Disproportionality”

23 Berk, R., Heidari, H., Jabbari, S., Kearns, M., Roth, A. (30 May 2017). Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art.
Retrieved from: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.09207.pdf

15

said, criminal history can be an important criteria in any release decision, and judges are authorized toconsider criminal history under CrR 3.2 and CrRLJ 3.2. Judges, however, must take care when applying
criminal history to an analysis of future dangerousness, the likelihood of failing to appear, and the likely
a defendant will interfere with the administration of justice. 24
Others argue that algorithmic risk assessments are more accurate at determining risk than humans andhave less of a disproportionate impact than if they are not used. Scientists in many fields are creating
algorithms that still reduce bias despite using past data that is shaped by historical prejudices. For
example, a team of scientists and economists in New York determined that algorithms have thepotential to reduce pretrial detention by 41.9% with no increase in crime rates while simultaneously
reducing racial disparities. 25
Yakima County has adopted a PTRA tool with similar results to the New York study. Using a PTRA,
Yakima released 20% more people pretrial without impacting public safety or having any material
increase in failure to appear for court hearings. Prior to Yakima County implementing a PTRA tool, 49%
of Latino/Hispanic defendants were released pretrial, as compared to 64% of white defendants thatwere released. After implementing the risk assessment tool, Latino/Hispanic defendants were released
26% more frequently and were released at about the same rate as white defendants. 26 Similarly, otherracial/ethnic groups, including Native Americans, African Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders,experienced a 24% increase in the rate of release. 27,28
Yakima, and other jurisdictions, are also using a decision matrix framework or process to accompany the
PTRA tool. A decision matrix can assist judges and other users in the pretrial system to weigh the toolscore with other factors that require consideration, for example, if a defendant has a federal detainer. A
matrix can also point to appropriate supervision levels for those defendants considered for pretrial
release. A matrix does not override judicial discretion or individualized decision-making. It is simply
another tool for judges to use in conjunction with a PTRA tool.
The Task Force takes no position on whether PTRAs are appropriate for any one jurisdiction or whether
they should be employed uniformly statewide. Instead, we offer a roadmap for jurisdictions intending to
adopt or create a pretrial risk assessment tool.

Risk Assessment Tool Considerations
Below are considerations for jurisdictions intending to adopt or create a PTRA tool. 29 For purposes ofthese considerations, a PTRA means an actuarial tool that uses data to determine the likelihood that a

24 Further inquiry is encouraged to provide the judge with more information about the individual’s current status as it relates to their criminal

history. Questions such as: how old is the criminal history? Are the offenses serious violent offenses? How old is the current charge (delayedprosecution was frequent sometimes due to the person being out of the jurisdiction)? Has something changed since the allegation (for better orworse)? Are there multiple charges? Can all inform the application of criminal history to a release decision?
25 Miller, A. (26 July 2018). Want Less-Biased Decisions? Use Algorithms. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from:https://hbr.org/2018/07/want-less-biased-decisions-use-algorithms?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=hbr
26
Brooker, C.M.B. (November 2017). Yakima County, Washington Pretrial Justice Improvements: Pre- and Post-Implementation Analysis.
Retrieved from: https://justicesystempartners.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2017-Yakima-Pretrial-Pre-Post-Implementation-Study.pdf
27 Id.
28 It is critical to note that Yakima County also implemented many other pretrial practices, including providing those charged with counsel atfirst appearance. Those new practices may have also contributed to the increase in release rates.
29
The Race and Ethnic Considerations Workgroup advises: “Before undertaking the time and expense of validating a PTRA, jurisdictions should
consider other forms as standalone or corollary measures that do not require an algorithmic tool. These measures include increased law
enforcement diversion prior to booking, providing low-cost court date reminders, increasing the use of unsecured or court deposit bonds, andensuring that individuals arrested can be heard promptly after arrest--with counsel-- regarding their ability to pay a given bail requirement.”16

defendant will fail to appear or commit a criminal offense while on pretrial release. 30 These
considerations should provide guidance and identify the minimum criteria for the adoption or creationof a PTRA.
A PTRA is not intended to be the exclusive method for determining risk in making release decisions.
Judges must use their own discretion, consistent with CrR 3.2 and CrRLJ 3.2, in any release decision. This
Task Force recognizes that any jurisdiction adopting or creating a PTRA must also utilize court rules,
statutes, case law, and evidence presented by defense counsel consistent with the presumption of
innocence and presumption of release in non-capital cases.
6) Identify Desired Goals: A jurisdiction should clearly identify what it intends to accomplish to
determine whether the use of a PTRA has been successful. Examples of jurisdictional goals may
include: reducing the jail population, increasing pretrial release, reducing racial disparity in the jailpopulation, improving public safety, or improving court appearance rates.
7) Defining Terms: A PTRA must have clear, operational definitions for “FTA” and “new offense.” 31
Jurisdictions should educate court partners, data analysts/validators, and data entry personnel on
these definitions and determine whether the definitions help accomplish the jurisdiction’s goals.
8) Comparative Data: Jurisdictions should collect data relevant to the identified goals before, during,
and after implementation of the PTRA to measure the PTRA’s performance and progress towardmeeting the jurisdiction’s goals.
9) Clarify Interpretations of “Risk”:
a. Risk of Non-Violent versus Violent Offense: Washington law requires release without
conditions absent a substantial risk of commission of a violent offense, failure to appear incourt or interference with the administration of justice. Jurisdictions should be cautious
when using a PTRA that tests for risk of commission of a non-violent offense, because theresulting risk score or risk level could impact the perceived risk of commission of a violent
offense.
b. Differentiate the Risks: The PTRA should, ideally, differentiate among the three types of risks
addressed in Criminal Rule (CrR and CrRLJ) 3.2 and provide separate risk scores or categories
for each.
c. Quantify the Risk: The PTRA should quantify the likelihood of outcomes represented by thescore or the risk category and not simply prescribe labels like “high,” “medium,” or “low.”
All actors in the court system must understand the scores and be able to interpret theresults beyond the use of simple labels or descriptors.
10) Validation for Predictive Accuracy and Race Neutrality: The PTRA must be validated using local dataprior to adoption and throughout its use to ensure the PTRA is predicting new (violent) 32 offenses
and FTAs with accuracy and precision. The initial post-implementation validation should be
conducted within twelve to eighteen months from the first use of the instrument, or as soon as it
has been determined that a sufficient number of cases are eligible for evaluation. Validations shoulda) measure the instrument’s consistency with stated goals, b) test for predictive accuracy and racial
neutrality (e.g., the tool does not over- or under-predict risk for different groups), and c) check thestatistical significance, predictive power, and racial neutrality of each factor in the PTRA.
Revalidations may occur less frequently.

