U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Pretrial Services

Programming at

the Start of the

21st Century

A Survey of Pretrial

Services Programs
This document was prepared by the Pretrial Services Resource Center, under grant number

2001–DD–BX–0037, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs,

U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations 

expressed 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.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels

Assistant Attorney General

C. Camille Cain

Acting Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice Programs

Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also

includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

NCJ 199773
by

John Clark 

and 

D. Alan Henry

Pretrial Services

Programming at

the Start of the

21st Century

A Survey of Pretrial

Services Programs

July 2003

NCJ 199773
iii

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the more than 200 state and local pretrial services programadministrators from around the country, as well as those in the District of

Columbia and Puerto Rico, who took the time to complete our very lengthy and

detailed survey. Their cooperation was essential in completing this third survey of

pretrial services programs. We also would like to thank the National Association of

Pretrial Services Agencies, specifically its president, Dennis Hunter, and five

members of the Board of Directors—Miranda Boozer, Carl Hinxman, Peter Kiers,

Mary Pat Maher, and Marilyn Walczak—for their expert assistance in the

development of the survey instrument and their critical review of drafts of this

report.
v

Contents

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

Surveys Past and Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

Highlights of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

How This Report Is Organized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

II. General Characteristics of 

Pretrial Services Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Type of Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Size of Jurisdiction Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Nature of Jurisdiction Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Annual Number of Arrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Number of Interviews Conducted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Decade Program Began . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Administrative Locus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Program Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Source of Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Staff Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Hours of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Delegated Release Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

III. Pretrial Program Services 

Compared to National Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Pretrial Services Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Timing of Initial Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Advise Before Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Criminal Records Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Presentation of Information to the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Supervised Pretrial Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Court Date Reminders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Followup on Defendants Who Fail To Appear in Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Review of Status of Detained Defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
vi

Pretrial Services Programming

Information Provided for a Presentence Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

IV. Management and Evaluation of 

Program Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Operations Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Validation of Risk Assessment Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Calculating Outcomes: FTA Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Calculating Outcomes: Rearrest Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

V. Dealing With Special Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Defendants With Mental Illness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Juveniles Charged as Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Domestic Violence Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

VI. Technology and Pretrial Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Drug Testing as a Supervision Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Alcohol Testing as a Supervision Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Electronic Monitoring as a Supervision Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

VII. Jail Crowding and Pretrial Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Jail Capacity and Average Daily Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Jail Crowding in Jurisdictions Served by Pretrial Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

VIII.Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

A. Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

B. Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

C. List of Participating Pretrial Services Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
vii

Executive Summary

Since their inception in the 1960s, pretrial servicesprograms have been providing bail-setting judicial

officers with information and options for the release or

detention of persons accused of criminal offenses. Over

the ensuing four decades, hundreds of pretrial programs

have been established in rural, suburban, and urban

jurisdictions. These programs are housed in a variety of

settings, including probation departments, court offices,

local jails, and as independent or private agencies.

Surveys Past and Present

The first survey of pretrial services programs, conducted

by the Pretrial Services Resource Center, was released

in 1979; a second, funded by the Bureau of Justice

Assistance, followed in 1989. The results of those two

surveys have shown pretrial program administrators how

their services and practices compare to those of other

programs around the country and have provided

guidance for programmatic growth. The results have also

guided county boards and other funding agencies looking

to establish or expand pretrial services programming. 

This report presents the findings from the third survey of

pretrial services programs, conducted in 2001, in which a

total of 202 pretrial services programs participated. The

results describe where pretrial services programs stand in

relation to one another, where they stand in relation to

where they were in 1979 and 1989, and where they stand

in relation to the standards set by the American Bar

Association and the National Association of Pretrial

Services Agencies for services provided by pretrial

programs. The report also examines what pretrial

services programs are doing to meet the challenges

presented by four groups that are being seen in

increasing numbers in the criminal justice system since

the last surveys—defendants with mental illness,

juveniles charged as adults, people charged with

domestic violence offenses, and women. Finally, it looks

at any relationships that might exist between pretrial

services program practices and jail crowding, exploring

such factors as administrative locus, program scope and

size, program funding and staffing, and any relationships

that might exist between these factors and specific

program practices and outcomes. It does not, however,

seek to explain why relationships may or may not exist. 

Highlights of Findings

Many new pretrial services programs have been initiated

since the last survey in 1989; 44 percent of the programs

participating in the current survey have been started since

1990. Probation is the administrative locus for a growing

number of pretrial programs; 34 percent of programs

started since 1990 are in probation, compared to 27

percent in jails, and 24 percent in courts. By contrast, 36

percent of programs started in the 1980s were in courts,

whereas 27 percent were in probation and 16 percent in

jails. The average staff size for a pretrial program is 18;

10 percent of programs have just 1 staff person, and 2

percent have more than 200.

The American Bar Association and the National

Association of Pretrial Services Agencies specify several

core services or practices for pretrial services programs.

Although many of these services and practices are

present in a large percentage of programs, the survey

results show that several other services and practices are

not present in most programs. For example, despite the

recommendation in the standards that all persons charged

with a criminal offense be interviewed by pretrial

services, only 16 percent of programs report having no

exclusions on interviews. In addition, although the

standards call for the use of objective criteria in the

formulation of a risk assessment, fewer than 1 in 4

pretrial programs (23 percent) rely exclusively on

objective risk assessment criteria; 42 percent combine

objective and subjective criteria, and 35 percent use

subjective criteria only.

The survey looked at how pretrial services programs

prepare staff to do their jobs and measure their

effectiveness. A majority of programs have a mission

statement and operations manual to guide and instruct

staff. Fewer than half the programs, though, provide a

structured training program for new staff. One-quarter of

the programs rely exclusively on on-the-job training. 
viii

Pretrial Services Programming

As for efforts to measure effectiveness, 48 percent of

pretrial programs report that they have never validated

their risk assessment instrument; an additional 22 percent

indicate that it has been more than 5 years since their

instrument was validated. Forty-five percent of programs

do not calculate failure to appear (FTA) rates; of those

that do, there is great variation in how these rates are

calculated:

■ Seventy-one percent count only those released under

the supervision of the program, 14 percent count all

those interviewed by the program (regardless of

release type), and 13 percent count only those

interviewed by the program and placed on

nonfinancial release.

■ Sixty percent define an FTA as occurring only when a

bench warrant is issued, whereas 35 percent define

FTA as whenever any court appearance is missed,

regardless of whether a warrant was issued.

■ Sixty percent use a defendant-based measure to

calculate FTA, and 32 percent use an appearancebased measure. 

Seventy-one percent of programs do not calculate

rearrest rates; of those that do, there is variation in how

those rates are calculated:

■ Eighty percent calculate rearrest rates only for those

who are under the program’s supervision, 10 percent

count all those interviewed by the program regardless

of release type, and 8 percent include only those

interviewed by the program and placed on

nonfinancial release.

■ Ten percent define a rearrest as occurring only when

the new charge results in a conviction, 80 percent

consider a rearrest to be whenever there is a new

arrest (regardless of the ultimate disposition of the

new charge), and 10 percent qualify other

miscellaneous circumstances as a rearrest.

It appears that pretrial services programs are beginning

to address challenges brought on by two special

populations of defendants whose presence in the criminal

justice system has been growing—those who have a

mental illness and those charged with domestic violence.

Nearly 3 of every 4 pretrial programs ask about mental

health status and treatment as a regular part of the

interview. About one-quarter of the programs report

having implemented special procedures to supervise

defendants with a mental illness. The majority of these,

75 percent, refer the defendant to a mental health

program in the community. Sixteen percent report having

a specialized caseload. One-quarter of the programs have

developed special risk assessment procedures for

defendants charged with domestic violence offenses and

about one-third have implemented special procedures to

supervise defendants charged with domestic violence

offenses.

The survey also examined the extent to which pretrial

services programs have been making use of technology

to aid in their work. Sixty-eight percent of pretrial

programs report using drug testing as a tool in pretrial

supervision. About half (104) of the programs report

using alcohol testing as a supervision tool. Nearly 1 in 5

programs that test for alcohol use a remote system,

whereby the defendant can be tested at home by a

supervision officer at another location. Fifty-four percent

of the pretrial programs use at least one form of

electronic monitoring. Most pretrial programs that use

electronic monitoring use continuously signaling devices,

which sound an alert if the defendant leaves a restricted

area. Six percent of the programs use Global Positioning

System (GPS) technology, which allows the exact

movements of defendants in the community to be tracked

from a remote location on a continuous basis. Fewer than

10 percent of pretrial programs rely exclusively on a

manual system to gather, store, and retrieve information.

Just over half of the programs use a combination of

manual and automated systems. More than half of the

pretrial programs report that the information systems

they use are not integrated with computers from other

criminal justice programs in the jurisdiction. 

Although pretrial services programs generally have little,

if any, control over the population at the jail, the survey

examined several characteristics of programs in relation

to the jail population. Forty-four percent of the jails in

jurisdictions served by the pretrial programs are over

capacity. Almost half are under capacity, and the

remainder are at capacity. Programs administratively

located within the sheriff’s department or jail and those

that are independent agencies are the least likely by far

to be in jurisdictions where the jail population is over

capacity—29 percent for both, compared to 47 percent

for probation-based programs, 50 percent for private,

nonprofit programs, and 54 percent for court-based
ix

Executive Summary

programs. Programs that assess risks of pretrial

misconduct in an exclusively subjective manner are more

than twice as likely to have a jail population that exceeds

its capacity than those programs that assess risk

exclusively through an objective risk assessment

instrument—56 percent compared to 27 percent. Fiftyseven percent of programs that add subjective input to an

objective instrument are in jurisdictions with

overcrowded jails.
1

I

n 1961, the first pretrial services program in the

country, the Manhattan Bail Project, was established in

New York City. Its purpose was to assist judges in

making release decisions that were more consistent and

less dependent on release through financial means. The

experiences of the Manhattan Bail Project launched what

became known as the Bail Reform Movement, during

which statutes across the country were rewritten to

emphasize a preference for releasing arrestees on their

own recognizance pending final disposition of their

charges. For this change in policy to occur, verified

information about the arrestee was deemed critical and

pretrial screening and supervision programs were created

to respond. 

In subsequent years, hundreds of pretrial programs have

been established in rural, suburban, and urban

jurisdictions, finding homes in probation departments,

court offices, and local jails and as independent county

contractors. 

These programs provide a number of critical services,

including:

■ Gathering and verifying information about arrestees—

including criminal history, current status in the

criminal justice system, address, employment, and

drug and alcohol use history—that judicial officers

can then take into account in making release/detention

decisions.

■ Assessing each arrestee’s likelihood of failure to

appear and chances of being rearrested. 

■ Providing supervision for defendants conditionally

released, notifying the court of any failure to comply

with release conditions.

But from the early years the development of such

programs has not been uniform. In some jurisdictions,

programs were introduced solely to reduce the jail

population; in others, their primary purpose was to

provide supervision of those ordered released by the

courts pending trial. Some programs targeted certain

groups of defendants for their services, while others

interviewed everyone arrested. 

Recognizing these differences, in 1978 the U.S.

Department of Justice made two grant awards: the first to

the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies

(NAPSA) to develop national professional standards for

the still-new field and the second to the Pretrial Services

Resource Center (PSRC) to determine the current status

of the pretrial field (how many programs there were and

how they compared with the professional standards that

the association was promulgating). That first survey of

pretrial programs was produced in 1979. A second

survey of pretrial services programs was funded by the

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of

Justice, in 1989. 

Results from these surveys have been critical for court

and local county officials, providing benchmarks as to

the types of services offered by programs that now fall

under the umbrella term “pretrial services” and

identifying changes that have taken place in their

organizational development. Results have shown pretrial

administrators how their services stand in relation to

other programs around the country and have provided

hints for programmatic growth. Finally, the surveys have

guided county boards and other funding agencies

planning to establish or expand a pretrial program with

regard to such issues as the most frequent administrative

location for such programs and their average staff size. 

In 2001, BJA funded a third survey of pretrial services

programs. This survey, the results from which are

reported here, followed very closely the process

employed by the earlier surveys, exploring such issues as

administrative locus, program scope and size, program

funding and staffing, and specific program practices. It

also collected information on important current-day

issues such as the latest technologies used by pretrial

programs to conduct their investigations, assess risks of

pretrial misconduct, supervise defendants, and manage

information. In addition, the survey explored how pretrial

programs are dealing with special populations, including

the mentally ill, juveniles charged as adults, women

I. Introduction
2

Pretrial Services Programming

offenders, and offenders charged with domestic

violence—populations that continue to provide

difficulties for local courts during the pretrial stage. 

Methodology

A number of sources were used to identify pretrial

programs for participation in the survey. The first was the

mailing list of PSRC, a clearinghouse for information on

pretrial services. This list was cross-referenced with the

membership records of NAPSA, the professional

organization for pretrial program practitioners, as well as

the membership records of various state pretrial

associations. Several states, including California, Florida,

Minnesota, New York, and Ohio, have their own state

pretrial associations, while in others, including Illinois,

North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, state

agencies fund—at least partially—and monitor the

pretrial programs in the state. Officials in each of these

states were contacted for a list of pretrial services

programs, which again were cross-referenced with

PSRC’s mailing list. In other jurisdictions, such as

Connecticut, Delaware, and Kentucky, pretrial is run at

the state level, making those programs easy to identify.

Next, an attempt was made to contact all programs not

yet identified that had participated in the 1989 survey.

Finally, an extensive Internet search was undertaken to

identify other pretrial services programs that might exist.

Through this effort, a total of 337 jurisdictions were

identified that either have or might have a pretrial

services program. 

The instruments used in the 1979 and 1989 surveys were

modified by adding questions pertaining to the use of

new technologies and the handling of special

populations. Five representatives from the NAPSA Board

reviewed the instrument from a practitioner’s perspective

for completeness. This review served two purposes—it

provided important additional input from professionals in

the field and it provided the means to pretest the

instrument. 

In early November 2001, a letter was sent to the 337

identified jurisdictions with information about the survey.

The letter informed pretrial services program

administrators that the survey was accessible on PSRC’s

web site, and provided a password to access the survey.

In late November 2001, a second letter was sent to those

programs that had not yet responded to the survey

through the web site. The letter contained a paper copy

of the survey and asked recipients to complete it either

manually or through the web site. A second followup

letter was sent in mid-December. 

Nine jurisdictions responded that there was no pretrial

services program in the jurisdiction. Return mail was

received from six additional programs for which

followup investigations could not resolve the current

status of the programs. Thus, the number of jurisdictions

with possible programs was cut to 322. In early January

2002, project staff began contacting by telephone and email program administrators who had not yet responded

to the survey. By the end of January, 202 responses had

been submitted for a final response rate of 63 percent.

Ninety-two of the 201 programs that participated in the

1989 survey also participated in the 2001 survey.

Attempts were made to contact 65 others, without

success (i.e., either the programs were no longer in

existence or their existence could not be confirmed).

Forty-four of the programs that participated in 1989

never responded to the 2001 survey.

The findings are descriptive in nature. They describe

where pretrial services programs differ from one another.

They also describe how present pretrial programs and

their practices compare to what was reported in the first

two surveys. In addition, they describe how the practices

of pretrial programs compare to standards set by the

American Bar Association (ABA) and the National

Association of Pretrial Services Agencies. The findings

also reveal what pretrial services programs are doing to

meet the challenges presented by four groups that are

being seen in increasing numbers in the criminal justice

system since the last surveys—defendants with mental

illness, juveniles charged as adults, people charged with

domestic violence offenses, and women. The findings are

used to examine relationships between pretrial services

program practices and jail crowding. Finally, the findings

describe several general characteristics of pretrial

services programs—such as administrative locus,

program scope and size, program funding and staffing,

and program age—and any relationships that might exist

between these factors and specific program practices and

outcomes. The report does not, however, seek to explain

why relationships may or may not exist. 
3

Introduction

How This Report Is Organized

This report is organized into several chapters. The first

describes the general characteristics of pretrial services

programs, including when the programs began, where

they are administratively located, staff size, and budget

size. The next chapter compares current pretrial services

practices to standards set by the ABA and NAPSA. Then

comes a chapter that explores what pretrial services

programs are doing to evaluate their own practices.

Following that is a discussion of what pretrial programs

are doing to address challenges presented by four

different special populations: defendants with mental

illness, juveniles charged as adults, people charged with

domestic violence, and women. The next chapter looks at

how pretrial programs have been incorporating

technologies to help investigate and monitor defendants.

The final chapter explores associations between pretrial

services programming and jail crowding.

In many instances throughout the report, responses from

the 2001 survey are compared to those of the 1989 and

1979 surveys.1 Many of the findings are presented in

tables and charts in the text; additional findings are

presented in tables in appendix A. In many of the tables

and charts, the numbers do not add up to 202, the total

number of respondents, because many respondents were

unable to answer all the questions. 
T

he findings in this chapter describe characteristics

such as where pretrial services programs are located,

how long they have been in operation, how large they

are in terms of staff and funding, and the types of

jurisdictions that they serve. Although important in their

own right, many of these characteristics are used in later

sections to explore relationships between them and

program practices and outcomes. 

Type of Jurisdiction

The overwhelming majority of pretrial services programs

serve a single local governmental entity, either a county

or a municipality. As table 1 shows, 88 percent serve a

single locality, and 10 percent serve multiple localities,

typically two or three counties in a particular region.

Four programs, those in Connecticut, Delaware,

Kentucky, and Puerto Rico, serve the entire state or

commonwealth.2

Size of Jurisdiction Population 

The highest percentage of programs in all three survey

periods—46 percent in the 2001 survey, 41 percent in the

1989, and 44 percent in the 1979—served jurisdictions

with populations totaling between 100,000 and 500,000.

Whereas only 7 percent of the programs in the 1979

survey served populations of 100,000 or fewer, in both

the 1989 and 2001 surveys at least one-quarter served

such populations. (See table A–1, appendix A.)

Nature of Jurisdiction Area

According to table 2, nearly half (48 percent) of the

pretrial programs in the 2001 survey categorize the area

served by their programs as a mix of urban, suburban,

and rural. The second highest category is primarily rural,

representing 21 percent of the programs. Those serving

primarily urban areas represent 17 percent, and those in

primarily suburban areas represent 14 percent.

Annual Number of Arrests

The majority of pretrial programs were unable to report

the annual number of arrests in the jurisdiction served by

the program. As figure 1 at the end of this chapter

shows, of those that could respond, almost half serve

jurisdictions that have 10,000 or fewer arrests for felony

and misdemeanor offenses each year; more than onethird of responding jurisdictions have 5,000 or fewer

annual arrests.

Number of Interviews Conducted

As shown in figure 2 at the end of this chapter, almost

3 out of 4 pretrial programs interview fewer than 5,000

defendants per year, including 39 percent that interview

fewer than 1,000. Two percent of programs report

interviewing more than 50,000 per year.

5

II. General Characteristics of Pretrial

Services Programs

Table 1. Type of Jurisdiction Served by Programs

Percentage of

Type of Jurisdiction Programs (N = 198)

Local (county or city) 88

More than one county 10

Entire state 2

Table 2. Nature of Jurisdiction Served by the Program

Percentage of

Nature of Jurisdiction Programs (N = 193)

Mixture 48

Primarily rural 21

Primarily urban 17

Primarily suburban 14
The percentage of programs run by the sheriff’s

department or jail administration has risen consistently

across the three surveys. As figure 3 at the end of this

chapter shows, in the 1979 survey, only 4 percent of

pretrial services programs were housed in the sheriff’s

department or jail. In the 1989 survey, the number had

risen to 10 percent, and to 19 percent in the 2001 survey.

The percentage of programs housed in private, nonprofit

organizations has declined slowly but consistently over

the three periods, going from a high of 13 percent in the

1979 survey to a low of 8 percent in 2001. Those under

the courts rose in the 1989 survey to 38 percent but

declined to 29 percent in the 2001 survey. Those under

probation rose to 31 percent in the 2001 survey, up from

24 percent in 1989. 

There appears to be a movement away from

administratively locating pretrial programs in the courts.

The largest category of programs that have been started

since 1990 are administratively located within probation

(34 percent), followed by sheriff/jail (27 percent), and

then courts (24 percent). By contrast, the highest

percentage of programs started in the 1970s and 1980s

(36 percent) are housed under the courts. (See table A–2,

appendix A.)

Program Budgets

As shown in figure 4 at the end of this chapter, 39

percent of the pretrial programs are budgeted at a level of

$200,000 per year or less, including 11 percent at less

than $50,000 and 14 percent between $50,000 and

$100,000. This finding is consistent with data presented

so far—that a large number of pretrial services programs

operate in smaller jurisdictions.

Fifty-five percent of the programs begun since 1990 are

budgeted at a level of $200,000 or less, another

indication that the newer programs are smaller. By

contrast, 80 percent of programs that were started in the

1960s are budgeted at $1,000,001 or more. (See table

A–2, appendix A.)

Source of Funding

As table 4 shows, county governments are the largest

source of funding for pretrial programs, followed by

state governments. Seven percent of pretrial programs

Decade Program Began

Nearly half the programs participating in the 2001 survey

began operating after 1990 (about when the last survey

was conducted). In all, 88 of the 188 programs reporting

these data began since 1990, including 7 that began since

2000.

Fifty-one percent of the pretrial services programs that

have been started since 1990 are in jurisdictions with

populations between 100,000 and 500,000, and 21

percent serve jurisdictions of 100,000 or fewer. Fewer

than 10 programs have been started since 1990 in

jurisdictions with a population of more than 500,000.

None of the programs begun in the 1960s and 1970s

serve populations of 100,000 or fewer. (See table A–2,

appendix A.)

More than one-third of the programs that have been

started since 1990 serve primarily rural areas, and only 9

percent serve primarily urban jurisdictions. By contrast,

60 percent of the programs that were started in the 1960s

serve primarily urban areas, and none serve rural areas.

(See table A–2, appendix A.)

Administrative Locus

Pretrial services programs have been housed in a variety

of administrative locations since the first pretrial services

programs were established in the 1960s. These locations

include probation departments, the court, the sheriff’s

department or jail administration, independent agencies

reporting to the executive branch or local county board,

and private, nonprofit organizations. 

6

Pretrial Services Programming

Table 3. Decade Program Began

Percentage of

Decade Programs (N = 188)

1960s 6

1970s 23

1980s 24

1990s 43

2000s 4
as table 5 shows, the size of pretrial program staff

appears to be gradually increasing across the three

survey periods to a point where 31 percent of current

pretrial programs have more than 10 staff persons,

compared to 27 percent in the 1989 survey and 18

percent in 1979. 

Hours of Operation

As table 6 shows, just over half the programs (55 percent)

operate only during court hours on weekdays. Just over

a quarter (27 percent) cover more than 12 hours per day,

both weekdays and weekends. Nearly 6 out of 10

programs do not work weekends at all.

Obviously the one-person pretrial programs would not be

able to provide extended coverage, and other programs

with small staff would find it difficult. The data show

that all 18 of the one-person programs work only

7

General Characteristics

receive all or part of their funding from federal sources.

Ten percent receive some funding from fees for service

imposed on defendants.

Staff Size

The average staff size for programs in the survey is 18.

As figure 5 at the end of this chapter shows, though, half

the programs have 5 or fewer staff members (including

10 percent that have just 1 staff person), and almost 70

percent have 10 or fewer. Less than 10 percent of the

programs have more than 50 staff members, including 3

percent that have more than 100.

In comparing staff size to the year the program began,

almost 3 out of every 4 programs that were started since

1990 have a staff of five or fewer—20 percent have just

one staff person and an additional 52 percent have

between two and five staff members. By contrast, only 9

percent of programs started in the 1960s, 27 percent

started in the 1970s, and 44 percent in the 1980s have

staff of five or fewer. Only 2 percent of the programs

started since 1990 have more than 50 staff members,

compared to 36 percent of those starting in the 1960s and

16 percent in the 1970s. (See table A–2, appendix A.)

Although the data presented thus far indicate that newer

programs are smaller than older programs, both in terms

of the population that they serve and the size of their

staff, this does not mean that pretrial programs overall

are smaller than they were in the past. On the contrary,

Table 4. Pretrial Program Funding From

Various Sources

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 168),

by Percentage From Source

Funding Source None 1–25 26–50 51–75 76–99 100

Federal funds 93 4 1 0 0 2

State funds 49 10 14 5 4 17

County funds 21 7 9 13 11 39

Municipal funds 94 4 1 0 1 1

Fees for service 90 8 2 0 0 0

Private funds 99 1 0 0 0 0

Table 5. Staff Size of Pretrial Services Programs 

Across the Three Survey Periods

Percentage of Pretrial Programs, 

by Year of Survey

2001 1989 1979

Staff Size (N = 187) (N = 196) (N = 116)

Fewer than 3 26 35 28

3–4 15 14 22

5–10 28 24 32

More than 10 31 27 18

Table 6. Pretrial Program Hours of Operation

Percentage of

Hours Programs (N = 189)

Monday–Friday, during court hours 55

Weekdays and weekends, more than 12 hours 27

Weekdays and weekends, regular hours 15

Monday–Friday, more than 12 hours 3
8

Pretrial Services Programming

Summary

Almost half of the programs in the current survey have

been started since 1990. There has been growth since the

last survey in the number of pretrial services programs

serving smaller jurisdictions, as evidenced by the size of

the populations served by the programs, the nature of the

area served (i.e., urban, rural), the number of arrests in

the jurisdictions served, the number of interviews

conducted by the programs, the size of the programs’

budgets, and the size of the programs’ staff. There has

also been growth in the percentage of programs housed

under the sheriff or jail administration and under

probation and a decline in the percentage housed in the

courts.

Monday to Friday during court hours, as do 80 percent

of the programs that have 2 to 5 staff members. Eighty

percent of the programs that have more than 25 staff

work extended hours on both weekdays and weekends.

(See table A–3, appendix A.)

Delegated Release Authority

“Delegated release authority” refers to the authority

given to officials of the pretrial services program to

release defendants charged with specific offenses before

the defendant appears before a judicial officer for the

initial court appearance. The authority is typically

permitted by statute and then granted by judicial order.

The percentage of programs that have such authority in

the 2001 survey is half what participants in the two

earlier surveys reported. In 1979, 42 percent of programs

reported having delegated release authority. The total

was 41 percent in the 1989 survey. Only 21 percent

reported having delegated release authority in the 2001

survey. (See table A–4, appendix A.)

Table 7 shows the offenses for which the 39 programs

that reported having delegated release authority can

exercise that authority. A majority have the authority to

release people charged with traffic offenses, infractions,

and misdemeanors. Nearly 3 out of 4 of these programs

have delegated release authority in some felony cases.

Table 7. Delegated Release Authority

Percentage of

Cases for Which It Exists Programs (N = 39)

Some felonies 72

Some misdemeanors 67

Traffic offenses 62

Infractions 56

All misdemeanors 31
9

General Characteristics

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

More than 100,000

50,001 to 100,000

45,001 to 50,000

40,001 to 45,000

35,001 to 40,000

30,001 to 35,000

25,001 to 30,000

20,001 to 25,000

15,001 to 20,000

10,001 to 15,000

5,001 to 10,000

1,001 to 5,000

1,000 or fewer

Percentage of Programs (N = 70)

Number of Arrests per Year

6%

9%

0%

3%

4%

4%

6%

3%

7%

11%

13%

26%

9%

Figure 1. Total Annual Arrests by Percentage of Programs

50,001 to 100,000

40,001 to 45,000

45,001 to 50,000

35,001 to 40,000

30,001 to 35,000

25,001 to 30,000

20,001 to 25,000

15,001 to 20,000

10,001 to 15,000

5,001 to 10,000

1,001 to 5,000

1,000 or fewer

Percentage of Programs (N = 125)

Number of Interviews per Year

2%

1%

0%

6%

13%

32%

39%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

0 10 20 30 40

Figure 2. Number of Interviews Conducted per Year, by Percentage of Programs
10

Pretrial Services Programming

Percentage of Programs

Other

Independent 

agency

Private, 

nonprofit

Sheriff or jail

Courts

Probation

1979 (N = 109) 1989 (N = 201) 2001 (N = 197)

18%

20%

5%

8%

10%

8%

4%

10%

19%

35%

29%

28%

24%

31%

38%

13%

0%

0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Figure 3. Administrative Locus of Pretrial Programs Across the Three Surveys
11

General Characteristics

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

More than $10,000,000

$5,000,001 to $10,000,000

$2,000,001 to $5,000,000

$1,500,001 to $2,000,000

$1,000,001 to $1,500,000

$900,001 to $1,000,000

$800,001 to $900,000

$700,001 to $800,000

$600,001 to $700,000

$500,001 to $600,000

$400,001 to $500,000

$300,001 to $400,000

$200,001 to $300,000

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 146)

Amount Budgeted

3%

1%

7%

5%

10%

4%

4%

0%

2%

1%

6%

9%

10%

14

$100,001 to $200,000

$50,000 to $100,000

Less than $50,000

14%

14%

11%

Figure 4. Budget for Pretrial Programs
12

Pretrial Services Programming

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

201–300

101–200

76–100

51–75

26–50

21–25

16–20

11–15

6–10

2–5

1

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 187)

Staff Size

2%

1%

2%

3%

10%

4%

7%

4%

19%

40%

10%

35 40

Figure 5. Staff Size of Pretrial Programs
13

I

n 1968, the American Bar Association published the

first edition of its standards on pretrial release.3 A

second edition was published in 1985, and a third in

2002. In 1978, the National Association of Pretrial

Services Agencies published its Standards and Goals for

Pretrial Release.

4 The standards of the two associations

specify several core services that a pretrial services

program should provide. This section compares those

core services to the services currently provided by

pretrial programs.

Pretrial Services Investigation

The investigation conducted by pretrial services

programs is designed to provide the judicial officer who

is making the pretrial release/detention decision with

information about the defendant that will aid in reaching

an informed bail decision and with options for safely

releasing the defendant or, when necessary, detaining the

defendant without bail. Such information includes the

defendant’s residence and employment status; length of

time in the area; ties to the community; criminal record;

record of appearance in court; current probation, parole,

or pretrial release status; mental health status; and any

indications of substance abuse. The investigation

comprises an interview with the defendant, an interview

with references provided by the defendant to verify

information, and a check of criminal history and court

records.

The ABA standards state that pretrial services programs

should conduct an investigation and provide the court

with information in “all cases in which the defendant is

in custody and charged with a criminal offense”

(Standard 10-4.2 (a)). This standard recognizes that, even

in cases in which it is unlikely that the defendant will be

released on nonfinancial conditions or in which the

defendant cannot be released immediately because of a

hold relating to another charge, the judicial officer still

must make some release or detention decision in the

instant charge. Furthermore, it is in the more difficult or

complicated cases that the information provided by

pretrial services programs can be the most important in

making that decision. Yet, as table 8 shows, 84 percent of

pretrial services programs in the 2001 survey report

having at least one category of defendants that is

automatically excluded from its interview and

investigation—the highest percentage

of programs reporting exclusions in

the three surveys. In the 1989 survey,

78 percent of respondents reported

having at least one exclusion, as did

70 percent of those participating in

the 1979 survey.

The highest categories of exclusion in

the 2001 survey are when there is a

hold from another jurisdiction (48

percent) and when the defendant is

charged with a nonbailable offense

(43 percent). More than 25 percent of

the programs automatically exclude

from investigation defendants who

have a warrant or hold from their own

jurisdiction and defendants who are

charged with specific offenses. 

III. Pretrial Program Services Compared to

National Standards

Table 8. Pretrial Program Interview Exclusions

Percentage of Pretrial Programs, 

by Year of Survey

2001 1989 1979

Exclusion (N = 180) (N = 186) (N = 119)

At least one automatic exclusion 84 78 70

Warrant/hold from another jurisdiction 48 41 32

Nonbailable offense 43 44 N/A

Warrant/hold from same jurisdiction 30 17 13

Charged with other specific charges 26 40 N/A

On probation, parole, or pretrial release 27 24 9

All misdemeanors 5 8 8

All felonies 2 4 2
voluntary. This compares to 78 percent of the programs

that did so in the 1989 survey. Eighty-five percent advise

the defendant beforehand on how the information will be

used, compared to 75 percent that did so in the 1989

survey. About 40 percent of pretrial programs obtain

written consent from the defendant before conducting the

interview. (See table A–5, appendix A.) 

Verification

Verification of the information obtained from the

defendant during the pretrial interview is important. The

NAPSA standards state that “[i]nformation acquired

from the defendant should be verified by the pretrial

services agency prior to submission of a report and

recommendation. In all instances, places where the

defendant can be contacted, i.e., address and telephone

number, should be verified, if only through documents

found on the defendant’s person” (Commentary to

Standard X.A). Ninety-five percent of the programs seek

to verify the information obtained from the defendant in

the interview.

Criminal Records Check

The defendant’s criminal record is a crucial piece of

information collected by pretrial services programs. Both

the ABA (Standard 10-4.2 (g) (ii)) and NAPSA

(Commentary to Standard X.A) state the important role

of pretrial services programs in obtaining the criminal

record. As table 9 shows, the availability and

completeness of the criminal record diminishes when

pretrial programs need to look outside their own

jurisdictions, particularly out of state.

Although 93 percent of programs get

complete arrest and disposition

information on in-county cases, the

figure reduces to 83 percent for outof-county, in-state cases and to 70

percent for out-of-state cases.

The NAPSA standards also state that

pretrial programs should obtain

juvenile records for defendants who

are 21 years of age or younger.

However, 60 percent of programs 

(N = 193) report that they have no

access to juvenile records.

Timing of Initial Interview

For the pretrial services program to be able to provide

information and options to the judicial officer making the

pretrial release decision, it is important that the

investigation be conducted before the initial court

appearance. This is recognized in the ABA standards,

which state that the investigation of the pretrial services

program should be conducted “prior to or

contemporaneous with a defendant’s first appearance”

(Standard 10-3.2 (a)). Yet many programs are designed to

conduct investigations on defendants who were not able

to obtain release at the initial appearance. One out of

every 4 programs does not conduct the initial interview

until after the first appearance in court.

A review of responses from the two earlier surveys

shows a variation in the timing of the initial interview. In

the 1979 survey, 92 percent of the programs reported at

least attempting to conduct their interviews before the

initial appearance. In 1989, 70 percent of programs

reported doing so. (See table A–5, appendix A.) 

Advise Before Interview 

The ABA standards state that pretrial services programs

should advise defendants that the interview is voluntary

and that the information is intended solely to help

determine the most appropriate release option (Standard

10-4.2(a)). 

There has been some improvement in this area since the

last survey. Eighty-six percent of programs advise

defendants before an interview that participation is

14

Pretrial Services Programming

Table 9. Criminal Record Checks

Percentage of Pretrial Programs, 

by Completeness of 

Criminal Record Information

Out of County

In County/City In State Out of State

Record Check (N = 195) (N = 191) (N = 194)

Arrest record only 6 7 8

Arrest and dispositions 93 83 70

No record obtained 1 9 22
Risk Assessment

Both the ABA and NAPSA strongly urge the use of

objective criteria to assess defendant risks of failure to

appear and rearrest. The ABA standards state that pretrial

services information “should be organized according to

an explicit, objective and consistent policy for evaluating

risk and identifying appropriate release options”

(Standard 10-4.2 (g)). Furthermore, the development of

those options “should be based on detailed agency

guidelines developed in consultation with the judiciary to

assist in pretrial release decisions. Suggested release

options should be supported by objective, consistently

applied criteria contained in the guidelines” (Standard

10-4.2 (h)). The NAPSA standards also call for the use

of objective criteria in a pretrial program’s risk

assessment (Standard XI.A.3), explaining its importance

in the following way: “[T]o remove the individual bias

[of the pretrial interviewer], release recommendations

should be based on objective criteria. This is the only

way to remove arbitrariness and approach equal

treatment for all defendants” (Commentary to Standard

XI.A.4).

As shown by data from the 2001 survey (see figure 6 at

the end of this chapter), fewer than 1 in 4 pretrial

programs (23 percent) rely exclusively on objective

criteria. An additional 42 percent combine objective and

subjective criteria, and 35 percent use subjective criteria

only. Despite a decades-long call in the standards for the

use of objective criteria, there has been no growth in the

use of objective-only criteria over the three survey

periods. In the 1989 survey, 27 percent reported using

only objective criteria, and in the 1979 survey, 21

percent. 

The ABA standards state that the risk assessment scheme

used by pretrial programs should “include factors shown

to be related to the risk of flight or of threat to the safety

of any person or the community” (Standard 10-4.2 (g)).

Research has shown that factors related to risks in one

jurisdiction may not necessarily be relevant in another,

even neighboring, jurisdiction. Ideally, each jurisdiction

should develop its own risk assessment instrument based

on local research related to risks in the jurisdiction and

after consultation with key system officials, particularly

the judiciary. 

As seen in table 10, only 25 percent of pretrial programs

in the 2001 survey developed their risk assessment

instruments based on the program’s own research and

data—much lower than the 39 percent that reported

doing so in the 1989 survey. Almost half the programs

(47 percent) incorporated local judgment into the

development of the instrument. There seems to be a trend

away from simply adapting the risk assessment

instrument from that used in another jurisdiction. In the

1979 survey, 74 percent of the programs reported that

they adapted their risk instruments from another

jurisdiction. By the 1989 survey, that figure had fallen to

43 percent, and to 39 percent in 2001. 

Consistency exists across the three survey periods in the

factors that programs consider in their risk assessments.

Local address, time in area, employment, prior

convictions, and failure to appear (FTA) in court history

were considered as risk assessment factors in at least 85

percent of the pretrial programs in all three surveys. (See

table A–6, appendix A.)

Presentation of

Information to the

Court

According to the ABA standards, “the

results of the pretrial services

investigation and recommendation of

release options should be promptly

transmitted to relevant firstappearance participants before the

hearing” (Standard 10-4.2 (h)). The

NAPSA standards state that the report

should be presented to the court

“concisely in writing,” with copies to

15

Compared to National Standards

Table 10. Development of Risk Assessment Instrument for Pretrial Programs

Percentage of Pretrial Programs, 

by Year of Survey

2001 1989 1979

How Risk Scheme Is Developed (N = 198) (N = 188) (N = 69)

Local decision, based on judgment 

of what should be included 47 38 25

Adapted from another jurisdiction 39 43 74

Based on own research 25 39 13
16

Pretrial Services Programming

the prosecution and the defense (Commentary to

Standard X.A.3). As figure 7 at the end of this chapter

shows, about 3 out of every 4 pretrial programs provide a

written report to the court at initial appearance; less than

half provide written reports to the prosecutor and

defense. Many programs provide an oral report, either in

addition to or in lieu of a written one.