30 To date, no PTRA measures for risk of interference with the administration of justice. See CrR, CrRLJ 3.2(a)(2)(b).

31
For example, “FTA” could mean any failure to appear, or only a failure to appear that results in the issuance of a warrant. Similarly, a “newoffense” could mean an arrest, a charge, or a conviction. CrR and CrRLJ 3.2 (a)(2)(a) address risk to “commit a violent crime” but do not define
how commission of a violent crime is to be measured: arrest, charge or conviction.
32 Only the PSA measures for commission of a violent offense. See above.

1711) Disproportionate Racial Impact of a PTRA 33: Jurisdictions must examine whether the PTRA has or is
likely to have a negative effect on certain racial, ethnic, or socio-economic groups, with particular
scrutiny on disproportionality. Release decisions made before, versus decisions made after the
adoption of a PTRA, should also be compared. The analysis should include a concurrence rate, whichis the rate at which judges follow the recommendations of the decision framework accompanying
the PTRA.
12) Community Participation: It is crucial that communities of color, marginalized groups, and victims’rights groups are educated and engaged in the development, implementation, and validation of any
jurisdiction’s PTRA. Transparency should mark any jurisdiction’s decision to adopt and use a PTRA.
13) Planning and Implementation: Implementation of a risk assessment tool can be complicated. A
great deal of planning and coordination is necessary for implementation to be successful. Manyorganizations, including the National Center for State Courts, have developed materials to help
jurisdictions plan for the phases of implementation. A list of Resources, following the Appendix,
provides reports and tools for jurisdictions to use in the planning stages of implementation.

Data Collection
The ability to collect accurate data is a critical piece of any reform effort. Data is fundamental whenattempting to develop new, effective processes and improve current practices. Washington State does
not collect the data necessary to track pretrial practices effectively. Key terms do not have uniform
definitions across the state. And, perhaps most importantly, there is no uniform data collection process.
As a result, Washington has limited to no statewide data regarding the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

•

Pretrial populations for each jurisdiction, which is necessary to establish a baseline
understanding of who is in jail and if any reform efforts had positive outcomes.
The cost for the current pretrial risk assessment processes and detention to allow for theconsideration of the costs and/or savings associated with any new policies.
The booking date and first appearance date, without which one cannot determine how long adefendant has been in jail at the time of their first hearing. 34
Release/detention decisions at the bail hearings (personal recognizance release, bail, or
remanded).
The reasoning for the release/detention decision (flight risk, unpaid bail, immigration hold, etc.).
The outcome of the bail decision: the data does not distinguish between instances when adefendant remains in detention due to the inability to pay a relatively low bail amount versus atransportation hold, etc.
Failure to appear rates, which is one of the most critical pieces of information related to pretrial
reform. Currently, at the superior court level, the only method available to determine if a FTA
has occurred is to triangulate bench warrant data with case filing and adjudication dates.
Recidivism rates (new crimes committed after arraignment of instant offense).

Washington needs concrete data, based on uniform definitions and obtained through a uniform datacollection process, to drive its reform efforts and direct its practices. Data collection needs to be uniform

33 More than 100 civil rights organizations have endorsed a letter that sets forth opposition to the use of risk assessment tools and algorithms
as a substitution for ending money bail. This “Shared Statement of Civil Rights Concerns” is available here:
http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/criminal-justice/Pretrial-Risk-Assessment-Full.pdf.
34 At least some Sheriffs’ Offices collect booking date and first appearance data; however, many of them do not have a way to match the data
to a specific case in the court records.

18

at the jurisdictional and state level. A data repository is necessary to better understand our state’ssystems on both a micro and a macro level.
Washington strives for a criminal justice system that is safe, just, fair, and equitable for all. Withoutdata, it is difficult to understand how effective pretrial system reforms are once implemented. Perhaps
more problematic, without proper data it is difficult to estimate how effective the systems currently inplace are. Even without pretrial reforms, the lack of data collection and analysis impacts every
jurisdiction, court, and the tens of thousands of people detained pretrial in Washington.
Pretrial Population
Figure 4. Pretrial Jail Population Estimates 35
77.7%

75.5%

77.0%

65.1%

Nationwide

King County Pierce County

SpokaneCounty

57.3%

59.3%

Thurston
CountyWhatcom
CountyNationally, 65.1% of the average jail population consist of pretrial defendants. 36 In other words, themajority of people in jail have not been convicted of the crime for which they are being held. Similarly,
in Washington, recent data shows that the majority of defendants in jail are being held pretrial, andmany counties have a pretrial jail population that is higher than the national average. For example, inKing County, the average jail population is comprised of 77.7% pretrial defendants. Pierce County has anaverage jail population that is comprised of 75.5% pretrial defendants. Some counties like Thurston
County and Whatcom County have a pretrial jail population that is lower than the national average withpretrial defendants contributing to about 57.3% and 59.3% of the jail population respectively. Althoughattempts to obtain similar data from several other counties in Washington State were made, thecounties either could not compile it in time for this report or stated that they did not collect thisinformation.
Some studies have shown that individuals who do not have the economic resources to post a bond or
bail and remain incarcerated pretrial experience far worse outcomes in the criminal justice systemcompared to similarly situated individuals who can afford bail and are released. In fact, low risk
defendants who were detained prior to trial were four times more likely to receive a sentence ofimprisonment and three times more likely to be given a longer prison sentence as compared to similarly
AOC calculations based on source data provided by the listed jurisdictions. The pretrial jail populations represent all trial court levels thatfeed into the county jail.
36 AOC estimate based on source data: Zeng, Z. (February 2018). Jail Inmates in 2016. Retrieved from:https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ji16.pdf.
35

19

situated low risk defendants who were released prior to trial. 37 There is also no dispute that pretrial
incarceration disrupts one’s job, family life, and places housing at risk.

Data Collection Recommendations
Data is necessary to develop pretrial programs, implement each element of reform, and evaluate
progress toward the reform goals of individual jurisdictions and our state. To make an impact, data mustbe part of a dynamic process to collect available information, conduct analysis, and apply the findings to
the pretrial program. Instead of relying solely on personal perceptions about the challenges oropportunities in pretrial programs, data can provide a solid understanding of what is happening inWashington’s courts and communities.
Figure 5. Data Analysis Process

InterpretandInnovateCollect
Data

Analyze

The Task Force, acknowledging the opportunity to improve data collection that impacts pretrial systems,
has developed the following recommendations.
14) Collect and Record Data: Jurisdictions should collect and record complete information on:a) Defendant demographics: Jurisdictions will need to collect baseline data, such as defendantdemographics (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, age, and county where charges are filed), type of
charges, and assign identifiers to connect pretrial records with AOC criminal history records.
b) Booking date and first appearance date: Jurisdictions can use this information to identify how
long jails are holding defendants between initial booking and the first appearance hearing.
c) Release/detention, reason for detention, bail amounts and any changes to bail amounts:
Consistent and complete data on release, detention, and bail is necessary to understand who isgetting released and who remains detained and how bail relates to those decisions andoutcomes.
d) Release date, criminal charges/records and dates, failure to appear warrants and date issued:
Jurisdictions need release/detention, release date, and improved superior court failure toappear warrant records to better understand who is succeeding and failing during pretrial.
Jurisdictions should have a particular focus on collecting failure to appear rates and recidivism
rates.

37 Lowencamp, C., VanNostrand, M., Holsinger, A.M. (November 2013). Investigating the Impact of Pretrial Detention on Sentencing Outcomes.

Retrieved from: https://www.arnoldfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/LJAF_Report_state-sentencing_FNL.pdf

20

Data Analysis
The Task Force recommends the following kinds of analysis are undertaken. These analyses would assist
jurisdictions in identifying gaps in existing programs and the establishment of pretrial measuresstatewide. While there are many other types of analysis that can be conducted, these are essential toestablish initially.
15) Data Analysis: Jurisdictions should conduct data analysis on the following areas:a) Time from booking to arraignment: Jurisdictions should identify how long jails are holding
defendants between initial booking and the first appearance hearing. This information isessential for improving the efficiency of the system and conducting related cost-benefit
analyses.
b) Pretrial releases and detentions: In order to measure changes in practices, jurisdictions will needto know several items related to release and detention, including:• The percent of different release/detention statuses (OR/PR, bail, remanded);• The numbers of times bail is being assigned and bail amounts; and• The reasons for detention (i.e., flight risk, bail not paid, immigration hold, etc.).
This analysis will help track who is being detained and released and why. This information isimportant to helping understand jail populations, as well as potential areas for improvement.
c) Pretrial outcomes: To gain a better understanding of the pretrial population and the impact ofpretrial release or detention on the community, jurisdictions should examine release/detention
information, failure to appear data, and new charges on a regular basis. Jurisdictions should alsocollect data before implementation of a pretrial reform practice and compare it against the datathat it collected after implementation of the pretrial reform practice so as to measure
improvements. In addition, outcomes of the defendant’s case should be analyzed based upon
their release status.
Data Interpretation
To ensure a robust data analysis process, jurisdictions should use the results of their internal analyses toimprove the pretrial services and/or court system in which they operate.
16) Data Analysis Results: Jurisdictions should use the results of the data analysis to evaluate pretrial
services and conduct improvements as necessary.
The most productive changes that can be made to programs should be data-driven. Without data,
there can be a tendency to rely on anecdotes, personal preferences, or assumptions about what isworking within a system and what is not. Changes made to a system without data support can resultin unintended consequences and exacerbation of existing problems. Data-driven decision making isnecessary to make quality choices that improve processes over time.
17) Data Dissemination: Jurisdictions should regularly provide data analysis to stakeholders and/or the
public.
It is often easiest to share program results with internal staff that understand the system realities
and any pitfalls of reforms. However, providing some level of data analysis to those outside of courts
can be beneficial in several ways. First, it supports transparency. Having performance and outcome
measures available for stakeholders supports confidence in the justice system and the21implementation of pretrial reforms in the jurisdiction. Second, public performance and outcome
measures support accountability. With many interested parties on all sides of the pretrial reform
issue, data analyses that are available and demonstrate how they arrived at their stated conclusions
are necessary for communities to have confidence in their results. Third, any support for reforms
that are desired will be made stronger with public and stakeholder support, which can be driven bymeasures that demonstrate the success of pretrial reforms. Establishing a regular interval for
release of the performance and outcome measures can assure the public that the results areavailable and credible.
Pretrial Services Data
Jurisdictions may decide to implement a pretrial service or Pretrial Services department. If so, the Task
Force recommends the following areas of data analysis, in addition to those described in the Data
Analysis section. This includes, but is not limited to, failure to appear data and new charges for those on
pretrial release.
18) Pretrial Services Data: If implementing pretrial programming, jurisdictions should conduct data
analysis on the following areas, as applicable:a) Time from release order to supervision: This is a managerial tool to ensure that theagency/department is processing cases quickly and appropriately.
b) Length of time on supervision: Knowing the length of time on supervision will give a measure ofcase processing, as well as defendants’ performance on supervision.
c) Caseloads per pretrial services case agent: This will be another managerial tool to help ensure
the proper number of pretrial service agents. The defendant’s risk and/or supervision levelshould be included in this metric, as risk or supervision level may affect the amount of timerequired for each case.
d) Responses to compliance and non-compliance with court-ordered conditions: Measuring
responses in supervision helps identify areas for improvement and adherence to best or
evidence-based practices.
e) Effectiveness at resolving outstanding bench and arrest warrants: An important performancemeasure to capture some of the ancillary benefits of pretrial services.
Pretrial Risk Assessment Tool Data
Jurisdictions may decide to adopt or use a PTRA tool as part of the pretrial process. Those that areconsidering PTRA tools should consult the Risk Assessment Considerations outlined in this report (pp.
17-19), noting the Task Force does not make a specific recommendation about the use of PTRA tools.
19) PTRA Data: Jurisdictions that implement a PTRA tool should conduct analysis on the following areasat regular intervals, in addition to the analyses described in the Data Analysis section. This includes,
but is not limited to, pre-validation of the PTRA tool with local data and continued re-validation at
regular intervals.
a) Concurrence between supervision level or detention status and their assessed risk: This area
does not have to be an exact match, as each jurisdiction will identify circumstances or charges
that increase or decrease the type of supervision.
b) Percentage of cases that release eligible defendants who received a risk assessment: With thisinformation, the jurisdiction will know how the risk assessment is performing.