As shown in figure 8 at the end of this chapter, at least 8

out of 10 pretrial programs report the following

information about the defendant to the court at the initial

appearance: residence, employment, prior convictions,

pending cases, probation/parole status, and prior FTA

history. Almost a third report comments from the

arresting officer, and about 4 out of 10 report comments

from victims.

The standards are very clear that pretrial programs

should make recommendations regarding the most

appropriate release decision (ABA Standard 10-1.10(b);

NAPSA Standard III.D).

As seen in table 11, 12 percent of pretrial programs

participating in the 2001 survey reported that they do not

make recommendations to the court, compared to 7

percent who reported not making recommendations in

the 1989 survey and 8 percent in 1979. Added to that are

an additional 10 percent in the 2001 survey who make

recommendations only when requested by the court. 

Although the standards do not address directly the types

of recommendations that pretrial services programs

should make, the ABA standards state a clear preference

for the use of nonfinancial release conditions over

financial bail, and that whenever financial bail is

necessary it should be in the form of a 10-percent deposit

to the court (Standard 10-1.4(c)). The NAPSA standards

call for the elimination of the use of money bail

(Standard V). The 2001 survey data show that almost

one-third of the programs (32 percent) make

recommendations for monetary release other than a 

10-percent deposit, and 27 percent of all programs make

recommendations for specific bail amounts. These

figures are down from 1989, when 51 percent reported

recommending money bail and 46 percent recommended

specific bail amounts. (See table A–7, appendix A.)

A comparison of the type of recommendation made to

the type of risk assessment used reveals interesting

findings. As seen in figure 9 at the end of this chapter,

programs that use a subjective assessment only and those

that combine objective information with subjective input

are much more likely to have money bail other than 

10-percent deposit as a recommendation option (39

percent and 29 percent, respectively) than programs that

use an objective approach only (15 percent). Likewise,

those that use subjective and the combined approach

are much more likely (37 percent and 26 percent,

respectively) to have specific bail amounts as a

recommendation option than programs that use objective

criteria alone (8 percent).

The NAPSA standards state that pretrial services

programs should have staff present at the defendant’s

initial court appearance “to answer questions concerning

the agency’s report and recommendations and to explain

conditions of release and sanctions for non-compliance”

(Standard X.A.4). Although a quarter of the programs

reported never having staff present at the initial

appearance in the 2001 survey, this indicates more

extensive coverage at the initial appearance than in the

1989 survey, when 41 percent of programs reported

never being present in court. Just over half (55 percent)

of the programs report always being present at the initial

appearance in the 2001 survey, and 21

percent are present when requested by

the court. (See table A–8, appendix A.)

Supervised Pretrial

Release

The ABA standards state that pretrial

services programs should “develop

and provide appropriate and effective

supervision for all persons released

pending adjudication who are

assigned supervision as a condition of

Table 11. Recommendations Offered by Pretrial Programs

Percentage of Pretrial Programs,

by Year of Survey

2001 1989 1979

Recommendation Status (N = 188) (N = 189) (N = 119)

Made in all or most cases 78 73 89

Made only when asked by the court 10 20 3

Not made 12 7 8
release” (Standard 10-1.10(c)). Likewise, the NAPSA

standards state that pretrial programs should monitor

compliance with conditions of release (Standard X.A.7).

More pretrial programs are providing supervision than in

the past survey. As shown in table 12, an overwhelming

majority of pretrial programs (93 percent) in the 2001

survey report that supervision services are provided,

either through the pretrial program or some other

program in the jurisdiction, compared to 81 percent in

the 1989 survey.

The ABA standards state that pretrial programs should

develop a “range of release options” that are “sufficient

to respond to the risks and problems associated with

released defendants in coordination with existing court,

corrections and community resources” (Standard 10-

1.10(d)). 

As figure 10 at the end of this chapter shows, the three

most common types of supervision options are having

the defendant report by telephone or in person, referral to

substance abuse treatment, and referral to mental health

services. More than 3 in 4 programs have drug testing,

and more than 6 in 10 use electronic monitoring.

An important element of supervised pretrial release is the

pretrial program’s policy on responding to instances of

noncompliance with release conditions. The standards of

both the ABA (Standard 10-1.10(f)) and NAPSA

(Standard VI.B) state clearly that the court should be

notified of violations. The NAPSA standards also

recognize that the pretrial program should use “some

discretion in evaluating the seriousness of any

noncompliance” in deciding how to respond

(Commentary to Standard V.B). As table 13 shows, a

significant majority of programs will issue a warning to a

defendant as a first response in appropriate cases. Nearly

2 out of 3 have the authority to impose administrative

sanctions, such as increasing the frequency of reporting,

without having to seek an amended court order. 

The NAPSA standards call on pretrial services programs

to provide “cross-jurisdictional supervision” of

defendants who reside in the program’s jurisdiction but

who may have been arrested in another jurisdiction

(Standard X.C.2). The percentage of programs willing to

do so has grown over the last two survey periods, from

74 percent in the 1989 survey to 87 percent in the current

survey. (See table A–9, appendix A.)

Court Date Reminders

Both the ABA (Standard 10-1.10(k)) and NAPSA

(Standard X.A.5) make it clear that it is the responsibility

of pretrial services programs to remind defendants of

their court dates. Programs employ multiple ways to do

this, including reviewing the next court date during

regular supervision contacts and contacting the defendant

just prior to the date by telephone or mail. As figure 11

at the end of this chapter shows, 13 percent of the

programs use no court date reminder procedures. A

majority of programs remind defendants after their first

court appearance and during supervision contacts. A

large percentage of programs either call or write the

defendant with a reminder.

Followup on Defendants Who Fail

To Appear in Court

According to the NAPSA standards, pretrial services

programs are responsible for assistance with “searching

for and returning” defendants who fail to appear in court

(Standard X.B.2). This assistance ranges from providing

17

Compared to National Standards

Table 12. Pretrial Program Supervision Services

Percentage of Pretrial Programs,

Supervision Services

Supervision 2001 1989

Services Provided (N = 190) (N = 170)

Yes 93 81

No 7 19

Table 13. Actions by Pretrial Programs on 

Noncompliance With Release Conditions

Percentage of

Programs

Action (N = 177)

Warn defendant 89

Report to court, recommend specific action 86

Impose administrative sanctions 64

Report to court, no recommended action 49
information to law enforcement trying to execute a bench

warrant to locating and persuading the defendant to

return to court voluntarily. Almost 80 percent of pretrial

programs in the 2001 survey take some action to follow

up on defendants who fail to appear in court. Comparing

data from the three survey periods, however, reveals that

the number of pretrial programs that contact defendants

with FTA warrants, either by telephone, mail, or home

visit, has diminished across time. As table 14 shows, in

1979, 55 percent of programs reported that they sent a

letter to the defendant urging return, 80 percent called

the defendant, and 45 percent made home visits. In 1989,

43 percent sent a letter to the defendant, 64 percent

called, and 17 percent made a home visit. In 2001, 25

percent sent a letter, 52 percent called, and 12 percent

made home visits. The only categories in the 2001

survey that reflect an increase are the percentage of

programs that have arrest authority and those that take no

action. 

Review of Status of Detained

Defendants

The ABA standards state that pretrial services programs

should “review the status of detained defendants on an

ongoing basis for any changes in eligibility for release

options and facilitate their release as soon as feasible and

appropriate” (Standard 10-1.10(h)). The NAPSA

standards also call for a regular review of those

defendants who are not released. According to those

standards, the pretrial services program should conduct

an “automatic bi-weekly review of the status of persons

in detention over ten days” (Commentary to Standard

X.A.8). As table 15 shows, nearly half (47 percent) of

pretrial programs in the 2001 survey did not conduct bail

reviews for defendants who are unable to post the bail

set by the court. This is up from 38 percent in the 1989

survey. 

Information Provided for a

Presentence Investigation

The NAPSA standards state that pretrial services

programs should report compliance with pretrial release

conditions to officials responsible for

preparing presentence investigation

(PSI) reports (Standard X.B.3). As the

commentary to that standard states,

“[d]efendant’s behavior while on

pretrial release may be of substantial

aid to the court in determining

appropriate sentences after conviction.

If a defendant has complied with

conditions of release, the court may

consider that compliance justification

for probation rather than

incarceration.” As table 16 shows, 43

percent of programs routinely provide

information for the presentence

investigation report, and another 44

percent provide such information on

request.

The NAPSA standards also state that

a pretrial services program should

18

Pretrial Services Programming

Table 14. Failure-To-Appear (FTA) Followup by Pretrial Programs

Percentage of Pretrial Programs

2001 1989 1979

FTA Followup Action (N = 191) (N = 155) (N = 117)

Send letter to defendant urging return 25 43 55

Call defendant urging return 52 64 80

Make home visit to defendant urging return 12 17 45

Have arrest authority with FTA warrant 19 13 14

Assist police in locating defendant 35 52 57

Attempt to locate defendant who left jurisdiction 24 33 32

Seek to have warrant quashed when defendant returns 20 22 N/A

Place defendant’s case back on court calendar 19 27 N/A

No FTA followup action taken 21 N/A 14

N/A = Data not available.

Table 15. Bail Reviews Conducted by Pretrial

Programs, 2001 and 1989

Percentage of Pretrial Programs

Bail Review 2001 1989

Conducted (N = 190) (N = 194)

No 47 38

Only in certain circumstances 32 44

Yes, on a regular basis 21 18
19

Compared to National Standards

“provide other services not directly related to the release

decision but which are appropriate to its role, its access

to information, and its relationship with defendants”

(Standard X.B). Many pretrial programs provide

additional services to their jurisdictions, including 29

percent that provide diversion services, 24 percent that

screen defendants for indigency to determine eligibility

for assigned counsel, 6 percent that conduct jail

classification, and 5 percent that provide mediation

services. (See table A–10, appendix A.) In addition, 25

percent of programs notify either all or selected victims

of the initial appearance of the defendant in court and 40

percent notify victims of the defendant’s pretrial release.

(See table A–11, appendix A.)

Summary

Although there have been some improvements in the

extent to which pretrial services programs are meeting

the core functions set forth by the ABA and NAPSA,

major areas for improvement still remain. More than 8 in

10 programs have at least one automatic category that

excludes a defendant from receiving a pretrial interview.

About one-quarter of the programs do not conduct their

interview until after the initial court appearance. Only

one-quarter rely exclusively on objective criteria in

assessing risks, and the same percentage have based their

risk assessment on local research. About one-quarter

never make recommendations or do so only when asked

to by the court. About one-third make recommendations

for money bail other than 10-percent deposit. Nearly half

the programs do not conduct regular bail reviews for

detained defendants.

Table 16. Information Provided by Pretrial Programs

for Presentence Investigation

Percentage of Pretrial Programs

Information Provided (N = 190)

Only upon request 44

Yes, routinely 43

No 13
20

Pretrial Services Programming

Percentage of Pretrial Programs

Objective only

Subjective only

Objective combined

with subjective input

23%

27%

21%

42%

44%

40%

35%

29%

39%

2001 (N = 171) 1989 (N = 192) 1979 (N = 117)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Figure 6. Type of Risk Assessment Instrument Across the Three Survey Periods

0 20 40 60 80

No report provided

Only recommendations

are reported

Report provided only upon

judicial request

Written report to the defense

Oral report in court

Written report to the

prosecutor

Written report to the court

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 191)

Reporting Methods

2%

9%

12%

37%

40%

40%

71%

Figure 7. Method and Recipient of Information Provided by Pretrial Programs
21

Compared to National Standards

0 20 40 60 80 100

Residence

Employment

Prior convictions

Pending cases

Probabtion/parole status

Prior FTA history

Substance abuse

Prior arrests

Demographics

Victim comments

Arresting officer comments

Mental health

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 187)

89%

87%

84%

82%

80%

73%

67%

65%

42%

31%

3%

84%

Figure 8. Information Reported to the Court by Pretrial Programs

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 170)

Nonfinancial 

conditions

Monetary 

other than 

10% deposit

Specific 

bail amounts 

other than 

10% deposit

10% deposit

Pretrial 

detention

Objective only Subjective only Objective and subjective mix

54%

61%

62%

39%

29%

37%

26%

32%

10%

14%

26%

38%

53%

15%

8%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Note: Column percentage totals do not add up to 100 percent because respondents

could answer in more than one category.

Figure 9. Comparing Pretrial Programs’ Risk Assessment to Recommendation
22

Pretrial Services Programming

0 20 40 60

Other

Halfway house

Day reporting center

Third-party custody

Alcohol testing

Electronic monitoring

Drug testing

Referral to mental health services

Referral to substance abuse treatment

Report by phone or in person

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 177)

Supervision Options

9%

14%

77%

90%

98%

80

20%

26%

57%

61%

87%

100

Figure 10. Pretrial Program Supervision Options

Figure 11. Pretrial Programs’ Court Date Reminder Procedures

0 20 40 60

Call defendant through use of 

automated dialing system

Produce computer-generated 

reminder letter

Produce manually generated 

reminder letter

Call defendant before 

scheduled court date

Review date after 

first appearance

Review date during 

supervision contact

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 192)

Supervision Options

35%

66%

80

13%

72%

None

22%

2%

10%
are independent agencies are the most likely, 94 percent

each. (See table A–15, appendix A.) 

Training

Completing the core functions of a pretrial services

program requires a well-trained staff. As figure 12 at the

end of this chapter shows, 1 out of every 4 pretrial

programs offers staff on-the-job training only. Just 43

percent provide a structured training program for new

staff.

The decade in which the program began and

administrative locus do not seem to be associated with

whether the program offers more than just on-the-job

training. With the exception of programs that were begun

in the 1960s (where 9 percent offer on-the-job training

only), the range for the other time periods is between 24

and 28 percent. (See table A–16, appendix A.) As for

administrative locus, between 22 and 27 percent of

programs administratively housed in probation, the

courts, the sheriff or jail, and private, nonprofit

organizations provide just on-the-job training. For

independent agencies, only 1 of 16 programs (6 percent)

limits training to learning on the job. (See table A–17,

appendix A.)

Training variation appears to exist depending on the

nature of the area served. As table 17 shows, almost half

(48 percent) of the programs that are located in primarily

rural areas provide on-the-job training

only, compared to 12 percent for

programs serving primarily urban

areas, 19 percent for suburban areas,

and 22 percent for mixed areas.

In addition, as table 18 shows, the

smaller programs offer the most

limited training opportunities. While

not a single program that has more

than 25 staff members offers just

on-the-job training, 42 percent of

23

T

his chapter addresses such issues as how staff are

trained and provided direction and the extent to which

programs evaluate their own practices. Many of the

general characteristics of pretrial services programs

described in chapter II are compared to these

management and evaluation practices.

Mission Statement

A mission statement lays out the desired direction of the

organization and reflects its aims and purposes. More

than 8 out of every 10 programs (82 percent, N = 195)

have a mission statement.

Programs begun since 1990 are the most likely to not

have a mission statement—24 percent, compared to 7

percent of programs started in the 1980s and 18 percent

of those started in the 1970s and 1960s. (See table A–12,

appendix A.) Programs serving the smallest jurisdictions,

fewer than 50,000 people, and serving rural jurisdictions

are the most likely to not have a mission statement—37

percent and 35 percent, respectively. Programs serving

populations of between 500,001 and 1,000,000 and

serving suburban jurisdictions are the most likely to have

one—94 percent and 92 percent, respectively. (See tables

A–13 and –14, appendix A.) Programs administratively

located in the probation department are the least likely to

have a mission statement, 31 percent, and programs

located in private, nonprofit organizations and those that

IV. Management and Evaluation

of Program Practices

Table 17. Training of Pretrial Program Staff, by Nature of Area Served

Percentage of Pretrial Programs, by Nature of Area Served

Primarily Primarily Primarily

Type of Urban Suburban Rural Mixture

Training Provided (N = 34) (N = 26) (N = 40) (N = 93)

On the job only 12 19 48 22

More than on the job 88 81 52 78
1-person programs, 34 percent of programs with 2 to 5

staff members, 25 percent of programs with 6 to 10 staff

members, and 29 percent of those with 11 to 15 staff

members do so. 

Operations Manual

Aside from the training that is provided and the direction

set forth in the program’s mission statement, pretrial

program staff need consistent instructions on how to

effectively and efficiently complete the work of the

program. An operations manual can help achieve this

objective and should be available in every pretrial

services program. However, almost 1 out of every 4

programs (23 percent, N = 196) does not have an

operations manual.

As with staff training, there appears to be no correlation

between the decade in which the program began and

whether the program has an operations manual. Seventyone percent of programs that were started in the 1970s

and 79 percent of those started since 1990 have an

operations manual. (See table A–18, appendix A.) Those

serving jurisdictions with populations of fewer than

50,000 and those serving primarily rural areas are the

least likely to have an operations manual, 63 percent and

70 percent, respectively. (See tables A–19 and –20,

appendix A.) Likewise, programs with small staff are

more likely to not have an operations manual—42

percent for one-person offices and 26 percent for

programs with between two and five staff versus 19

percent for the other staff size categories. (See table

A–21, appendix A.) Programs administratively located

with the sheriff or jail are the most likely to have an

operations manual (87 percent), followed by programs

that are run by private, nonprofit organizations (81

percent). (See table A–22, appendix A.)

Validation of Risk Assessment

Instrument

A pretrial services program cannot know whether it is

accurately assessing risks of pretrial misconduct or

whether its instrument is more restrictive than necessary

without conducting periodic validation studies of the risk

instrument. As figure 13 at the end of this chapter

shows, nearly half the programs report that their risk

assessment instrument has never been validated. An

additional 8 percent say that it has been more than 10

years since it was validated.

The younger the program is, the less likely it is to have

validated its risk assessment instrument. Twenty percent

of programs started in the 1960s have never validated

their instrument, compared to 47 percent of those started

in the 1970s, 48 percent in the 1980s, and 53 percent

since 1990. (See table A–2, appendix A.) The size of the

jurisdiction does not appear to be associated with

whether the program has ever validated its risk

assessment instrument. Just as many programs that serve

the smallest jurisdictions have never conducted a

validation of their risk instrument as those that serve the

largest jurisdictions—11 percent and 14 percent,

respectively. (See table A–23, appendix A.)

Programs that serve primarily urban areas are the most

likely to have conducted a validation of their risk

assessment instrument (60 percent) and those that serve

primarily suburban the least likely (40 percent). (See

table A–24, appendix A.) Programs that are

administratively located in private, nonprofit

organizations are the most likely to have validated their

risk assessment instrument, and those housed within the

sheriff’s department or jail are the least likely—67

percent compared to 43 percent. (See table A–25,

appendix A.)

Calculating Outcomes:

FTA Rates

Because one of the goals of a pretrial

services program is to minimize

instances of failure to appear in court,

it is crucial that programs be able to

keep track of the number of

defendants who do fail to appear.

However, 45 percent of pretrial

programs (N = 178) report that they

do not calculate FTA rates.

24

Pretrial Services Programming

Table 18. Training in Pretrial Programs by Staff Size

Percentage of Pretrial Programs, by Staff Size

More

Than

1 2–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 25

Type of Training (N = 19) (N = 73) (N = 36) (N = 7) (N = 13) (N = 7) (N = 31)

On the job only 42 34 25 29 7 14 0

More than on the job 58 66 75 71 92 86 100
In addition, even those programs that do calculate FTA

rates vary in the population for which they calculate

those rates. As figure 14 at the end of this chapter shows,

nearly 3 out of 4 programs that calculate FTA rates do so

only for those defendants who are under the program’s

supervision. Another 13 percent calculate the rates only

for those placed on nonfinancial release. Only 14 percent

calculate the rates for all those released, regardless of the

release type. 

As figure 15 at the end of this chapter shows, programs

also vary in definition of FTA—60 percent assign FTA

when a bench warrant is issued and 35 percent whenever

a court appearance is missed, even if a warrant is not

issued.

Finally, as figure 16 at the end of this chapter shows,

programs differ in how they calculate FTA rates. Thirtytwo percent use an appearance-based measure, in which

the total number of missed court appearances is divided

by the total number of scheduled court appearances.

Sixty-one percent use a defendant-based measure, in

which the number of defendants who miss at least one

court appearance is divided by the number of defendants

with scheduled court appearances.

These variations in how pretrial programs calculate FTA

rates make efforts to compare rates between jurisdictions

a meaningless exercise unless the variations are taken

into account.

Turning to the characteristics of programs that do

calculate FTA rates, programs begun since 1990 are, by

far, the least likely to do so—37 percent, compared to 77

percent for programs started in the 1980s, 74 percent in

the 1970s, and 60 percent in the 1960s. (See table A–26,

appendix A.) The larger the jurisdiction, the more likely

it is that the pretrial program will calculate FTA rates.

Eighty-five percent of programs serving jurisdictions

with populations between 500,001 and 1,000,000

calculate FTA rates, as do 72 percent with populations

exceeding 1,000,000, in contrast to 28 percent where the

population is fewer than 50,000 and 35 percent where it

is between 50,000 and 100,000. (See table A–27,

appendix A.)

Pretrial programs serving primarily suburban areas are

the most likely to calculate FTA rates (79 percent),

followed by urban (55 percent) and mixed (57 percent).

(See table A–28, appendix A.) Probation-based programs

are the least likely to calculate FTA rates (40 percent),

independent agencies and private, nonprofit organizations

the most likely (75 percent.) (See table A–29, appendix A.)

Calculating Outcomes: 

Rearrest Rates

It is also important that pretrial services programs track

defendants who have been rearrested on new charges

while the initial charge is still pending, because one goal

of pretrial programs is to minimize instances of such

rearrests. Only 29 percent of pretrial programs (N = 177)

calculate rearrest rates.

As with FTA rates, programs that calculate rearrest rates

vary in the population for which they calculate those

rates. As figure 17 at the end of this chapter shows, 80

percent of the programs that do calculate the rearrest rate

do so only for defendants under the program’s

supervision. Just 10 percent (five programs) calculate the

rate for all persons released, regardless of the release

type.

As figure 18 at the end of this chapter shows, 8 out of 10

programs that calculate rearrest rates count any rearrest;

10 percent count the rearrest only if it results in a

conviction.

As with FTA rates, the older the program the more likely

it is to calculate rearrest rates. Half of the programs

started in the 1960s calculate rearrest rates, as do 32

percent of those starting in the 1970s, 40 percent in the

1980s, and 21 percent since 1990. (See table A–26,

appendix A.) Almost 60 percent of programs in

jurisdictions with a population of between 500,001 and

1,000,000 calculate rearrest rates, far higher than any

other category. About 22 percent of the programs in

jurisdictions with a population of fewer than 50,000,

between 50,000 and 100,000, and between 100,001 and

500,000 do so, compared to 28 percent where the

population is more than 1,000,000. (See table A–27,

appendix A.) 

Programs operating in primarily urban areas are the most

likely to calculate rearrest rates (44 percent), followed by

primarily suburban and primarily rural areas (29 percent

each), and 21 percent for mixed. (See table A–28,

appendix A.) Private, nonprofit programs and

independent agencies are the most likely to calculate

25

Management and Evaluation
26

Pretrial Services Programming

rearrest rates (38 percent and 31 percent, respectively).

About a quarter of programs housed in probation, the

courts, or with the sheriff or jail calculate these rates.

(See table A–29, appendix A.)

Summary

A well-trained staff that is provided direction through a

mission statement and detailed instructions through an

operations manual can be important characteristics for

ensuring the success of a program. Although the

percentages of programs that have a mission statement

and operations manual are high, there are still many

programs that do not. In addition, 1 in 4 pretrial

programs provides on-the-job training only. No common

characteristics of programs that do not have these

emerges, suggesting that there are no barriers based on

staff size, budget, administrative locus, or other

characteristics. 

A large percentage of pretrial services programs do not

calculate two very important outcome measures—FTA

and rearrest rates. Furthermore, those that do calculate

these rates do so in such different ways that any effort to

compare rates among jurisdictions is rendered

meaningless.
27

Management and Evaluation

0 10 20 30

Ongoing training for existing staff

Management training for supervisors

Structured training for new staff

On-the-job training only

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 193)

Training Type

43%

25%

40

52%

64%

50 60 70

Figure 12. Training Provided to Pretrial Program Staff

Figure 13. Risk Assessment Validation by 

Pretrial Programs (N = 169)

More than 

10 years ago

8%

Within past 10 years 

14%

Within past 5 years 

8%

Within past 3 years 

11%

Within past year 

11%

Never validated

48%
28

Pretrial Services Programming

Figure 14. Population Used by Pretrial Programs

To Calculate Failure-To-Appear Rates (N = 98)

Other

1%

Only those 

interviewed by 

the program and 

placed on 

nonfinancial release

13%

All those interviewed by the 

program, regardless 

of release type 

14%

Only those under the 

program's supervision

72%

Figure 15. How Pretrial Programs Define 

When Failure To Appear Occurs (N = 98) 

Other

5%

Whenever court 

appearance is missed 

35%

When the court issues 

a bench warrant 

60%
29

Management and Evaluation

Other 

7%

Defendant-based

61%

Appearance-based 

32%

Figure 16. Measure Used To Calculate Pretrial

Program Failure-To-Appear Rate (N = 96)

Figure 17. Population Used by Pretrial Programs in Calculating Rearrest Rates

0 20 40 60

Only those interviewed by the program 

and placed on nonfinancial release

All those interviewed by the 

program, regardless of release type

Only those under the 

program's supervision

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 51)

Supervision Options

80

Other 2%

80%

8%

10%

Figure 18. Measure Used by Pretrial Programs To Calculate Rearrest Rate

0 20 40 60

Other

Only when rearrest results in conviction

Any rearrest

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 50)

Supervision Options

80

Rearrest for dangerous or violent offense 2%

80%

8%

10%
31

T

he following analysis explores characteristics of

pretrial services programs that have sought to meet

special challenges presented by the following categories

of defendants: those who have a mental illness, juveniles

who are charged as adults, people charged with domestic

violence offenses, and women. 

Defendants With Mental Illness

Defendants who suffer from serious mental illness can

present enormous challenges to the court system. Many

such defendants repeatedly cycle through the criminal

justice system, often charged with minor offenses,

clogging court calendars and jail cells. They may not be

getting the help they need for their mental illness,

because of either lack of adequate mental health

resources in the community or lack of coordination

between the mental health and criminal justice systems. 

The most fundamental action that a pretrial services

program can take is to ask defendants about their mental

health status during the pretrial interview, to aid in the

identification of those who might have a mental illness.

As figure 19 at the end of this chapter shows, nearly 3 of

every 4 pretrial programs ask about mental health status

and treatment as a regular part of the interview. Only

about 10 percent never ask mental health questions.

Pretrial programs that have been started since 1990 are

the most likely to ask about mental illness as a regular

part of the interview—83 percent, compared to 72

percent for programs started in the 1970s, 64 percent for

those started in the 1980s, and 55 percent for those

started in the 1960s. (See table A–30, appendix A.)

Programs serving primarily rural areas are slightly more

likely to ask about mental illness as a regular part of the

interview, although the differences are not large. (See

table A–31, appendix A.) Sheriff/jail-based pretrial

services programs are the most likely to include

questions about mental health status in the interview,

with 87 percent of programs doing so, compared to 76

percent of probation-based programs, 67 percent of

court-based programs, 62 percent of independent

agencies, and 56 percent of programs run by private,

nonprofit agencies. (See table A–32, appendix A.)

Whether the program interviews defendants before or

after the initial court appearance does not appear to be

related to whether the program asks mental health

questions in the interview. Of those programs that

interview before the initial appearance, 74 percent

include mental health questions in the interview,

compared to 71 percent that interview after the first court

appearance. (See table A–33, appendix A.)

Mental health information, like any medical information,

is protected by confidentiality requirements. A provider

of mental health services is not permitted to divulge

information about a patient’s mental health status, except

in carefully limited circumstances, without the consent of

the patient. 

The importance of advising the

defendant beforehand that the

interview with pretrial services is

voluntary and of informing the

defendant how the information

gathered will be used was discussed

earlier. This is even more important

when the pretrial program is seeking

private medical information. As table

19 shows, 16 percent of the programs

that inquire about mental health status

during the interview with the defendant

and 13 percent of programs that ask

V. Dealing With Special Populations

Table 19. Mental Health Inquiry in Interview by Pretrial Program Where 

Defendant Advised That Interview Is Voluntary

Percentage of Pretrial Programs 

That Advised Defendant That

Interview Is Voluntary

Mental Health Inquiry Yes No

Asked as regular part of interview (N = 139) 84 16

Asked only if indicators of mental illness (N = 31) 87 13

No mental health questions asked (N = 19) 90 10
32

Pretrial Services Programming

about mental illness if there are indicators that the

defendant may have a mental illness do not inform the

defendant that the interview is voluntary and that the

defendant can refuse to answer questions. 

Likewise, as table 20 shows, 15 percent of programs that

ask about mental illness during a regular interview and

16 percent of programs that ask if there are indicators of

mental illness do not advise the defendant beforehand

how the information will be used. 

According to table 21, more than half of the programs

that ask about mental illness during the interview and 84

percent that ask if there are indicators of mental illness

do not obtain written consent from the defendant prior to

asking mental health questions. 

Pretrial programs that use a subjective risk scheme are

more likely to ask about mental health status than

programs that use an objective instrument only and

programs that combine objective and subjective criteria.

Eighty-three percent of those using a subjective-only risk

assessment ask about mental health status as a regular

part of the interview, compared to 70 percent of those

using a combined objective and subjective approach, and

69 percent of those that assess risks in an exclusively

objective manner. (See table A–34, appendix A.)

Not surprisingly, those programs that do not make

recommendations to the court are the most likely to not

ask about the defendant’s mental health status—27

percent, compared to 12 percent of programs that make

recommendations in all cases and 5 percent that make

them in most cases. (See table A–35, appendix A.) Also,

those programs that do not provide or have access to

supervision for defendants on pretrial release are the

most likely to not ask about the defendant’s mental

health status—39 percent, compared to 8 percent of

those that provide supervision through their own

program and 10 percent when supervision is provided by

another program. (See table A–36, appendix A.)

As figure 20 at the end of this chapter

shows, 40 percent of the pretrial

programs state that they can arrange

for an assessment to be conducted by a

qualified mental health professional

before the first appearance in court for

defendants who may have a mental

illness. Sixty-four percent report

mental health information to the court

at the initial appearance.

About one-quarter (24 percent) of the

programs (N = 191) report having

implemented special procedures to

supervise defendants with a mental

illness. The vast majority of these, 75

percent, refer the defendant to a mental

health program in the community.

Sixteen percent report having a

specialized caseload. (See table A–37,

appendix A.) As figure 21 at the end of

this chapter shows, the majority of

programs that have developed special

procedures to supervise defendants

with mental illness have done so in the

past 5 years.

Pretrial programs starting in the 1970s

are the most likely to have developed

Table 20. Mental Health Inquiry in Interview by Pretrial Program Where 

Defendant Advised How Information Will Be Used

Percentage of Pretrial Programs

That Advised Defendant 

on Use of Information

Mental Health Inquiry Yes No

Asked as regular part of interview (N = 139) 85 15

Asked only if indicators of mental illness (N = 31) 84 16

No mental health questions asked (N = 18) 83 17

Table 21. Mental Health Inquiry in Interview by Pretrial Program Where 

Written Consent Obtained Before Interview

Percentage of Programs 

That Obtained Written 

Consent Before Interview

Mental Health Inquiry Yes No

Asked as regular part of interview (N = 139) 45 55

Asked only if indicators of mental illness (N = 31) 16 84

No mental health questions asked (N = 19) 32 68
33

Special Populations

special procedures for supervising defendants who have

a mental illness, followed by programs that have been

started since 1990. Thirty-three percent of programs

started in the 1970s have such procedures, compared to

24 percent for those started since 1990, 20 percent in the

1980s, and 18 percent in the 1960s. (See table A–38,

appendix A.)

One-third of programs that serve primarily urban areas

have instituted procedures to supervise defendants who

have mental illnesses, compared to 26 percent for mixed

jurisdictions, 20 percent for primarily suburban

jurisdictions, and 18 percent for primarily rural

jurisdictions. (See table A–39, appendix A.) 

The administrative locus of a pretrial program does not

seem to be associated with whether the program has

special supervision procedures for defendants with

mental illness. (See table A–40, appendix A.) Programs

that make recommendations in all cases (30 percent) or

in most cases (28 percent) are twice as likely to have

supervision procedures in place for defendants with

mental illness as programs that never make

recommendations (14 percent). (See table A–41,

appendix A.) 

Juveniles Charged as Adults

In recent years, many jurisdictions have amended their

laws to increase opportunities to prosecute juveniles as

adults. Pretrial services programs dealing with juveniles

who are charged as adults face two critical challenges:

accurately assessing risks of pretrial misconduct for

juveniles and providing the court with viable options,

including conditions of pretrial release that are

appropriate for juveniles.

Just 3 percent, or six pretrial programs, report that they

have developed a special risk assessment for juveniles

charged as adults. Six percent, or 11 programs, have

developed special supervision procedures for juveniles

charged as adults. Five programs (45 percent) have a

specialized caseload for these cases, four (36 percent)

involve parents or guardians in the supervision of the

juvenile defendant, and one program (9 percent)

increases the frequency of required contacts. (See table

A–42, appendix A.) Six of the 11 programs (54 percent)

that have implemented special supervision procedures for

juveniles charged as adults have done so in the past 5

years. (See table A–43, appendix A.)

Domestic Violence Cases

As awareness of the extent to which domestic abuse

occurs has grown, more and more jurisdictions are

enhancing the enforcement of domestic violence

offenses, leading to more persons being charged with

these offenses. The issue of domestic violence is an

important one for pretrial services programs, which work

to facilitate the quick release of those who can be safely

released. Facilitating release that is both quick and safe

is a particular challenge when dealing with domestic

violence cases, because it is in the time shortly after

arrest that the alleged victim might be the most

vulnerable to a reoccurrence of the victimization. This

chapter examines the extent to which pretrial services

programs are addressing this challenge.

One-quarter of the pretrial programs (N = 198) have

developed special risk assessment procedures for

defendants charged with domestic violence offenses.

Fifty-eight percent of the programs that have

implemented such procedures have done so within the

past 5 years, and an additional 28 percent between 1992

and 1996. (See table A–44, appendix A.)

As table 22 shows, programs that were started in the

1960s and 1970s are the most likely to have special risk

assessment procedures for defendants charged with

domestic violence offenses—46 percent and 37 percent,

respectively, compared to 20 percent for programs started

in the 1980s and since 1990.

Table 22. Special Risk Assessment for Domestic 

Violence Cases, by Decade Pretrial Program Began

Percentage of Pretrial Programs, 

by Decade Program Began

Special Risk 

Assessment 

for Domestic 1960s 1970s 1980s Since 1990

Violence Cases (N = 11) (N = 43) (N = 45) (N = 81)

Yes 46 37 20 20

No 54 63 80 80
34

Pretrial Services Programming

As table 23 indicates, programs that serve primarily

urban areas and areas where there is a mix are most

likely to have special risk assessment procedures for

domestic violence cases. 

Thirty-eight percent of independent agencies have

special risk assessment procedures for domestic violence

cases, as do 30 percent of court-based programs, 23

percent of probation-based programs, 19 percent of

sheriff-based programs, and 12 percent of private,

nonprofit programs. (See table A–45, appendix A.)

Programs that interview before the initial court

appearance are more likely to have special risk

assessment procedures for domestic violence offenses

than those that interview after that appearance, 28

percent versus 16 percent. (See table A–46, appendix A.)

Programs that advise the defendant before the interview

that it is voluntary are also more likely to have such

procedures, 26 percent compared to 18 percent. (See

table A–47, appendix A.) 

Thirty-six percent of programs that use a combined

objective and subjective approach to risk assessment

have developed special risk assessment procedures for

domestic violence cases, compared to 23 percent that use

subjective only and 15 percent that use objective only.

(See table A–48, appendix A.)

About one-third (34 percent) of the pretrial programs 

(N = 188) have implemented special procedures to

supervise defendants with domestic violence offenses.

According to figure 22 at the end of this chapter, 31

percent of those that have such procedures report that

they refer the defendant to counseling, 30 percent

maintain contact with the victim throughout the period

that the case is pending to monitor a “no contact” order,

14 percent use electronic monitoring, 14 percent make

use of a specialized caseload, and 12 percent enhance

their supervision. 

Nearly 7 out of 10 programs that have developed special

supervision procedures for domestic violence offenses

have done so in the past 5 years. (See table A–49,

appendix A.) Programs that were started in the 1960s are

the most likely to have instituted special procedures to

supervise domestic violence cases—55 percent,

compared to 34 percent of programs started in the 1970s

and since 1990 and 29 percent that started in the 1980s.

(See table A–50, appendix A.)

About half the programs that serve primarily urban and

primarily suburban areas have such procedures,

compared to 28 percent for programs that serve primarily

rural areas. (See table A–51, appendix A.)

Probation-based programs are more likely to have special

supervision procedures for domestic violence cases (36

percent) than court-based (27 percent) or sheriff/jailbased (24 percent) programs. (See table A–52, appendix

A.) Thirty-seven percent of those that conduct the initial

interview before the first appearance in court have such

supervision procedures, compared to 23 percent that

conduct that interview after the first court appearance.

(See table A–53, appendix A.) Programs that use a

combined objective and subjective approach to risk

assessment (39 percent) are more likely to have such

procedures, followed by programs that use subjective

only (36 percent) or objective only (23 percent). (See

table A–54, appendix A.)