22c) Percentage of judge‘s release decisions counter to risk assessment recommendation: In order toproperly calibrate the PTRA tool, a jurisdiction must know how often the PTRA tool’s
recommendations are being followed and what happens in those cases.

23

Appendices
Appendix A. Pretrial Reform Task Force Charter
Summary of Pretrial Reform Task Force Objectives:

1. Establish a Pretrial Reform Task Force made up of stakeholders who contribute to or are effectedby pretrial practices. The Task Force will work collaboratively to understand the current state of
pretrial practices and how best to improve those practices. The Task Force will be divided into
three subcommittees: (1) pretrial services; (2) risk assessment; and (3) data collection. The focus
for each subcommittee and its respective goals are outlined below:

Pretrial Services
FOCUS: What pretrial services are currently provided to people accused of crimes in various
jurisdictions throughout Washington?
• Pretrial service agencies—what services do they provide? What pretrial services agencies are
there in WA? Where are they housed? How do they function administratively?
• Types of non-financial conditions for release Court reminders—who’s doing them? Does it reduce FTAs?
 Daily/weekly calls Daily/weekly In-person reporting GPS monitoring Electronic home monitoring• Are costs associated with any non-financial condition for release?
• Diversion and Deflection (social services) programs• Cite and release alternatives• Legal authority to impose pretrial conditions for release
Risk Assessment
FOCUS: What are the best practices for assessing risk related to pretrial release or detention
decisions?
• Evaluation and analysis of current criteria embedded in Washington’s law for assessing risk
 CrR 3.2 and CrRLJ 3.2—what is the efficacy of using the factors outlined in these rules
to assess risk?
• How are judges being educated on the use of CrR 3.2 and CrRLJ 3.2?
 What are best practices from other jurisdictions to assist judges in assessing risk?
• What do risk assessment tools bring to the table?
 Comparison of various risk assessment tools (PSA, CPAT, etc.) both within andoutside of Washington state.
• Variables used to inform the various risk assessments tools Do the variables increase, maintain, or decrease disproportionality in releasedecisions?
• Gather the laws and rules related to current bail practices
Data Collection
FOCUS: Research and collect critical data to inform the Pretrial Services and Risk Assessment
subcommittees.
24

•
•
•

What data needs to be collected?
How should data be collected (methods)?
What is the best or most effective use of the data once it’s collected?

2. Convene Quarterly Task Force Meetings where the full Task Force will meet to share their progressand subcommittee chairs will be asked to present updates from their respective subcommittees.
3. Convene Monthly Subcommittee Meetings where the subcommittees will meet to share theinformation that they have collected thus far and determine tasks that need to be accomplished by
the next subcommittee meeting. The subcommittee chair will facilitate the conversation and assign
the tasks.
4. Produce a comprehensive report outlining the work of and data collected by the different
subcommittees. Using the data collected from the subcommittees, the comprehensive report will
recommend best pretrial practices to be used throughout Washington State.