Women

As the number of women being arrested has been

growing, more attention is being paid to the special

needs presented by this population in areas such as jail

and prison classification and probation supervision. The

participants in this survey were asked about any special

procedures that they have introduced to assess risks of

Table 23. Pretrial Program Special Risk Assessment for 

Domestic Violence Cases, by Nature of Area Served

Percentage of Pretrial Programs, 

by Nature of Area Served

Special Risk 

Assessment Primarily Primarily Primarily

for Domestic Urban Suburban Rural Mixture

Violence Cases (N = 33) (N = 25) (N = 38) (N = 90)

Yes 27 20 18 29

No 73 80 82 71
35

Special Populations

pretrial misconduct or to provide supervision conditions

of pretrial release for women. Only one program

reported having done so—in Hamilton County, Ohio.

That program has developed a gender-specific risk

assessment instrument and has developed special

programming to supervise women with co-occurring

substance abuse and mental health disorders.

Summary

Many pretrial services programs have been taking steps,

particularly in the past 5 years, to assess risks and

supervise release for defendants with mental illness and

those charged with domestic violence offenses. There is

much less being done to address special challenges

presented by juveniles charged as adults and women.
36

Pretrial Services Programming

No mental 

health questions 

are asked

11%

Asked only if there 

are indications of 

mental illness

16%

Asked as regular part of 

interview of all defendants

73%

Figure 19. Pretrial Program Interview Questions 

Relating to Mental Illness (N = 191)

Figure 20. Action Taken by Pretrial Programs When Defendant Is Identified 

With Possible Mental Illness

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 174)

40%

64%

9%

5%

0 20 40 60 80

No action is taken

Refer defendant for

possible placement in

a mental health court

Arrange for an assessment

to be conducted by mental 

 health professional before

initial appearance

Report information 

 to court at initial

appearance
37

Special Populations

Figure 21. Year Program Began Special Procedures for Supervising Defendants 

With Mental Illness

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 44)

16%

61%

2%

20%

0 20 40 60 80

Prior to 1987

1987–1991

1992–1996

1997–2001

Year Special Procedures Began

Figure 22. Pretrial Programs Supervision Procedures for Domestic 

Violence Cases

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 59)

30%

31%

14%

14%

12%

0 10 20 30 40

Enhanced

supervision

Specialized

caseload

Electronic

monitoring

Maintain victim

contact

Refer to

counseling
39

T

his chapter explores the extent to which pretrial

services programs are making use of technologies to

aid supervision of defendants on pretrial release and to

manage information. It also examines the characteristics

of programs that use available technologies.

Drug Testing as a Supervision Tool

Drug testing began to be used by pretrial services

programs to monitor the drug use of defendants on

supervised release in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Currently, 68 percent of pretrial programs report using

drug testing as a tool in pretrial supervision. As figure 23

at the end of this chapter shows, 43 percent of the

programs contract with an outside laboratory to test urine

specimens; 31 percent test the specimens themselves

using hand-held, single-use devices, the results of which

can be read by supervision officers; and 28 percent test

the specimens in-house using analyzer-based

instrumentation. Three percent of pretrial programs use

the Sweat PatchTM, an adhesive pad that is affixed to the

subject’s body to collect perspiration. The pad is then

removed by the supervision officer and sent to a

laboratory for analysis.

The decade in which the program began operating does

not seem to be associated with whether the program

currently conducts drug testing. Seventy-three percent of

programs that began in the 1960s, 66 percent in the

1970s, 71 percent in the 1980s, and 73 percent since

1990 have drug testing available as a supervision tool.

(See table A–55, appendix A.) 

Testing takes place most often in programs serving midsized jurisdictions, and least often in programs serving

the smallest and the largest jurisdictions. As seen in table

24, 79 percent of programs serving jurisdictions with

populations between 500,000 and 1 million have drug

testing available, compared to 61 percent in jurisdictions

in which the population is more than 1 million. Sixtynine percent of programs serving jurisdictions of

between 100,001 and 500,000 and between 50,000 and

100,000 have drug testing available; in jurisdictions in

which the population is fewer than 50,000, 62 percent of

the programs test for drug use.

Pretrial programs that serve primarily suburban areas are

most likely to have drug testing available, although the

differences are not large—78 percent, compared to 74

percent for programs serving primarily urban areas and

66 percent for those serving primarily rural and mixed

jurisdictions. (See table A–56, appendix A.) 

As noted earlier, the top three administrative locations

for pretrial services programs are probation, courts, and

sheriff/jail. These three locations have drug testing

available at the same rates—68 percent for probationand sheriff/jail-based programs and 67 percent for courtbased programs. Of the 16 programs that are independent

agencies of the local government, 88 percent have drug

testing capability. (See table A–57,

appendix A.)

As table 25 shows, programs in the

lowest budget range, less than

$200,000, are the least likely to have

drug testing availability—57 percent,

compared to 77 percent of those with

budgets between $200,000 and

$500,000, 88 percent between

$500,001 and $1,000,000, and 72

percent over $1,000,000. 

VI. Technology and Pretrial Services

Table 24. Drug Testing as a Pretrial Program Supervision Tool, 

by Population Served

Percentage of Pretrial Programs, by Population Served

Between Between Between

Less Than 50,000 and 100,001 and 500,001 and More Than

Drug Testing 50,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Available (N = 21) (N = 26) (N = 89) (N = 34) (N = 23)

Yes 62 69 69 79 61

No 38 31 31 21 39
40

Pretrial Services Programming

The size of the staff does not seem to be associated with

the availability of drug testing. A large majority of

programs in all staff size categories have drug testing

capability. (See table A–58, appendix A.) There also

appears to be little variation in drug testing capability

due to hours of operation of pretrial programs. Seventy

percent of those programs that work only court hours

(Monday through Friday) test for drugs, compared with

68 percent that work regular hours on weekends as well

as weekdays, and 67 percent that work extended hours

both weekdays and weekends. (See table A–59,

appendix A.) 

Alcohol Testing as a 

Supervision Tool

About half (104) of surveyed programs report having

alcohol testing as a tool for supervision. Breathalyzer

technology for testing alcohol use has been available for

several decades. A more recent enhancement involves

combining telecommunications technology with the

Breathalyzer to allow testing from a remote location. As

figure 24 at the end of this chapter shows, nearly 1 in 5

(36 programs) test for alcohol use with a remote system.

According to table 26, programs begun since 1990 are

the most likely to have alcohol testing available and

those starting in the 1960s the least likely, 60 percent

compared to 27 percent. Of those starting in the 1980s,

56 percent have alcohol testing, as do 46 percent of those

starting in the 1970s. 

As with drug testing, it is the programs that serve the

largest jurisdictions that are least likely to have alcohol

testing available—only 26 percent of those with

populations more than 1,000,000. Rates of alcohol

testing by population size groups are fairly close, ranging

from 50 percent where the population is between

500,001 and 1,000,000 to 62 percent where it is fewer

than 50,000. (See table A–60, appendix A.) Programs

that serve primarily suburban areas are much more likely

to have alcohol testing available as a supervision tool

than programs that serve primarily urban areas and those

that serve mixed areas—78 percent versus 41 percent

and 44 percent, respectively. Almost two-thirds of those

that serve rural areas have alcohol testing available. (See

table A–56, appendix A.) 

Pretrial programs administratively located in the

probation department are the most likely to have alcohol

testing available. Sixty-one percent of those programs

can test, compared to 54 percent for sheriff/jail-based

programs and 46 percent in the court-based programs.

(See table A–57, appendix A.)

Whether a pretrial program chooses to have alcohol

testing available does not seem to be associated with the

size of the program’s budget. Those in the highest budget

category, more than $1,000,000, are the least likely to

have alcohol testing available—42 percent, compared to

65 percent for those with budgets of between $500,001

and $1,000,000, 63 percent between $200,000 and

$500,000, and 48 percent less than

$200,000. (See table A–61,

appendix A.)

No relationship appears to exist

between the size of the staff of the

program and whether the program has

alcohol testing as a supervision tool.

Programs with a staff of 1 person, 2 to

5 people, and 6 to 10 people are just as

Table 25. Drug Testing as a Pretrial Program Supervision Tool, by Budget

Percentage of Pretrial Programs, by Budget

Less Than Between $200,000 Between $500,001 More Than

Drug Testing $200,000 and $500,000 and $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Available (N = 58) (N = 35) (N = 17) (N = 36)

Yes 57 77 88 72

No 43 23 12 28

Table 26. Alcohol Testing as a Supervision Tool, by 

Decade Pretrial Program Began

Percentage of Pretrial Programs, 

by Decade Program Began

Alcohol Testing 1960s 1970s 1980s Since 1990

Available (N = 11) (N = 44) (N = 45) (N = 81)

Yes 27 46 56 60

No 73 54 44 40
41

Technology

likely to have alcohol testing as the larger programs. (See

table A–58, appendix A.) 

Programs that have extended hours on both weekdays

and weekends are the least likely to have alcohol testing

available, whereas those with extended hours on

weekdays only are the most likely. (See table A–59,

appendix A.) 

Electronic Monitoring as a

Supervision Tool

Fifty-four percent of the pretrial programs use at least

one form of electronic monitoring. As figure 25 shows,

most pretrial programs that use electronic monitoring

have the continuously signaling devices that sound an

alert if the defendant leaves a restricted area. Six percent

of the programs use Global Positioning System (GPS)

technology, which allows the exact movements of

defendants in the community to be tracked from a remote

location on a continuous basis.

As table 27 shows, pretrial programs begun in the 1960s

are the most likely to have electronic monitoring

available as a supervision tool—73 percent, compared to

50 percent of those started in the 1970s, 62 percent in the

1980s, and 52 percent since 1990.

The size of the population served by the pretrial program

does not appear to be associated with whether the

program uses electronic monitoring to supervise

defendants on pretrial release. There is a range of 47

percent for jurisdictions that serve populations between

100,001 and 500,000 and 65 percent where the

population is between 500,001 and 1,000,000. (See table

A–62, appendix A.) Programs serving urban, suburban,

and rural jurisdictions use electronic monitoring at an

equal rate of 56 percent, compared to 52 percent for

those in mixed jurisdictions. (See table A–56, appendix A.) 

About half the programs that are administratively located

in probation (56 percent), the courts (53 percent), and the

sheriff/jail-based administration (49 percent) use

electronic monitoring to supervise defendants on pretrial

release. (See table A–57, appendix A.) 

Whether the program has electronic monitoring does not

seem to be associated with the size of the budget. More

programs that have budgets of less than $200,000 have

electronic monitoring (53 percent) than those with

budgets between $200,000 and $500,000. Likewise,

programs with budgets between $500,001 and

$1,000,000 are more likely to use electronic monitoring

(71 percent) than those with budgets of more than

$1,000,000 (64 percent). (See table A–61, appendix A.)

Having a smaller staff does not seem to affect whether

the program offers electronic monitoring. Just as many of

the one-person programs have electronic monitoring as

do programs that have more than 25 staff members—

about 75 percent. (See table A–58, appendix A.) 

As to hours of operation, those programs that operate

during the most limited hours (weekdays during regular

court hours) are just as likely to have electronic

monitoring as those that work extended hours on both

weekdays and weekends—about 55 percent. (See table

A–59, appendix A.)

Information Systems

Eleven percent of pretrial programs rely exclusively on a

manual system to gather, store, and retrieve information.

As figure 26 at the end of this chapter shows, just over

half the programs use a combination of manual and

automated systems.

Programs that began operating in the 1980s, that serve

jurisdictions with populations of 50,000 or fewer, that

serve primarily rural areas, and that are housed in

private, nonprofit agencies are the most likely to have an

exclusively manual information system. (See tables

A–63, –64, –65, and –66, appendix A.) Thirteen percent

of programs that are budgeted below $200,000 have

manual systems only, compared to 3 percent with

budgets between $200,000 and $500,000, and zero for

Table 27. Electronic Monitoring as a Supervision Tool, 

by Decade Pretrial Program Began

Percentage of Pretrial Programs, 

by Decade Program Began

Electronic

Monitoring 1960s 1970s 1980s Since 1990

Available (N = 11) (N = 44) (N = 45) (N = 88)

Yes 73 50 62 52

No 27 50 38 48
42

Pretrial Services Programming

those between $500,001 and $1,000,000. Surprisingly,

three programs (8 percent) that have budgets higher than

$1,000,000 rely exclusively on a manual information

system. (See table A–67, appendix A.) Having an

information system that is at least partially automated

does not appear to be associated with staff size. (See

table A–68, appendix A.)

As figure 27 at the end of this chapter shows, programs

most commonly use automated systems to prepare

reports and provide management information. Less than

half use automated systems to monitor defendants’

compliance with release conditions.

Having an automated information system that is

integrated with systems used by other criminal justice

entities in the jurisdiction can have several benefits,

including reducing the need for data entry and ensuring

easier access to available information. More than half (55

percent) of the pretrial programs (N = 170) report that the

information systems they use are not integrated with

computers from other criminal justice programs in the

jurisdiction.

Summary

Nearly 7 out of 10 pretrial programs have drug testing

available as a supervision tool, and about half have

alcohol testing. A slight majority has electronic

monitoring capability, but only 6 percent of these make

use of the most recent electronic monitoring

technology—GPS. A large majority of programs

automate at least some portion of their information

systems. No clear patterns emerged regarding

characteristics shared by programs that tend to make

use of automated technologies.
43

Technology

Figure 23. Methods of Drug Testing Used by Pretrial Programs

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 137)

31%

43%

28%

3%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Drug testing through the 

use of the Sweat PatchTM 

Urine testing, done 

in-house using analyzerbased instruments

Urine testing, done 

with hand-held, 

single-use devices

Urine testing, 

contracted to 

outside laboratory

Figure 24. Methods of Alcohol Testing Used by Pretrial Programs

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 104)

18%

46%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Onsite testing

Testing through a 

remote Breathalyzer

Figure 25. Methods of Electronic Monitoring Used by Pretrial Programs

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 54)

6%

41%

23%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Programmed contact

Continuous signaling

GPS
44

Pretrial Services Programming

Figure 26. Information Systems Used by Pretrial Programs

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 189)

15%

51%

11%

11%

10%

0 20 40 60

Mainframe only

PC-based only

Manual only

Combination of

mainframe and

PC-based

Combination of

manual and

automated

Figure 27. Automated Pretrial Program Functions

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 189)

65%

65%

49%

39%

33%

15%

0 20 40 60 80

Risk assessment

Interviews

Administrative 

records

Monitoring

compliance

Management

information reports

Report preparation
45

T

his chapter identifies associations that might exist

between pretrial services programs and their practices

and jail crowding. The purpose of a pretrial services

program is to provide the court with information and

viable options to allow the safe pretrial release of the

maximum number of defendants. That, in turn, should

lead to several beneficial outcomes (including enhanced

public safety) and improved efficiency of court

processing. It should also lead to more efficient use of

scarce jail space by minimizing unnecessary pretrial

detention. 

The results presented here must be viewed with great

caution, however, for two very important reasons. First,

the existence of an association between two variables—

say, for example, a particular pretrial program practice

and jail crowding—does not imply that a cause-effect

relationship exists. Second, there are many factors

beyond the control of the pretrial services program that

can affect the population level at the jail, such as case

processing procedures, sentencing practices, and other

factors. Nevertheless, the findings point to several

potential areas for further inquiry.

Jail Capacity and Average 

Daily Population

Consistent with earlier findings that a large number of

pretrial programs participating in the 2001 survey serve

small to midsized jurisdictions, more than half the

pretrial programs serve jurisdictions that have a jail

capacity and an average daily population of 500 or fewer.

About 1 in 5 serve jurisdictions with jails that have more

than 1,000 beds and 1 in 5 serve jurisdictions with

average daily populations of more than 1,000 inmates.

(See table A–69, appendix A.)

Jail Crowding in Jurisdictions

Served by Pretrial Programs

As figure 28 at the end of this chapter shows, 44 percent

of jails in jurisdictions served by pretrial programs 

(N = 119) are over capacity. Almost half are under

capacity, and the remainder (8 percent) are at capacity.

Figure 29 at the end of this chapter shows the percentage

of jail space occupied in the jurisdictions served by

pretrial services programs. In nearly 1 in 5 jurisdictions,

the jail has an occupancy rate of 80 percent or less, with

an additional 10 percent with an occupancy rate between

81 and 90 percent. A quarter of the jurisdictions have jail

occupancy rates between 91 and 100 percent.

Pretrial programs serving areas that are primarily urban

are the most likely to have jails where the population is

over capacity (55 percent), and those that serve a mix of

urban, suburban, and rural are the least likely (39

percent). (See table A–70, appendix A.) 

As table 28 shows, programs

administratively located within the

sheriff’s department or jail and those

that are independent agencies are by

far the least likely to have jails in

which the population is over

capacity—29 percent for both,

compared to 47 percent for probationbased programs, 50 percent for private,

nonprofit programs, and 54 percent for

court-based programs.

Programs that provide the most

extensive coverage are the least likely

VII. Jail Crowding and Pretrial Services

Table 28. Jail Crowding in Jurisdictions Served by Pretrial Programs, 

by Administrative Locus

Percentage of Pretrial Programs, 

by Administrative Locus

Private,

Jail Probation Courts Sheriff/Jail Nonprofit Independent

Population (N = 45) (N = 28) (N = 24) (N = 8) (N = 7)

Over capacity 47 54 29 50 29

Under capacity 47 46 58 38 71

At capacity 7 0 13 12 0
46

Pretrial Services Programming

to serve a jurisdiction with a jail that exceeds its

population capacity. Only 34 percent of those programs

that work extended hours both weekdays and weekends

serve jurisdictions in which the jail is over capacity,

compared to 49 percent of those that work regular,

weekdays only, court hours. (See table A–71,

appendix A.) 

In a previous chapter, the importance of interviewing

defendants before the initial court appearance was

discussed. According to the data, programs that interview

defendants before the initial appearance are less likely to

have a jail that is over capacity than those that interview

after the initial appearance—43 percent, compared to 52

percent. (See table A–72, appendix A.)

Programs that assess risks of pretrial misconduct in an

exclusively subjective manner are more than twice as

likely to have a jail population that exceeds its capacity

than those programs that assess risk exclusively through

an objective risk assessment instrument—56 percent,

compared to 27 percent. Forty-seven percent of programs

that add subjective input to an objective instrument are in

jurisdictions with overcrowded jails. (See table A–73,

appendix A.)

Sixteen percent of programs (N = 173) noted that they

changed their risk assessment instrument as a response to

jail crowding. Sixty-one percent of programs serving

jurisdictions in which the jail is overcrowded have

modified their risk assessment scheme due to jail

crowding, compared to 43 percent that have not modified

their risk assessment scheme. (See table A–74,

appendix A.)

There appears to be no relationship between whether a

program makes a recommendation and the population

level of the jail. Those programs that make

recommendations all or most of the time are just as

likely to have a jail population that exceeds capacity as

those that do not make recommendations at all or do so

only when asked by the court. (See table A–75,

appendix A.) 

As table 29 indicates, 52 percent of programs

recommending financial bail other than 10-percent

deposit serve jurisdictions that have crowded jails,

compared to 42 percent where the jail is under capacity

and 6 percent where it is at capacity. For programs

recommending specific bail amounts other than 

10-percent deposit, 54 percent are located in a

jurisdiction in which the jail population exceeds its

capacity, 43 percent where the jail is under capacity,

and 4 percent where the jail is at capacity. For programs

recommending nonfinancial conditional release, 43

percent are in jurisdictions in which the jail is

overcrowded, 54 percent where it is under capacity,

and 3 percent where it is at capacity. 

Summary

A slight majority of jurisdictions served by pretrial

programs have a jail that is either at or below capacity.

Programs that serve jurisdictions least

likely to have a jail population over its

capacity are in mixed urban, suburban,

and rural areas, are housed under the

sheriff/jail administration or an

independent agency, provide the most

extensive hours of operation, interview

defendants before the initial court

appearance, and assess risks of pretrial

misconduct objectively.

Table 29. Jail Crowding in Jurisdictions Served by Pretrial Programs, 

by Recommendation Made

Percentage of Pretrial Programs, 

by Recommendation Made

Specific Bail

Monetary Amounts if

Nonfinancial Other Than Other Than Pretrial

Jail Conditional 10% Deposit 10% Deposit 10% Deposit Detention

Population (N = 68) (N = 33) (N = 28) (N = 23) (N = 47)

Over capacity 43 52 54 48 47

Under capacity 54 42 43 48 47

At capacity 3 6 4 4 6
47

Jail Crowding

At capacity

8%

Over capacity

44%

Under capacity

48%

Figure 28. Capacity Situation at Jails Served by 

Pretrial Programs (N = 119)

Figure 29. Occupancy Rates of Jails Served by Pretrial Programs

0 5 10 15 20 25

More than 150%

141–150%

131–140%

121–130%

111–120%

101–110%

91–100%

81–90%

80% or less

Percentage of Pretrial Programs (N = 118)

Occupancy Rates

19%

10%

25%

15%

14%

9%

3%

1%

3%
49

Each year more than 10 million arrests are made forcriminal offenses. In each one of these arrests a

judicial officer must make a decision regarding the

release or detention of the accused, with significant

implications attached to each decision. The unnecessary

detention of a defendant who could have been safely

released creates unnecessary costs and can clog jail cells

and lead to jail crowding. The inappropriate release of a

defendant may pose a serious risk to public safety.

Pretrial services programs have become important tools

used by judicial officers making these decisions by

providing them with information and options for more

effective pretrial release/detention decisionmaking. 

This survey (conducted in 2001) has identified 88

pretrial services programs that have come into existence

since 1990. This is perhaps the largest growth period for

new programs since pretrial services were introduced in

the 1960s. As the expansion of pretrial services

continues, it is important that individual programs adhere

to national standards. As in the past two surveys, a

number of areas have been identified in which

improvements are needed to standardize the practices of

pretrial services programs. These improvements include

the following:

■ Conduct an investigation on all persons accused of a

criminal offense. As noted earlier, in complicated

cases the judicial officer especially needs complete

information and a full range of options to ensure that

an appropriate decision is made. Yet the majority of

pretrial services programs have at least one category

of defendant that is automatically excluded from their

interview and investigation process. Pretrial services

programs should include in their target population all

people for whom a judicial officer must make a

pretrial release/detention decision. The only exception

to this might be, as recognized by the standards,

persons who are charged with minor offenses and who

will be released with minimal investigation.

■ Compile a complete criminal record. Data show that

pretrial services programs are very successful in

obtaining both arrest and disposition information from

their immediate jurisdictions. Their success rate

diminishes, however, when the defendant has charges

outside the immediate jurisdiction, particularly out-ofstate charges. Pretrial services programs should work

with appropriate local, state, and federal officials to

ensure that they have timely access to complete

criminal records.

■ Assess risks of pretrial misconduct using objective

criteria. Data show that less than one-quarter of

pretrial services programs exclusively rely on

objective criteria in assessing risks. More than onethird use subjective criteria only. The several

advantages to using objective over subjective criteria

justify the standards calling for their use. First, if

applied correctly, objective criteria ensure consistency

in application among the staff of the program. Second,

objective criteria provide a visibility to the risk

assessment process that cannot exist with a subjective

approach. Finally, with an objective risk assessment

instrument, the factors that go into the assessment of

risk can be tested for their validity. 

■ Review regularly the status of detained defendants.

Many defendants sit in jail for prolonged periods of

time simply because they cannot afford the bail, even

a nominal bail, set by the court. Often, the judicial

officer setting the bail never intended for the

defendant to remain detained. In other cases, the

defendant may have had a bail set on a new charge

simply because there was a hold due to another

matter, but once that other matter is resolved the

defendant may remain detained. In still other cases,

new information may be available, such as the

identification of an address at which the defendant

could live, that would make it possible for the

defendant to be released. Pretrial services programs

can address these types of situations by conducting a

regular review of the status of detained defendants.

Yet as the data show, only about 1 in 5 programs do

so on a regular basis; nearly half never do so.

In addition, it is clear that pretrial services programs

need to do more to assess their effectiveness. Almost half

VIII. Conclusions
50

Pretrial Services Programming

have never validated their risk assessment procedures.

Almost half do not calculate failure-to-appear rates;

three-quarters do not calculate rearrest rates. Even those

programs that do calculate these rates vary greatly in the

way that they do so.

Notwithstanding these areas where improvements are

necessary, the data show that several positive

developments are underway. Pretrial services programs

are beginning to address special challenges raised by

defendants with mental illness and those charged with

domestic violence offenses. Although this survey was

not designed to assess the effectiveness of strategies

employed for these populations, the data indicate that

pretrial services programs are taking steps to provide

more information and options to the court. In addition,

programs are making use of technologies designed to

improve their information-gathering capability and the

options that they are providing to the court.
51

1. The 1989 results are reported in Kristen L. Segebarth,

Pretrial Services and Practices in the 1990s: Findings From

the Enhanced Pretrial Services Project, Washington, D.C.:

National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, 1991.

The 1979 results are reported in Donald E. Pryor,

Practices of Pretrial Release Programs: Review and

Analysis of the Data, Washington, D.C.: Pretrial Services

Resource Center, 1982.

2. Puerto Rico was included in only the 2002 survey.

3. Standards Relating to Pretrial Release, New York, N.Y.:

American Bar Association, 1968.

4. Standards and Goals for Pretrial Release, Washington,

D.C.: National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies,

1978.

Endnotes
53

American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice:

Pretrial Release. 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: American Bar

Association, 1985.

American Bar Association Criminal Justice Standards on

Pretrial Release. 3d ed. Washington, D.C.: American Bar

Association, 2002.

Bibliography
55

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–1. Size of Population Served by Pretrial 

Services Programs

Percentage of Programs, 

by Survey Year

2001 1989 1979

Size of Population (N = 193) (N = 199) (N = 109)

50,000 or fewer 11 14 2

50,001 to 100,000 14 13 5

100,001 to 500,000 46 41 44

500,001 to 1,000,000 17 19 28

More than 1,000,000 12 13 22
56

Pretrial Services Programming

Table A–2. Characteristics of Pretrial Services Programs, 

by Year Program Began

Characteristic Percentage of Programs, by Year

1960s 1970s 1980s Since 1990

Size of Population (N = 11) (N = 44) (N = 43) (N = 87)

50,000 or fewer 0 0 7 18

50,001 to 100,000 0 0 12 21

100,001 to 500,000 27 46 47 51

500,001 to 1,000,000 46 27 26 7

More than 1,000,000 27 27 9 3

Nature of Jurisdiction (N = 10) (N = 44) (N = 44) (N = 88)

Primarily urban 60 25 16 9

Primarily suburban 10 16 18 13

Primarily rural 0 7 14 35

Mixture 30 52 52 43

Administrative Locus (N = 11) (N = 44) (N = 44) (N = 88)

Probation 46 23 27 34

Courts 18 36 36 24

Prosecutor 0 0 0 1%

Sheriff or jail 0 9 16 27

Private, nonprofit 9 11 9 6

Community corrections 0 2 2 0

Independent agency 18 16 7 5

Other 9 2 2 3

Budget Size (N = 10) (N = 35) (N = 32) (N = 66)

$50,000 or less 0 0 16 17

$50,001 to $100,000 0 9 9 21

$100,001 to $200,000 10 9 13 17

$200,001 to $300,000 0 9 6 14

$300,001 to $400,000 0 3 16 11

$400,001 to $500,000 0 11 6 1

$500,001 to $600,000 0 3 0 1

$600,001 to $700,000 0 0 0 5

$700,001 to $800,000 0 0 0 0

$800,001 to $900,000 0 9 6 1

$900,001 to $1,000,000 10 0 6 5

$1,000,001 to $1,500,000 10 23 16 0

$1,500,001 to $2,000,000 30 6 3 1

$2,000,001 to $5,000,000 20 14 3 3

$5,000,001 to $10,000,000 0 0 0 1

More than $10,000,000 20 6 0 0

continued
57

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–2 continued. Characteristics of Pretrial Services Programs, 

by Year Program Began

Characteristic Percentage of Programs, by Year

1960s 1970s 1980s Since 1990

Staff Size (N = 11) (N = 44) (N = 41) (N = 82)

1 0 0 12 20

2–5 9 27 32 52

6–10 9 16 24 20

11–15 0 7 2 4

16–20 18 11 10 1

21–25 9 5 7 1

26–50 18 19 12 1

51–75 0 9 0 1

76–100 9 2 0 0

101–200 9 0 0 1

201–300 18 5 0 0

Risk Assessment Validation (N = 10) (N = 43) (N = 42) (N = 68)

Within past year 0 14 12 10

Within past 3 years 20 2 19 10

Within past 5 years 10 7 2 10

More than 10 years ago 30 12 10 1

Never validated 20 47 48 53
58

Pretrial Services Programming

Table A–3. Pretrial Program Staff Size, by Hours of Operation

Percentage of Programs, by Hours of Operation

Monday– Monday– Weekdays Weekdays

Friday, Friday, and Weekends, and Weekends, Number 

Regular Extended Regular Extended of 

Staff Size Hours Hours Hours Hours Programs

1 100 0 0 0 18

2–5 80 0 14 6 70

6–10 57 0 23 20 35

11–25 15 7 19 59 27

More than 25 3 10 7 80 30

Table A–4. Pretrial Services Programs Having

Delegated Release Authority

Percentage of Programs, by Survey Year

Delegated 2001 1989 1979

Release Authority (N = 188) (N = 201) (N = 119)

Yes 21 41 42

No 79 59 58
59

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–5. Pretrial Program Procedures for Initial Interviews

Percentage of Programs,

Procedure by Survey Year

2001 1989 1979

Set Time of Initial Interview (N = 194) (N = 201) (N = 119)

Before first appearance in court 75 70 92

After first appearance in court 25 30 8

Advise Defendant That Interview 

Is Voluntary (N = 194) (N = 201) N/A

Yes 86 78 N/A

No 14 22 N/A

Advise Defendant on Use of Information (N = 193) (N = 201) N/A

Yes 85 75 N/A

No 15 25 N/A

Obtain Written Consent 

From Defendant* (N = 94) N/A N/A

Yes 39 N/A N/A

No 61 N/A N/A

N/A = Data not available.

*Data from 2001 survey.
60

Pretrial Services Programming

Table A–6. Factors Considered in Risk Assessment by Pretrial 

Services Programs 

Percentage of Programs,

by Survey Year

2001 1989 1979

Risk Factors (N = 172) (N = 196) (N = 117)

Local address 92 94 95

Length of time in area 94 93 92

Length of time at current address 82 84 85

Length of time at prior address 60 67 N/A

Property owner 53 60 50

Have telephone 44 34 27

Living arrangement 75 82 74

Parental status/support of children 50 63 N/A

Employment/school status 92 93 92

Income level 36 48 43

Physical or mental impairment 59 65 N/A

Use of alcohol or drugs 72 68 N/A

Age 40 N/A N/A

Comments from arresting officer 40 56 N/A

Comments from victim 47 48 N/A

Prior arrests 77 79 67

Prior convictions 95 91 86

On probation, parole, or pretrial release 86 89 N/A

Compliance with probation, parole, or pretrial release 69 N/A N/A

Prior court appearance history 92 88 N/A

Family/friend in court 12 16 20

Having references 56 N/A N/A

Other 9 17 6

N/A = Data not available.
61

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–7. Recommendations Made by Pretrial Services Programs

Percentage of Programs, by Survey Year

2001 1989

Type of Recommendation (N = 137) (N = 158)

Nonfinancial conditional release 67 80

Monetary other than 10% deposit 32 51

Specific bail amounts other than 10% deposit 27 46

10% deposit 21 35

Pretrial detention 46 48

Table A–8. Pretrial Staff Present at Initial Court Appearance

Percentage of Programs, by Survey Year

2001 1989

Program Staff Present (N = 164) (N = 192)

Yes, always 55 33

Only when requested by the court 21 26

No 24 41

Table A–9. Courtesy Supervision by Pretrial Program

Percentage of Programs, by Survey Year

Willing To Provide 2001 1989

Courtesy Supervision (N = 176) *

Yes 87 74

No 13 26

*Not reported in the 1989 report.
62

Pretrial Services Programming

Table A–10. Services Provided by Pretrial 

Services Programs

Percentage of Programs

Service Yes No

Diversion (N = 186) 29 71

Mediation (N = 189) 5 95

Jail classification (N = 188) 6 94

Indigency screening (N = 188) 24 76

Table A–11. Victim Notification Services Among Pretrial 

Services Programs

Percentage of

Programs

Victim Notified of Initial Appearance of Accused (N = 187)

Yes, in all cases where there is a victim 5

Yes, in selected cases where there is a victim 20

No 75

Victim Notified of Defendant’s Pretrial Release (N = 189)

Yes, in all cases where there is a victim 11

Yes, in selected cases where there is a victim 29

No 60

Table A–12. Mission Statement, by Decade Pretrial

Program Began (N = 185)

Percentage of Programs, 

by Decade Program Began

Mission Since

Statement 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990

Yes 82 82 93 76

No 18 18 7 24
63

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–13. Mission Statement of Pretrial Services Programs, by 

Population of Jurisdiction Served (N = 190) 

Percentage of Programs, by Jurisdiction Population

Between Between Between 

Fewer 50,000 100,001 500,001 More

Mission Than and and and Than

Statement 50,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Yes 63 89 77 94 83

No 37 12 23 6 17

Table A–14. Mission Statement of Pretrial Services Programs, by Nature

of the Area Served (N = 192)

Percentage of Programs, by Area Served

Primarily Primarily Primarily

Mission Statement Urban Suburban Rural Mixture

Yes 88 92 65 83

No 12 8 35 17

Table A–15. Mission Statement of Pretrial Services Programs, 

by Administrative Locus (N = 194)

Percentage of Programs, by Administrative Locus

Mission Sheriff/ Private/

Statement Probation Courts Jail Nonprofit Independent

Yes 69 85 84 94 94

No 31 15 16 6 6

Table A–16. Staff Training, by Decade Pretrial Program Began (N = 186)

Percentage of Programs, by Decade Program Began

Type of Training 1960s 1970s 1980s Since 1990

On the job only 9 25 24 28

More than on the job 91 75 76 72
64

Pretrial Services Programming

Table A–17. Training for Pretrial Program Staff, by Administrative 

Locus (N = 194)

Percentage of Programs, by Administrative Locus

Type of Sheriff/ Private/

Training Probation Courts Jail Nonprofit Independent

On the job only 26 27 22 25 6

More than on the job 74 73 78 75 94

Table A–18. Operations Manual, by Decade Pretrial Program Began

Decade Program Began

1960s 1970s 1980s Since 1990

Operations Manual (N = 11) (N = 44) (N = 44) (N = 87)

Yes 73 71 77 79

No 27 29 23 21

Table A–19. Operations Manual of Pretrial Services Programs, 

by Population of Area Served

Percentage of Programs, by Population of Area Served

Between Between Between 

Fewer 50,000 100,001 500,001 More

Than and and and Than

Operations 50,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Manual (N = 19) (N = 26) (N = 89) (N = 34) (N = 23)

Yes 63 81 75 85 78

No 37 19 25 15 22

Table A–20. Operations Manual of Pretrial Services Programs, 

by Nature of Area Served 

Percentage of Programs, by Nature of Area Served

Operations Primarily Urban Primarily Suburban Primarily Rural Mixture

Manual (N = 34) (N = 26) (N = 40) (N = 93)

Yes 88 85 70 75

No 12 15 30 25
65

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–22. Operations Manual of Pretrial Services Programs, 

by Administrative Locus

Percentage of Programs, by Administrative Locus

Sheriff/ Private/

Operations Probation Courts Jail Nonprofit Independent

Manual (N = 61) (N = 56) (N = 37) (N = 16) (N = 16)

Yes 74 73 87 81 69

No 26 27 13 19 31

Table A–21. Operations Manual of Pretrial Services Programs, by Staff Size

Percentage of Programs, by Staff Size

1 2–5 6–10 11–15 More Than 25

Operations Manual (N = 19) (N = 73) (N = 36) (N = 27) (N = 32)

Yes 58 74 81 81 81

No 42 26 19 19 19

Table A–23. Pretrial Program Risk Assessment Validation, 

by Population of the Jurisdiction

Percentage of Programs, by Jurisdiction Population

Between Between Between 

Fewer 50,000 100,001 500,001 More

Risk Than and and and Than

Assessment 50,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Validated (N = 19) (N = 19) (N = 76) (N = 31) (N = 22)

Within past year 5 6 44 17 28

Within past 3 years 16 11 33 33 5

Within past 5 years 16 8 31 15 14

Within past 10 years 11 13 50 25 5

More than 10 years ago 5 7 50 29 7

Never validated 11 14 49 13 14
66

Pretrial Services Programming

Table A–25. Pretrial Program Risk Assessment Validation, 

by Administrative Locus

Percentage of Programs, by Administrative Locus

Risk Sheriff/ Private/

Assessment Probation Courts Jail Nonprofit Independent

Validated (N = 56) (N = 49) (N = 28) (N = 12) (N = 15)

Within past year 5 14 14 17 0

Within past 3 years 13 10 7 8 7

Within past 5 years 9 2 14 0 13

Within past 10 years 14 16 7 33 13

More than 10 years ago 14 6 0 8 13

Never validated 43 51 57 33 53

Table A–24. Pretrial Program Risk Assessment Validation, 

by Nature of Area Served

Percentage of Programs, by Nature of Area Served

Risk Primarily Primarily Primarily 

Assessment Urban Suburban Rural Mixture

Validated (N = 25) (N = 25) (N = 34) (N = 82)

Within past year 8 8 15 11

Within past 3 years 28 8 9 9

Within past 5 years 8 0 9 10

Within past 10 years 8 20 9 17

More than 10 years ago 8 4 9 9

Never validated 40 60 50 45
67

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–26. Calculation of Failure-To-Appear (FTA) and Rearrest Rates, 

by Decade Pretrial Program Began

Percentage of Programs, by Decade Program Began

Calculation of 1960s 1970s 1980s Since 1990

FTA Rates (N = 10) (N = 38) (N = 43) (N = 79)

Yes 60 74 77 37

No 40 26 23 63

Calculation of

Rearrest Rates (N = 10) (N = 38) (N = 43) (N = 78)