Governing Structure: Executive Committee: Justice Yu, Judge O’Donnell, and Judge Logan
The Pretrial Reform Task Force’s Executive Committee is made up of three leaders from the three cosponsoring organizations: the Washington State Minority and Justice Commission co-Chair, Justice MaryYu; the Superior Court Judges’ Association President, Judge Sean P. O’Donnell; and the District andMunicipal Court Judges’ Association Representative, Judge Mary Logan. The Executive Committee serves as
the final voice in terms of direction, focus, and work product of the subcommittees.
 Subcommittee Chairs: Judge Rumbaugh, Judge Moreno, Dr. van Wormer, and Dr. Peterson
The Pretrial Reform Task Force’s Subcommittee Chairs are made up of four substantive experts in thesubject matter relevant to each subcommittee. Mr. Harold Delia is the Chair of the Pretrial Services
Subcommittee; Judge Maryann Moreno is the Chair of the Risk Assessment Subcommittee; and Dr.
Jacqueline van Wormer and Dr. Andrew Peterson are the co-Chairs of the Data Collection Subcommittee.
The Subcommittee Chairs are responsible for coordinating the groups, producing the deliverables, andmeeting their deadlines. The Subcommittee Chairs will develop the content of their subcommittee
meetings’ agendas and create a timeline for when deliverables will become due. The Subcommittee Chairs
will also host monthly meetings with their groups and present the data they collect with the Task Force at
the quarterly meetings.
 Task Force Members:
The Task Force members are all those who have signed up for, or were appointed to, a subcommittee. The
subcommittee members will work under the guidance of that subcommittee’s chair to achieve the group’s
objectives, deliverables, and deadlines. Task Force members must attend their subcommittee meetings aswell as the quarterly Task Force meetings.
 Staff:
The Pretrial Reform Task Force’s staff is made up of two staff persons that will provide staff support to thesubcommittees. The staff support will include coordinating the subcommittee’s monthly meetings, hosting25

the conference call for these meetings, and taking notes during these meetings. The meeting notes will
document the tasks that are assigned, tasks in progress, and projects completed, among other things.
Staff also includes the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) team: (1) Sue Ferrere- Technical Assistance Manager
and this Task Force’s “co-pilot”; (2) John Clark- Director of Implementation; (3) Robin Campbell- Director ofCommunications; and (4) Evita Green- Technical Assistance Associate.

Governing Structure Diagram: 38
Executive
Committee

Subcommittees

Pretrial
Services

Risk
Assessment

Data Collection

Stakeholder Organizations:
Administrative Office of the Courts
Aladdin Bail Bonds
American Civil Liberties Union of Washington
Association of Washington Cities
Attorney General’s Office
Cardozo Society of Washington State
Clark County Indigent Defense
Columbia Legal Services
Disability Rights Washington
District and Municipal Judges’ Association
Evergreen Public Affairs
Justice System Partners
King County Community Corrections Division
King County Council
King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention
King County Executive’s OfficeKing County Office of Public Defense
King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
Lacey O’Malley Bail Bonds
Laura and John Arnold Foundation
26

Minority and Justice Commission
Misdemeanant Corrections Association
Northwest Community Bail Fund
Not This Time
Office of Governor Jay Inslee
Office of Representative Roger Goodman
Office of the Washington State Auditor
Pacific Northwest Bail Bonds
Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office
Pierce County Superior Court’s Pretrial Services Program
Pretrial Justice Institute
Seattle City Attorney’s Office
Seattle City Council
Seattle Municipal Court’s Research, Planning, and Evaluation Group
Seattle Race and Social Justice Initiative
Seattle University School of Law
Snohomish County Public Defenders’ Office
Spokane City Prosecutor’s Office
Spokane City Public Defender’s Office
Spokane County Public Defenders’ Office
Spokane Regional Law and Justice Council
Superior Court Judges’ Association
Thurston County Prosecuting Attorney’s OfficeThurston County Superior Court’s Pretrial Services Program
Triton Management Services
United Way of King County
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs
Washington Defender Association
Washington Institute of Criminal Justice
Washington State Association of Counties
Washington State Bail Agents’ Association
Washington State Bar Association
Washington State Center for Court Research
Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Washington State Democratic Caucus
Washington State University, Dept. of Criminal Justice and Criminology
Whatcom County’s Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force
Yakima County Superior Court’s Pretrial Services Program27

Proposed Timeline:
Time
Kick-off: June 2017
Month 1: August 2017

Month 4: November
Month 5: December
Month 6: January
Month 7: February

Activities
Task Force meeting #1
Subcommittee meetings #1:• Amend the subcommittee objectives as needed• Develop framework for subcommittee functions• Determine what data/ information is needed
Subcommittee meetings #2:• Independently determine agenda
Subcommittee meetings #3:• Work on data collection
Subcommittee meetings #4
Subcommittee meetings #5
Subcommittee meetings #6
Subcommittee meetings #7

Month 8: MarchMonth 9: April

Task Force meeting #2:• Subcommittee Chairs will share their data/information
Subcommittee meetings #8
Subcommittee meetings #9

Month 10: May
Month 11: June
Month 12: July
Month 13: AugustMonth 14: September
Month 15: October

Subcommittee meetings #10
Subcommittee meetings #11
Subcommittee meetings #12
Subcommittee meetings #13
Subcommittee meetings #14
Subcommittee meetings #15

Month 16: November
Month 17: December

Task Force meeting #3• Subcommittee Chairs will share their data/information
Subcommittee meetings #16
Subcommittee meetings #17

Month 18: January 2019

Task Force meeting #4• Subcommittee Chairs will present final recommendations
Publish final reportMonth 2: September
Month 3: October28

Appendix B. Materials Developed by the Racial and Ethnic Considerations Workgroup
The Executive Committee is including this information on Risk Assessments and Racial Disproportionality toensure that the public has access to the full spectrum of opinions that stakeholders provided to the Task
Force. The inclusion of this material does not represent the Executive Committee’s endorsement of theviews expressed below.

Risk Assessments and Racial Disproportionality—
Submitted by the Racial and Ethnic Considerations Workgroup
This is the report of the Racial and Ethnic Considerations Workgroup, submitted to the Risk Assessment
Committee April, 2018.
Reliance on Criminal History
The problem is the racial and ethnic disparities that our criminal justice system has created over time.
Research shows that most of us have at least an implicit, meaning unconscious, racial bias. Social scientists
term this a “pro-white” bias produced by the “cognitive filtering” that occurs on an unconscious level. Thatbias exists across all demographic groups, including law enforcement, lawyers, and judges: all decisionmakers in the system. Overt racial prejudice also exists. In addition, communities of color are often policed
more intensely than white communities, increasing contacts with law enforcement and thus the likelihoodof arrest.
According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, young black males are nine times more likely than young
white males to be imprisoned.1
Because defendants of color tend to have more law enforcement contacts and hence, criminal history, andcriminal history is an important factor used in most risk assessments, particularly to predict new criminal
behavior, then will use of a risk assessment have a racially disparate impact on minority defendants?2 Does
use of historical crime data to predict new criminal behavior in effect punish the victims of past racism byincreasing their risk score and thus likelihood of pretrial detention?
Critics of risk assessments answer in the affirmative and argue that risk thus becomes a proxy for race
because of this heavy reliance on criminal history, which is tainted by past race-based decision-making.3 A
more precise description of the relationship between criminal history and race is that they overlap. The
degree to which existing institutional racial disparity affects risk scores, and how to mitigate any suchdisparate effects, is the subject of emerging social science research.4
1 “Risk Assessment in Criminal Sentencing”, John Monahan and Jennifer Skeem, page 38.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2662082##
2 The Arnold Foundation Public Safety Assessment (PSA), used in the Yakima project and the most commonly used tool in the country, heavily

relies on past involvement in the criminal justice system. The PSA predictive factors for violent re-offense are: current violent offense; current
violent offense + 20 years of or younger; pending charge at the time of the offense; prior conviction; prior violent conviction.
https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=96b14899- 4d9b-0e46-5de23761d945f31b&forceDialog=03 “Risk as a Proxy For Race”, B. Harcourt (2010), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1677654 4 “Fair Prediction with
Disparate Impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments”, A. Chouldechova, (2017), https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00056.pdf

29

Currently, there is little empirical research on the effect, if any, of the use of risk assessments on racialdisparities in the criminal justice system.5 However, King County discovered a substantial gap between
the risk scores of whites and blacks for risk of new violent crimes and future failure to appear in its 2014
analysis of a pretrial risk assessment designed for King County.6
Can a “Race Neutral” Tool Still Result in Disparate Racial Impact?
The widely used Arnold Foundation’s Public Safety Assessment (PSA) has been thoroughly tested and thefactors it uses to predict outcomes have been found to be “race neutral”, or free of predictive bias,
according to Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI). 7 According to PJI, this means that “Black and White
defendants assessed with the PSA succeed at virtually identical rates”.8 “Race neutral” in this context andin the academic literature mean that whites and persons of color with the same risk score have similar
FTA and new criminal offense rates. In other words, the tool has the same predictive accuracy regardlessof the defendant’s race. Predictive accuracy is used to validate a risk assessment for race neutrality.
There are a couple of related problems here.
First is how determine new criminal behavior. Because of disproportionate policing and race bias among
decision-makers, there may be a difference between crimes recorded in criminal history and crimes
actually committed. For example, a white defendant in a seldom-policed neighborhood and a black
defendant in a vigorously-policed neighborhood could have the same risk scores, even though the whitedefendant has actually committed more crimes than has the black defendant with whom she shares thesame score. The difference is the white defendant got caught less often, perhaps because of policing
patterns in that jurisdiction.9
Second, “predictive parity” as a test for racial bias, is a different inquiry from the impact of a tool on a
racial or ethnic group. In other words, a risk assessment can have predictive parity among groups, yetsystematically assign minorities higher average risk scores than whites10, with the gap in average risk
scores between racial groups is due to differences in criminal history. 11

5 “Assessing Risk Assessment in Action”, Professor Megan Stevenson, December 8, 2017,https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=660029082067073118115104070119094113007059056088020045
12611802509709008910409312600501311705310201806300711911200602911506502011203807801306511600
41240931191240640260760420991160991131111180901261001260900030810270100280930310680841050720
86012006114&EXT=pdf
6 King County Pretrial Risk Assessment Tool Project, February 2014, by Dr. Robert Barnoski. King County did not adopt the pretrial risk

assessment.
7 https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=5cebc2e7- dfa4-65b2-13cd300b81a6ad7a
8 Id., at 5.
10 Skeem and Lowencamp, Risk, Race and Recidivism: Predictive Bias and Disparate Impact, pg. 25,

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2687339&rec=1&srcabs=2662082&alg=1&pos=1
11 Skeem and Lowencamp, “Risk, Race and Recidivism: Predictive Bias and Disparate Impact”, at pg. 25.