Yes 50 32 40 21

No 50 68 60 79

Table A–27. Pretrial Program Calculation of Failure-To-Appear (FTA) and

Rearrest Rates, by Population of Jurisdiction Served 

Percentage of Programs, by Jurisdiction Population

Between Between Between 

Fewer 50,000 100,001 500,001 More

Than and and and Than

Calculation of 50,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

FTA Rates (N = 18) (N = 23) (N = 83) (N = 33) (N = 18)

Yes 28 35 51 85 72

No 72 65 49 15 28

Calculation of

Rearrest Rates (N = 18) (N = 23) (N = 82) (N = 33) (N = 18)

Yes 22 22 21 58 28

No 78 78 79 42 72
68

Pretrial Services Programming

Tables A–28. Pretrial Program Calculation of Failure-To-Appear (FTA) and

Rearrest Rates, by Nature of Area Served 

Percentage of Programs, by Nature of Area Served

Primarily Primarily Primarily

Calculation of Urban Suburban Rural Mixture

FTA Rates (N = 31) (N = 24) (N = 38) (N = 83)

Yes 55 79 34 57

No 45 21 66 43

Calculation of

Rearrest Rates (N = 32) (N = 24) (N = 38) (N = 81)

Yes 44 29 29 21

No 56 71 71 79

Tables A–29. Pretrial Program Calculation of Failure-To-Appear (FTA) and

Rearrest Rates, by Administrative Locus

Percentage of Programs, by Administrative Locus

Sheriff/ Private/

Calculation of Probation Courts Jail Nonprofit Independent

FTA Rates (N = 58) (N = 45) (N = 35) (N = 16) (N = 16)

Yes 40 56 63 75 75

No 60 44 37 25 25

Calculation of

Rearrest Rates (N = 56) (N = 46) (N = 35) (N = 16) (N = 16)

Yes 25 28 26 38 31

No 75 72 74 62 69

Table A–30. Mental Health Inquiry by Pretrial Services Programs 

in Interview, by Decade Program Began

Percentage of Programs, 

by Decade Program Began

1960s 1970s 1980s Since 1990

Mental Health Inquiry (N = 11) (N = 43) (N = 45) (N = 83)

Asked as regular part of interview 55 72 64 83

Asked only if indicators of mental illness 36 19 20 11

No mental health questions asked 9 9 16 6
69

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–31. Mental Health Inquiry by Pretrial Services Programs in

Interview, by Nature of Area Served

Percentage of Programs, 

by Nature of Area Served

Primarily Primarily Primarily

Urban Suburban Rural Mixture

Mental Health Inquiry (N = 33) (N = 24) (N = 41) (N = 90)

Asked as regular part of interview 73 75 83 68

Asked only if indicators of mental illness 15 17 5 22

No mental health questions asked 12 8 12 10

Table A–32. Mental Health Inquiry by Pretrial Services Programs in

Interview, by Administrative Locus

Percentage of Programs, 

by Administrative Locus

Sheriff/ Private/

Probation Courts Jail Nonprofit Independent

Mental Health Inquiry (N = 58) (N = 54) (N = 37) (N = 16) (N = 16)

Asked as regular part

of interview 76 67 87 56 62

Asked only if indicators

of mental illness 19 17 3 25 38

No mental health

questions asked 5 17 11 19 0

Table A–33. Mental Health Inquiry by Pretrial Services Programs in

Interview, by Timing of Initial Interview

Percentage of Programs 

Conducting Initial Interviews at This Time

Before the First After the First

Court Appearance Court Appearance

Mental Health Inquiry (N = 144) (N = 45)

Asked as regular part of interview 74 71

Asked only if indicators of mental illness 17 16

No mental health questions asked 9 13
Table A–36. Mental Health Inquiry by Pretrial Services Programs in

Interview, by Supervision

Percentage of Programs, 

by Supervision

Provided by Provided by No 

Pretrial Another Supervision

Program Entity Available

Mental Health Inquiry (N = 124) (N = 10) (N = 13)

Asked as regular part of interview 75 80 46

Asked only if indicators of mental illness 17 10 15

No mental health questions asked 8 10 39

70

Pretrial Services Programming

Table A–34. Mental Health Inquiry by Pretrial Services Programs in

Interview, by Type of Risk Assessment Scheme

Percentage of Programs, 

by Risk Assessment Scheme

Objective Subjective Objective Plus

Only Only Subjective Input

Mental Health Inquiry (N = 32) (N = 58) (N = 70)

Asked as regular part of interview 69 83 70

Asked only if indicators of mental illness 18 12 20

No mental health questions asked 13 5 10

Table A–35. Mental Health Inquiry by Pretrial Services Programs in

Interview, by Recommendations

Percentage of Programs

Making Recommendations

Under These Circumstances

Made Made in Made Only

in All Most When Not

Cases Cases Asked Made

Mental Health Inquiry (N = 69) (N = 75) (N = 19) (N = 22)

Asked as regular part of interview 72 75 79 68

Asked only if indicators of mental illness 16 20 16 5

No mental health questions asked 12 5 5 27
71

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–37. Procedures by Pretrial Services Programs To Supervise

Defendants With Mental Illness (N = 44)

Procedures Percentage of Programs

Referral to mental health program 75

Specialized caseload 16

Referral to mental health court 5

Assist with housing/require verification of use of medicine 2

Third-party custody 2

Table A–38. Pretrial Program Procedures To Supervise Defendants With

Mental Illness, by Decade Program Began

Percentage of Programs, by Decade Program Began

1960s 1970s 1980s Since 1990

Special Procedures (N = 11) (N = 43) (N = 45) (N = 83)

Yes 18 33 20 24

No 82 67 80 76

Table A–39. Pretrial Program Procedures To Supervise Defendants With

Mental Illness, by Nature of Area Served

Percentage of Programs, 

by Nature of Area Served

Primarily Primarily Primarily

Urban Suburban Rural Mixture

Special Procedures (N = 33) (N = 25) (N = 40) (N = 90)

Yes 33 20 18 26

No 67 80 82 74
72

Pretrial Services Programming

Table A–40. Pretrial Program Procedures To Supervise Defendants With

Mental Illness, by Administrative Locus

Percentage of Pretrial Services Programs, 

by Administrative Locus

Sheriff/ Private/

Probation Courts Jail Nonprofit Independent

Special Procedures (N = 58) (N = 54) (N = 37) (N = 16) (N = 16)

Yes 21 22 24 25 44

No 79 78 76 75 56

Table A–41. Pretrial Program Procedures To Supervise Defendants With

Mental Illness, by Recommendations

Percentage of Pretrial Services Programs,

by Recommendations

Made in Made in Made Only Never

All Cases Most Cases When Asked Made

Special Procedures (N = 68) (N = 76) (N = 19) (N = 22)

Yes 30 28 16 14

No 70 72 84 86

Table A–42. Pretrial Program Special Procedures 

To Supervise Juveniles Charged as Adults

Percentage of Programs 

Special Procedures (N = 11)

Require more contacts 9

Specialized caseload 45

Third-party custody to parents 36

Unknown 9
73

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–43. Year Pretrial Services Programs Began 

Special Procedures for Supervising Juveniles 

Charged as Adults

Percentage of Programs 

Year Began (N = 11)

1997–2001 67

1992–1996 22

1987–1991 11

Prior to 1987 0

Table A–44. Year Pretrial Services Programs 

Began Special Risk Assessment for Domestic 

Violence Offenses

Percentage of Programs 

Year Began (N = 43)

1997–2001 58

1992–1996 28

1987–1991 9

Prior to 1987 5

Table A–45. Pretrial Services Program Special Risk Assessment for 

Domestic Violence Cases, by Administrative Locus

Percentage of Programs, 

by Administrative Locus

Sheriff/ Private/

Probation Courts Jail Nonprofit Independent

Special Risk Assessment (N = 57) (N = 53) (N = 37) (N = 16) (N = 16)

Yes 23 30 19 12 38

No 77 70 81 88 63
74

Pretrial Services Programming

Table A–46. Pretrial Program Special Risk Assessment for Domestic

Violence Cases, by Timing of Initial Interview

Percentage of Programs, 

by Timing of Initial Interview

Prior to the Initial After the Initial 

Court Appearance Court Appearance

Special Risk Assessment (N = 142) (N = 45)

Yes 28 16

No 72 84

Table A–47. Pretrial Services Program Special Risk Assessment for 

Domestic Violence Cases, by Whether Defendant Is Advised That 

Interview Is Voluntary

Percentage of Programs 

That Advise Defendant the 

Interview Is Voluntary

Yes No

Special Risk Assessment (N = 159) (N = 28)

Yes 26 18

No 74 82

Table A–48. Pretrial Program Special Risk Assessment 

for Domestic Violence Cases, by Type of Risk 

Assessment Scheme

Percentage of Programs, by Type

of Risk Assessment Scheme

Special Risk 

Assessment Objective Subjective Objective Plus

for Domestic Only Only Subjective

Violence Cases (N = 39) (N = 57) (N = 69)

Yes 15 23 36

No 85 77 64
75

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–49. Year Pretrial Services Programs Began 

Special Supervision Procedures for Domestic 

Violence Offenses

Percentage of

Year Began Programs (N = 55)

1997–2001 69

1992–1996 16

1987–1991 6

Prior to 1987 9

Table A–50. Pretrial Program Special Supervision 

Procedures for Domestic Violence Cases, by Decade 

Program Began

Percentage of Programs, 

by Decade Program Began

Special 

Supervision 1960s 1970s 1980s Since 1990

Procedures (N = 11) (N = 41) (N = 45) (N = 82)

Yes 55 34 29 34

No 45 66 71 66

Table A–51. Pretrial Program Special Supervision 

Procedures for Domestic Violence Cases, by Nature 

of Area Served

Percentage of Programs, 

by Nature of Area Served

Special 

Supervision

Procedures Primarily Primarily Primarily 

for Domestic Urban Suburban Rural Mixture

Violence Cases (N = 32) (N = 25) (N = 39) (N = 89)

Yes 47 48 28 28

No 53 52 72 72
76

Pretrial Services Programming

Table A–52. Pretrial Program Special Supervision Procedures for Domestic 

Violence Cases, by Administrative Locus

Percentage of Programs, by Administrative Locus

Special Sheriff/ Private/

Supervision Probation Courts Jail Nonprofit Independent

Procedures (N = 58) (N = 51) (N = 37) (N = 16) (N = 16)

Yes 36 27 24 31 44

No 64 73 76 69 56

Table A–53. Pretrial Program Special Supervision 

Procedures for Domestic Violence Cases, by Timing 

of Initial Interview

Percentage of Programs, by Conducting

Initial Interview at This Time

Special Prior to First After First Court 

Supervision Court Appearance Appearance

Procedures (N = 142) (N = 44)

Yes 37 23

No 63 77

Table A–54. Pretrial Program Special Supervision 

Procedures for Domestic Violence Cases, by Type of 

Risk Assessment

Percentage of Programs, by 

Type of Risk Assessment Scheme

Special Objective Subjective Objective

Supervision Only Only Plus Subjective

Procedures (N = 39) (N = 55) (N = 70)

Yes 23 36 39

No 77 64 61
77

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–55. Drug Testing as a Pretrial Program 

Supervision Tool, by Decade Pretrial Program Began

Percentage of Programs, 

by Decade Program Began

Drug Testing 1960s 1970s 1980s Since 1990

Available (N = 11) (N = 44) (N = 45) (N = 88)

Yes 73 66 71 73

No 27 34 29 27

Tables A–56. Special Supervision Procedures, by Nature of Area Served

Supervision Procedure Percentage of Programs, by Nature of Area Served

Primarily Primarily Primarily

Drug Testing Urban Suburban Rural Mixture

Available (N = 34) (N = 27) (N = 41) (N = 93)

Yes 74 78 66 66

No 26 22 34 34

Alcohol Testing 

Available

Yes 41 78 63 44

No 59 22 37 56

Electronic Monitoring 

Available

Yes 56 56 56 52

No 44 44 44 48
78

Pretrial Services Programming

Tables A–57. Special Supervision Procedures, by Administrative Locus

Supervision Procedure Percentage of Programs, by Administrative Locus

Sheriff/ Private/

Drug Testing Probation Courts Jail Nonprofit Independent

Available (N = 62) (N = 57) (N = 37) (N = 16) (N = 16)

Yes 68 67 68 56 88

No 32 33 32 44 12

Alcohol Testing 

Available

Yes 61 46 54 44 50

No 39 54 46 56 50

Electronic 

Monitoring 

Available

Yes 56 53 49 31 75

No 44 47 51 69 25

Table A–58. Special Supervision Procedures, by Staff Size

Supervision Procedure Percentage of Programs, by Staff Size

1 2–5 6–10 11–25 More Than 25

Drug Testing Available (N = 19) (N = 74) (N = 36) (N = 27) (N = 31)

Yes 63 64 75 81 74

No 37 36 25 19 26

Alcohol Testing Available

Yes 53 57 50 56 45

No 47 43 50 44 55

Electronic Monitoring 

Available

Yes 74 47 44 63 71

No 26 53 56 37 29
79

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–60. Alcohol Testing as a Pretrial Program Supervision Tool, by 

Jurisdiction Population

Percentage of Programs, by Jurisdiction Population

Fewer Between Between Between

Alcohol Than 50,000 and 100,001 and 500,001 and More Than 

Testing 50,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Available (N = 21) (N = 12) (N = 89) (N = 34) (N = 23) 

Yes 62 54 58 50 26

No 38 46 42 50 74

Table A–59. Special Supervision Procedures, by Hours of Operation

Supervision

Procedure Percentage of Programs, by Hours of Operation

Weekdays Weekdays 

Monday–Friday Monday–Friday and Weekends and Weekends

Drug Testing Regular Hours Extended Hours Regular Hours Extended Hours

Available (N = 104) (N = 6) (N = 28) (N = 51)

Yes 70 100 68 67

No 30 0 32 33

Alcohol Testing 

Available

Yes 59 83 57 37

No 41 17 43 63

Electronic 

Monitoring 

Available

Yes 56 83 43 55

No 44 17 57 45
Tables A–61. Special Supervision Procedures, by Budget Size 

Percentage of Programs, by Budget Size

Between Between

Supervision Less Than $200,000 and $500,001 and More Than

Procedure $200,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Alcohol Testing 

Available (N = 58) (N = 35) (N = 17) (N = 36)

Yes 48 63 65 42

No 52 37 35 58

Electronic 

Monitoring 

Available

Yes 53 43 71 64

No 47 57 29 36

80

Pretrial Services Programming

Table A–62. Electronic Monitoring as a Pretrial Program Supervision Tool, 

by Jurisdiction Population

Percentage of Programs, by Jurisdiction Population

Fewer Between Between Between

Electronic Than 50,000 and 100,001 and 500,001 and More Than 

Monitoring 50,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Available (N = 21) (N = 26) (N = 89) (N = 34) (N = 23) 

Yes 57 62 47 65 57

No 43 39 53 35 44

Table A–63. Information System, by Decade Pretrial 

Program Began

Percentage of Programs, 

by Decade Program Began

Type of 1960s 1970s 1980s Since 1990

System (N = 11) (N = 41) (N = 44) (N = 84)

Manual only 9 7 21 7

Mainframe only 9 12 10 10

PC-based only 0 12 11 11

Combined manual 

and PC-based 56 49 62 62

Combined manual 

and mainframe 27 20 11 11
81

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–64. Information System, by Jurisdiction Population

Percentage of Programs, by Jurisdiction Population

Fewer Between Between Between

Than 50,000 and 100,001 and 500,001 and More Than 

Type of 50,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

System (N = 19) (N = 25) (N = 12) (N = 32) (N = 22) 

Manual only 26 8 8 6 14

Mainframe only 11 4 8 19 9

PC-based only 11 12 13 9 9

Combined manual 

and PC-based 42 72 58 44 41

Combined manual 

and mainframe 11 4 13 22 27

Table A–65. Information System, by Nature of Area Served 

Percentage of Programs, by Nature of Area Served

Primarily Primarily Primarily

Type of Urban Suburban Rural Mixture

System (N = 31) (N = 25) (N = 41) (N = 89)

Manual only 3 4 17 11

Mainframe only 10 20 7 7

PC-based only 10 8 15 11

Combined manual 

and PC-based 45 56 54 57

Combined manual 

and mainframe 32 12 7 14
82

Pretrial Services Programming

Table A–66. Information Systems Used by Pretrial Services Programs, 

by Administrative Locus 

Percentage of Programs, by Administrative Locus

Sheriff/ Private/

Type of Probation Courts Jail Nonprofit Independent

System (N = 59) (N = 52) (N = 37) (N = 16) (N = 16)

Manual only 14 6 14 19 6

Mainframe only 10 8 8 6 19

PC-based only 10 10 11 0 6

Combined manual 

and PC-based 54 54 57 56 44

Combined manual 

and mainframe 12 15 11 19 25

Table A–67. Information Systems Used by Pretrial Services Programs, 

by Budget Size

Percentage of Programs, by Budget Size

Between Between

Less Than $200,000 and $500,001 and More Than

Type of $200,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000

System (N = 56) (N = 34) (N = 15) (N = 36)

Manual only 13 3 0 8

Mainframe only 7 6 20 17

PC-based only 13 15 13 14

Combined manual 

and PC-based 64 50 40 33

Combined manual 

and mainframe 4 26 27 28
83

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–68. Information Systems Used by Pretrial Services Programs, 

by Staff Size

Percentage of Programs, by Staff Size

Type of 1 2–5 6–10 11–25 More Than 25

System (N = 19) (N = 69) (N = 36) (N = 25) (N = 28)

Manual only 21 10 6 0 7

Mainframe only 5 10 3 16 11

PC-based only 16 12 11 0 18

Combined manual 

and PC-based 58 57 67 56 36

Combined manual 

and mainframe 0 12 14 28 26

Table A–69. Jail Capacity and Average Daily Population Served by Pretrial 

Services Programs

Jail Capacity Average Daily Population

Number Percentage Number Percentage

(N = 142) of Programs (N = 122) of Programs

1–25 1 1–25 3

26–50 6 26–50 7

51–100 11 51–100 11

101–150 3 101–150 11

151–200 9 151–200 6

201–300 13 201–300 7

301–400 6 301–400 7

401–500 4 401–500 7

501–600 2 501–600 5

601–700 9 601–700 5

701–800 4 701–800 6

801–900 3 801–900 5

901–1,000 3 901–1,000 3

1,001–1,500 8 1,001–1,500 5

1,501–2,000 4 1,501–2,000 4

2,001–5,000 10 2,001–5,000 10

5,001–10,000 3 5,001–10,000 —

More than 10,000 1 More than 10,000 1
84

Pretrial Services Programming

Table A–70. Jail Population of Jurisdiction Served by Pretrial Services 

Programs, by Nature of Area Served

Percentage of Programs, by Nature of Area Served

Primarily Primarily Primarily

Jail Urban Suburban Rural Mixture

Population (N = 20) (N = 18) (N = 29) (N = 51)

Over capacity 55 50 45 39

Under capacity 35 50 48 51

At capacity 10 0 7 10

Table A–71. Jail Crowding in Jurisdictions Served by Pretrial Services 

Programs, by Hours of Operation

Percentage of Programs, by Hours of Operation

Weekdays Weekdays 

Monday–Friday Monday–Friday and Weekends and Weekends

Jail Regular Hours Extended Hours Regular Hours Extended Hours

Population (N = 66) (N = 5) (N = 17) (N = 26)

Over capacity 49 60 41 34

Under capacity 42 40 53 58

At capacity 9 0 6 8

Table A–72. Jail Crowding in Jurisdictions Served by 

Pretrial Services Programs, by Timing of Initial Interview 

Percentage of Programs, 

by Timing of Initial Interview

Prior to After

First Court First Court 

Jail Appearance Appearance

Population (N = 90) (N = 27)

Over capacity 43 52

Under capacity 47 48

At capacity 10 0
85

Appendix A. Tables

Table A–73. Jail Crowding in Jurisdictions Served by Pretrial Services 

Programs, by Type of Risk Assessment 

Percentage of Programs, by Type of Risk Assessment

Objective Subjective Objective With

Only Only Subjective

Jail Population (N = 22) (N = 36) (N = 45)

Over capacity 27 56 47

Under capacity 55 36 51

At capacity 18 8 2

Table A–74. Risk Scheme Changed Because of Jail 

Crowding in Jurisdictions Served by Pretrial Programs 

Percentage of Programs, by Risk 

Scheme Changed Because of Crowding

Jail Yes No

Population (N = 18) (N = 88)

Over capacity 61 43

Under capacity 33 49

At capacity 6 8

Table A–75. Jail Crowding, by Whether 

Recommendations Made 

Percentage of Programs, 

by Whether Recommendations Made

No, or Only 

Jail Yes When Asked

Population (N = 40) (N = 25)

Over capacity 45 44

Under capacity 48 48

At capacity 7 8
87

Survey Instrument

Full Name of Pretrial Program:

Street Address:

City/State/ZIP:

Program Administrator:

Administrator’s Telephone (including area code):

Administrator’s Fax (including area code):

E-mail: Web Address:

This survey comprises nine sections:

■ Program Structure and Management.