30

Can a Race Neutral Tool Mitigate Judicial Bias?
A validated risk tool can mitigate decision-maker bias. Well-designed algorithms have no prejudices,
conscious or unconscious. Black defendants and white defendants with similar recorded criminal histories
will have similar risk scores.
So, the question becomes, does the data show that release decisions informed primarily by a risk scoreshow less racial disparity? The preliminary data from the Yakima project indicates the affirmative. Prior
to the program, and without use of the PSA, 64 percent of whites were released pretrial compared to49 percent of Latinos and 41 percent of other races. After the program started and with use of the PSA,
the percentage of whites released was 73 percent and the percentage of Latinos released increased to
75 percent and other races increased to 65 percent.12 How much of this improvement is attributable to
the risk assessment is difficult to determine because other improved pretrial practices, i.e., assigningcounsel earlier in the process, were also implemented.
The Arnold Foundation reports that use of the PSA in Toledo, Ohio, Lucas County, followed with releaseof whites and blacks in equal rates. 13 That is promising news. As in Yakima, however, whether thischange was due to the PSA or the combined effects of other improved pretrial practices is not known.
Can Race Equity and Predictive Accuracy Coexist in the Same Risk Tool?
Criminal history as a factor in a risk assessment presents a conundrum. Criminal history is one of thestrongest predictors of new criminal activity, but it overlaps with race and may contribute to disparate
incarceration.
One suggestion is to give less weight to criminal history; to calibrate the tool differently. The challenge
would be how to determine the degree to which criminal history is or is not based on past system bias
or policing patterns. Elizabeth Drake in her dissertation project terms this, “cumulative disadvantage”,
and seeks to quantify exactly that. Other academics are exploring algorithms that incorporate a“fairness” or “equity” factor to address any disparate racial impact of using past criminal history toderive risk scores.14
If criminal history, regarded by experts as the most predictive factor of future criminal behavior, is given
less weight in calculating a risk score, what does that do to the predictive accuracy of the tool? Is theresultant trade-off between accuracy and equity worth it? Then again, criminal history may notaccurately reflect actual crime commission anyhow, given disparate policing patterns and past racial bias
(structural racism).

12 https://www.yakimaherald.com/news/crime_and_courts/study-no-significant-crime-increase-under-yakima- county-pretrialprogram/article_dc87b8e4-d274-11e7-8969-239a1b1de844.html
13 http://www.arnoldfoundation.org/new-data-pretrial-risk-assessment-tool-works-reduce-crime-increase-court- appearances/
14 See A. Chouldechova, footnote 1, supra.

31

Public Confidence in the Criminal Justice System
Important to consider in the mix is public confidence in the legal system, particularly that of the minority
communities. There is a sizeable gap between whites and other racial groups in the perception of thefairness of our justice system. This cynicism of non-white Washington residents is documented in a 2012
study commissioned by the Washington Minority and Justice Commission, “Justice in Washington State
Survey”. The study concludes that whites and racial minorities “are on two different ends of thespectrum” regarding the fairness of the courts.
This confidence gap could worsen if minority communities were to regard judges’ reliance on a risk toolthat is heavily dependent on criminal history as a proxy for race. Such negative perceptions of criminal
justice unfairness undermine the legitimacy of the criminal law and the justice system as an institution.15
Yet, currently criminal history is a key consideration in pretrial release decisions made by judges.16
Criminal Rule 3.2 and the corresponding rule for limited jurisdiction courts expressly enumerate criminal
history as a consideration for assessing risk of failure to appear and risk of future violent re-offense. CrR
3.2(c) (6), (e) (1). Most judges already weigh past crimes heavily in making release decisions. So, a risk
assessment score based largely on criminal history is not a huge change from current practice mandatedby court rule.
On the other hand, there is a difference between judges relying on criminal history as one factor under
the court rule, albeit an important one, in making release decisions, versus the judiciary adopting an
actuarial tool that is heavily reliant on that factor. Would the latter more formally incorporate past
racial bias into the criminal justice system, or give the appearance of doing so?
Recommendations
1. The risk tool should be tested to determine the average risk scores it produces, by racial andethnic group.
2. The risk tool should be evaluated to determine whether it results in more or fewer disparate
outcomes than the status quo, i.e., judge decisions made without a risk assessment.
3. The factors the risk tool uses should be examined to determine whether they overlap and hence“double count”. For example, using both arrest and conviction data.
4. All factors should be validated for race neutrality as well as correlation with race and ethnicity.
5. The jurisdiction considering using a risk tool should first determine its goals, i.e., reducing the jailpopulation; reducing racial disparity in the jail population; improving on the judicial decisionmaking and if so, in what regard.
6. The jurisdiction should collect data by race and ethnicity of release decisions made after
adopting use of the risk tool, to evaluate for racial impact.
15 “Risk Assessment in Criminal Sentencing”, Monahan and Skeem, pg. 38,

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2662082##
16 CrR 3.2 also requires a judge to consider whether the defendant poses a risk to interfere with the administration of justice, intimidate or tamper

with victims or witnesses. CrR 3.2 (a). For simplicity and economy of language, this writer subsumes the risk of non-interference with justice underviolent re-offense.

32

7. The judges using the risk tool should be educated about its development. They need tounderstand that the risk scores were developed before any pretrial services were available. For
example, a defendant’s risk score for failure to appear may be high, but the risk would be
mitigated by having court date reminders, or transportation to court, or other pretrial
assistance with housing or treatment needs.
8. The jurisdiction should continually monitor the social science research regarding risk
assessments and racially disparate outcomes. Integrating a “fairness factor” into the risk tool
to reduce racially disparate impact should be considered.

33

Appendix C. Pretrial Data Analysis – Needs Assessment
Analysis TypeTime from booking
to arraignment

Release anddetentions

Pretrial Outcomes

PurposeIdentifying how longjails are holding
defendants between
initial booking andarraignment are
essential for improving
the efficiency of thesystem and conducting
related cost-benefit
analyses.
To cover several areas,
including the percent of
those detained andreleased and the various
reasons for detention(OR/PR, bail,remanded); numbers oftimes bail is being
assigned and bailamounts; and reasonsfor detention (i.e., flightrisk, bail not paid,
immigration, etc.).
To measure what
happens to thosereleased pretrial,
regarding new offenses
and failure to appear
warrants.

Data Currently Collected
None.

Data Gap
Booking date andarraignment date.

We have some data on
bail amounts issued, but
the data are not enteredconsistently.

Release/detention,
reason for detention,
consistent data on bailbeing assigned and theamount. We will alsoneed to makeallowances foradjustments to bailamounts.

Criminal charges/records
and dates (offense date,charge filing date,adjudication date, casenumber, county, and typeof charge), some failure toappear warrant data (Wehave failure to appear
warrants for the District
and Municipal Courts. For
Superior Courts, we only
know that a bench
warrant was issued andthe date. The best we cando for those is identify abench warrant that wasissued between the casefiling date andadjudication date, not thetype of warrant issued.

Release/detention,
release date, better
Superior Court failure
to appear warrant
records.

Pretrial Services

Aiding counties andjurisdictions tounderstand theperformance of theirpretrial services
department/agency andmaking sure theircaseloads areappropriate andmanageable.

No statewide datacollection for the pretrial
supervision or the pretrial
agencies/departments
already in place aroundthe state.

Risk Assessment
Instruments

Measuring how
jurisdictions respond to
the recommendationsof the risk assessment.

No statewide datacollection for the risk
assessments already inplace around the state.

Date of release order,
date supervision
begins, number of
agents/workers,
number of cases,
responses andmodifications to caseoutcomes andsupervision based uponcompliance or noncompliance, andresolution ofoutstanding warrants.
Risk assessment scores,
recommended
supervision levels,
number of release
eligible defendants.

35

Resources
The following is a collection of articles and studies shared among Task Force stakeholders. Their
inclusion in this Appendix does not represent the Executive Committee’s endorsement of the views andopinions expressed therein.
A Framework for Pretrial Justice: Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial System and Agency
This document from the National Institute of Corrections describes the fundamentals of an effective
pretrial system and the essential elements of a high functioning pretrial services agency. It is designed toserve as a guide for jurisdictions interested in improving current their pretrial systems.
https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=c8bd044e-0215-9ab6-c22e-b1a4de912044
State of the Science of Pretrial Release Recommendations and SupervisionThis report from the Pretrial Justice Institute discusses effective strategies to improve the criminal
justice system and public safety. It addresses the question of how the pretrial justice system caneffectively determine the appropriate pretrial release option for individual defendants.
http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/acjc/bail%20pretrial%20release/sciencepretrial.pdf
State of the Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment
This document is a summary of the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) and the Office of Justice Programs’
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) meeting regarding the pretrial justice process and what strategies
should be implemented in order to be fair and humane to defendants while considering public safety.
The document is split into five sections covering the history of pretrial justice, critical issues, process
challenges, methodological challenges, and recommendations.
https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=be5
7ae7c-5239-3950-60f9-0ff13af6e688&forceDialog=0
Fundamentals of Bail: A Resource Guide for Pretrial Practitioners and a Framework for American
Pretrial Reform
This report from the National Institute of Corrections, describes the historical framework of theAmerican bail system, as well as certain broad fundamentals of bail and how they are connected.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/028360.pdf
Pretrial Justice Planning Guide for Courts
The Pretrial Justice Assessment and Planning Guide for Courts is designed specifically for judges andcourt managers interested in improving their jurisdiction’s pretrial practices. The Guide can be used for36

statewide and local pretrial reform efforts and provides frameworks to consider. The worksheets aredesigned as templates that you can modify to reflect the context in which your jurisdiction’s pretrial
system functions. This resource was developed by the Pretrial Justice Institute and the State Courts
Initiative.
https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/PJCC/NCSC%20Pretrial%20Justice%20Planning%20Guid
e%202018%20V2-3.ashx
Using Behavioral Science to Improve Criminal Justice OutcomesThis policy brief outlines the process and results of a joint project with consultant firm ideas42 and the
University of Chicago Crime Lab. The project’s aim was to develop and test two behavioral approaches
to addressing the common issue of failure to appear.
https://urbanlabs.uchicago.edu/attachments/store/9c86b123e3b00a5da58318f438a6e787dd01d66d0ef
ad54d66aa232a6473/I42-954_NYCSummonsPaper_Final_Mar2018.pdf
No Money, No Freedom: The Need for Bail Reform
This paper from the ACLU of Washington’s Campaign for Smart Justice discusses problems with thestate’s current pretrial system and offers broad recommendations for reform.
https://www.aclu-wa.org/bailKey Features of Holistic Pretrial Justice Statutes and Court Rules
This report from the Pretrial Justice Institute explores aspects of statutes and laws that may help orhinder achieving the three goals of the 3DaysCount campaign: reducing unnecessary arrests thatdestabilize families and communities; replacing discriminatory cash bail with practical, risk-based
decision making; and restricting detention to the small number of defendants who pose an
unmanageable threat to public safety or flight, following thorough due process.
https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=743
bab92-f9b4-a1f5-dcd8-eab810535231&forceDialog=0
Measuring What Matters: Outcome and Performance Measures for the Pretrial Services Field
This report presents recommended outcome and performance measures and mission-critical data toenable pretrial service agencies to gauge more accurately their programs’ effectiveness in meeting
agency and justice system goals.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/025172.pdf
Use of Court Date Reminder Notices to Improve Court Appearance Rates

37

This brief from the Pretrial Justice Center for the Courts describe four approaches to court date
notification systems and related data.
https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/PJCC/PJCC%20Brief%2010%20Sept%202017%20Court%
20Date%20Notification%20Systems.ashx

38