■ Information Gathering (Interviews, Verification, Records Check).

■ Risk Assessment Procedures.

■ Information and Risk Assessment Reporting Procedures.

■ Supervision and Monitoring.

■ Dealing With Special Populations.

■ Miscellaneous Services.

■ Information Systems.

■ Pretrial Data.

Appendix B. Survey Instrument

Pretrial Release Programming at the Start of the 21st Century

A Project of the Pretrial Services Resource Center and the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies

Funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice
88

Pretrial Services Programming

All but the final section are designed to capture descriptive characteristics of your pretrial services program. The final

section asks for program data, if available.

There are four convenient options for submitting the completed survey form:

■ Fill it out on the web page and submit it electronically.

■ Call John Clark at the Pretrial Services Resource Center at 202–638–3080 and submit it by telephone. 

■ Print out a hard copy of the instrument and mail it to John Clark, Pretrial Services Resource Center, 1010 Vermont 

Avenue NW., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005. 

■ Print out a hard copy of the instrument and fax it to John Clark at 202–347–0493.

For general information about the Pretrial Services Resource Center, visit its web site at www.pretrial.org. For general

information about the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, visit its web site at www.napsa.org. For

general information about the Bureau of Justice Assistance, visit its web site at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA. 

If you have any questions in completing this survey, please contact John Clark, Pretrial Services Resource Center, at

202–638–3080, or send an e-mail to john@pretrial.org. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Glossary

Matrix System (risk assessment scheme): A risk assessment scheme that rates a defendant’s perceived dangerousness

by means of a score based on how the defendant fits into a classification matrix that takes into account charge severity,

prior criminal record, behavioral characteristics, etc. 

Nonfinancial Conditional Release: “Conditional release” refers to any form of release in which the defendant is

required to comply with specific limitations on association, movement, or activities during the pretrial period; in

nonfinancial conditional release, money is not one of the limitations—i.e., money does not need to be posted for the

defendant to be released. Conditions may include checking in with a pretrial release agency, maintaining a specified

place of residence, avoiding complaining witnesses, or submitting to periodic drug testing, electronic surveillance, or

intensive supervision. However, as this term is used here, conditional release does not include the two primary conditions

which are objectives of most bail statutes—that the defendant refrain from engaging in criminal activity during the

pretrial period and that he or she appear at trial as required. 

Point Scale: An objective instrument to determine release eligibility that assigns each defendant a certain number of

points based on his or her answers to uniform questions asked during the pretrial interview (and subsequently verified in

most jurisdictions) about the nature and extent of the defendant’s community ties to the locale (how long a resident,

whether employed locally or in school, etc.); prior involvement with the criminal justice system, if any; and possible

behavioral dysfunctions (drug or alcohol use, mental health problems, etc.). A fixed number of points are added to or

subtracted from the defendant’s score based on his or her response to each standard question. A predetermined number

of points typically is required by a jurisdiction for the defendant to be eligible for pretrial release. A point scale does not

dictate the type of release to be granted; it only assesses the comparative release risk posed by the defendant based on

the numerical score received.

Pretrial Detention: Also sometimes called “preventive detention.” The laws of many states and the federal system allow

the court to detain certain carefully defined categories of defendants without possibility of pretrial release because in the

judgment of the court they constitute so high a risk of flight or danger or both that no condition or combination of

release conditions can reduce that risk to an acceptable level. A pretrial detention decision is not automatic simply
89

Appendix B. Survey Instrument

because a defendant falls into one of the statutory categories defined as high risk. A decision must be made by a judicial

officer after a due process hearing (“detention hearing”) that the facts warrant detention, i.e., that the prosecution has

borne its burden of proof that the defendant constitutes so high a risk that he or she must be detained pretrial.

Release on Recognizance (ROR, OR, PR): Release on recognizance, or “own recognizance,” or “personal

recognizance” refers to release of a defendant on his or her simple promise to appear for trial. As the term is used in

this survey, ROR implies no additional conditions of release other than that the defendant appear in court as required. 

Risk Assessment Scheme: The method by which a program/agency or individual assesses the risks of pretrial

misconduct, i.e., failure to appear in court or rearrest on a new charge. Some jurisdictions base their risk assessment on a

point scale, or matrix system (objective scheme), whereas others rely on subjective criteria by interviewers. Still others

use a combination of subjective and objective criteria—interviewers are allowed to supplement or override a point scale

determination based on certain subjective information given by the defendant during the interview.

Subjective Assessment Scheme: Typically based on questions in an interview similar to the questions in an objective

assessment scheme but with no formal scoring. Rather, the recommendation is based on a subjective evaluation of the

defendant by the interviewer, who draws on his or her prior experience to assess release eligibility. 

Supervised Release: Supervised release implies frequent and intensive contact between the supervising agency and the

defendant. For example, these conditions may include the defendants participating in a drug treatment or counseling

program or working with a vocational counselor to secure employment.

Ten Percent Deposit Bail: A system of money bail which is designed to serve as an alternative to security or cash bond.

After bail is set, the defendant deposits with the court 10 percent of the face amount of the bond. This amount is returned

in full (sometimes minus a small administrative processing fee) at the successful conclusion of the pretrial period. If the

defendant fails to appear in court as required, he or she becomes liable for the full face amount of the bond. Some

deposit bail systems become activated in a given case only at the discretion of the releasing judicial officer (“court

option”), whereas others are available as a matter of right to all defendants in cases in which money bond is set

(“defendant option”).

I. Program Structure and Management

1. In what year did your program begin interviewing defendants for pretrial release/detention 

eligibility determinations? __________________.

2. Indicate the type of jurisdiction served by your program. (Check only one.)

______ (a) Local jurisdiction (county or city).

______ (b) More than one county.

______ (c) Entire state.

______ (d) Other (indicate) ____________________________________________________________________.

3. What is the approximate population of the jurisdiction that your program serves? (Check only one.)

______ (a) Fewer than 50,000.

______ (b) Between 50,000 and 100,000.

______ (c) Between 100,001 and 500,000.
90

Pretrial Services Programming

______ (d) Between 500,001 and 1,000,000.

______ (e) More than 1,000,000.

4. How would you describe the nature of the area served by your program? (Check only one.)

______ (a) Primarily urban.

______ (b) Primarily suburban.

______ (c) Primarily rural.

______ (d) Mixture.

5. Where is your program located administratively in the criminal justice system? (Check only one.)

______ (a) Probation department (state).

______ (b) Probation department (county).

______ (c) Courts (state).

______ (d) Courts (county or municipal).

______ (e) Prosecutor.

______ (f) Public defender.

______ (g) Sheriff or jail.

______ (h) Private, nonprofit organization.

______ (i) Other (indicate) ____________________________________________________________________.

6. What is your program’s annual budget? _____________________________________________________________.

7. Please indicate the sources of funding for your program and the approximate percentage of your budget that comes

from each source. (Respond for any that apply.)

Source of Funds Percentage

(a) Federal funds ______

(b) State funds ______

(c) County funds ______

(d) Municipal funds ______

(e) Fees for service ______

(f) Private funds ______
91

Appendix B. Survey Instrument

8. How many full-time equivalent staff does your program have? (For paid staff, include any current vacancies likely to

be filled within a month or two.)

______ (a) Management.

______ (b) Line.

______ (c) Research.

______ (d) Clerical.

______ (e) Volunteer/interns.

______ (f) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

9. What is your program’s schedule of operation for the interviewing staff? (e.g., 24 hours/day, Monday to Friday

during court hours, 7 days/week, etc.) ______________________________________________________________. 

10. What type of training does your program provide to staff? (Check all that apply.)

______ (a) On-the-job training for new employees.

______ (b) Structured training course for new employees.

______ (c) Continuing training courses for existing staff.

______ (d) Management training courses for supervisory staff.

11. Does your program have an operations manual that explains in detail the procedures that must be followed in

performing each program function?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

12. Does your program have a mission statement?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

II. Information Gathering (Interviews, Verification, Records Check)

13. Under what circumstances are defendants automatically excluded from being interviewed by your program? (Check 

all that apply.)

______ (a) All violations (less serious than misdemeanors) or minor traffic offenses.

______ (b) All misdemeanors.

______ (c) All felonies.
92

Pretrial Services Programming

______ (d) Defendants charged with offenses that are not bailable by statute. 

______ (e) Defendants charged with specific charges.

______ (f) Defendants with outstanding warrants in the same jurisdiction(s) served by the program.

______ (g) Defendants held on warrant or detainer from another jurisdiction, in addition to local charges.

______ (h) Defendants currently on parole, probation, and/or pretrial release.

______ (i) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________. 

______ (j) None; all defendants are interviewed, unless they are sick, they refuse, etc.

14. When does your program conduct its first interview with defendants?

______ (a) Prior to initial court appearance.

______ (b) After initial court appearance.

15. In conducting the interview, how are the interview responses recorded?

______ (a) Manually on a paper interview form.

______ (b) Directly into a computer.

______ (c) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

16. Does your program inform defendants prior to conducting the interview that the interview is voluntary?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

17. Does your program notify defendants prior to the interview as to how the information gathered during the interview

will be used, what limitations will be placed on its use, and who will have access to the information?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

18. Does your program use a written consent form that defendants sign prior to conducting the interview?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

19. Does your program attempt to verify the information that defendants provide in the interview? (Check only one.)

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) Yes, with some exceptions (specify)____________________________________________________.

______ (c) No.
93

Appendix B. Survey Instrument

20. Does your program obtain on a regular basis defendants’ in-county/city criminal record?

______ (a) Arrest record only.

______ (b) Both arrests and dispositions.

______ (c) No.

21. Does your program obtain on a regular basis defendants’ out-of-county/city, in-state criminal record?

______ (a) Arrest record only.

______ (b) Both arrests and dispositions.

______ (c) No.

22. Does your program obtain on a regular basis defendants’ out-of-state criminal record?

______ (a) Arrest record only.

______ (b) Both arrests and dispositions.

______ (c) No.

23. Does your program obtain on a regular basis defendants’ juvenile court record?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) Yes, with some exceptions (specify) ___________________________________________________.

______ (c) No ______________________________________________________________________________.

III. Risk Assessment Procedures

24. Does your program assess defendants’ risks of failure to appear (FTA) and/or rearrest? (Check all that apply.)

______ (a) Yes, FTA.

______ (b) Yes, rearrest.

______ (c) No.

If “no”, go to section IV.

25. Which of the following best describes your risk assessment scheme? (Check only one.)

______ (a) Point scale only.

______ (b) Matrix system only (i.e., bail guidelines).

______ (c) Subjective system only.
94

Pretrial Services Programming

______ (d) Point scale, or matrix system plus subjective input.

______ (e) Other (specify) _____________________________________________________________________.

26. How was your current risk assessment scheme developed? (Check any that apply.)

______ (a) Local decision, based on subjective assessment of what should be included.

______ (b) Adapted from program in another jurisdiction.

______ (c) Based on program’s own research and data.

______ (d) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

27. Has your program changed its risk assessment scheme as a result of a jail cap or consent decree?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

28. What factors are included in your risk assessment scheme? (Check all that apply.)

______ (a) Local address.

______ (b) Length of time resident in local community.

______ (c) Length of time resident at present address.

______ (d) Length of time resident at prior local address.

______ (e) Ownership of property in community.

______ (f) Possession of a telephone.

______ (g) Living arrangements (e.g., whether married or living with relatives).

______ (h) Parental status and/or support of children.

______ (i) Employment and/or educational or training status.

______ (j) Income level or public assistance status (means of support).

______ (k) Physical and/or mental impairment.

______ (l) Use of drugs and/or alcohol.

______ (m) Age.

______ (n) Comments from arresting officer.

______ (o) Comments from victim.

______ (p) Prior arrests.

______ (q) Prior convictions.
95

Appendix B. Survey Instrument

______ (r) Whether currently on probation or parole or has another open case.

______ (s) Compliance with probation, parole, or pending case.

______ (t) Prior court appearance history.

______ (u) Whether someone is expected to accompany the defendant to court at arraignment.

______ (v) Identification of references who could verify and assist defendant in complying with conditions of release.

______ (w) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

29. Is potential danger to the community (i.e., risk of rearrest) considered when assessing release or detention eligibility? 

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

30. How is the risk assessment tabulated?

______ (a) Manually (staff count up points, locate placement on grid, etc.).

______ (b) Automated (staff key in information and computer program calculates a score or placement).

______ (c) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

31. When was your risk assessment scheme last validated? (Check only one.)

______ (a) Within the past year.

______ (b) Within the past 3 years.

______ (c) Within the past 5 years.

______ (d) Within the past 10 years.

______ (e) More than 10 years ago.

______ (f) The scheme has never been empirically validated.

IV. Information and Risk Assessment Reporting Procedures

32. What information about the defendant is reported to the court? (Check all that apply.)

______ (a) Demographics.

______ (b) Residence status.

______ (c) Employment status.

______ (d) Prior arrest record.

______ (e) Prior conviction record.
96

Pretrial Services Programming

______ (f) Pending cases.

______ (g) Current probation or parole status.

______ (h) Substance abuse.

______ (i) Comments from arresting officer.

______ (j) Comments from victim.

______ (k) Prior FTA history.

______ (l) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

33. How is this information reported? (Check all that apply.) 

______ (a) Written report provided to the court.

______ (b) Written report provided to the prosecutor.

______ (c) Written report provided to the defense attorney.

______ (d) Oral report provided in court.

______ (e) Written or oral report provided only upon request by judicial officer.

______ (f) Only release recommendations are reported.

______ (g) Report not provided.

If no written report is submitted, skip to question 35.

34. How is the written report generated? (Check only one.)

______ (a) Handwritten.

______ (b) Typed.

______ (c) Computer generated.

35. Does your program make specific recommendations to the court? (Check only one.)

______ (a) Recommendations made in all cases.

______ (b) Recommendations made in most cases.

______ (c) Recommendations made only when asked by court.

______ (d) No recommendation made; information only provided.

If “no”, skip to section V.
97

Appendix B. Survey Instrument

36. Other than recommending eligibility for ROR, does your program ever make any of the following specific

recommendations to the court concerning specific defendants? (Check all that apply.)

______ (a) Nonfinancial conditional release.

______ (b) Monetary bail (other than 10 percent deposit bail).

______ (c) Specific bail amounts (other than 10 percent deposit bail).

______ (d) Ten percent deposit bail.

______ (e) Pretrial detention.

37. Is there a pretrial program representative present at defendants’ initial court appearance?

______ (a) Yes, always.

______ (b) Only when requested by the court.

______ (c) No.

V. Supervision and Monitoring

38. Is supervision of pretrial release conditions provided in your jurisdiction?

______ (a) Yes, with supervision provided by our program.

______ (b) Yes, with supervision provided by another program (i.e., probation department).

______ (c) No, there is no capacity in our jurisdiction to supervise conditions of release.

If “no”, skip to question 42.

39. What options are used in your jurisdiction to supervise defendants on pretrial release? (Check all that apply.)

______ (a) Referral to substance abuse treatment.

______ (b) Referral to mental health services.

______ (c) Reporting to the program in person or by telephone.

______ (d) Third party custody to a community organization.

______ (e) Urine testing using in-house analyzer-based instruments.

______ (f) Urine testing using disposable hand-held devices.

______ (g) Urine testing using contracted testing facility.

______ (h) Drug testing through the use of the Sweat Patch. 

______ (i) Onsite alcohol testing.

______ (j) Alcohol testing using remote breathalyzer through telephone lines.
98

Pretrial Services Programming

______ (k) Home confinement by electronic monitoring—programmed contact (i.e., periodic calls initiated to 

defendant’s home to ensure defendant is there).

______ (l) Home confinement by electronic monitoring—continuously signaling (i.e., monitoring agency 

informed immediately if defendant leaves permitted area).

______ (m) Electronic monitoring of defendant movement in the community through Global Positioning System 

(GPS) technology.

______ (n) Day reporting center.

______ (o) Halfway house.

______ (p) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

40. What actions does your program take to address noncompliance with conditions of release? (Check all that apply.)

______ (a) Warn defendants.

______ (b) Impose administrative sanctions (i.e., increase frequency of contacts).

______ (c) Report noncompliance to the court without a request for court action.

______ (d) Report noncompliance to the court with a request for court action.

______ (e) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

41. Is your program willing to supervise, monitor, or work in other ways with defendants with charges pending in other

jurisdictions (i.e., engage in interagency compacts)?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

______ (c) In certain circumstances (specify) _____________________________________________________.

42. What procedures does your program use to notify released defendants of upcoming court appearances? (Check all

that apply.)

______ (a) None (done by other agency).

______ (b) Staff review court date with defendants upon release following initial court appearance.

______ (c) Staff review court date with defendants during regular supervision contact.

______ (d) Staff initiate telephone calls prior to court date.

______ (e) Automated dialing system calls defendants prior to court date.

______ (f) Computer generates letters or postcards.

______ (g) Staff generate letters or postcards.

______ (h) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.
99

Appendix B. Survey Instrument

43. When defendants fail to appear in court, which of the following steps does your program regularly take? (Check all

that apply.)

______ (a) Sends letter to defendants urging voluntary return to the court.

______ (b) Makes phone call to defendants urging return to court.

______ (c) Makes home visit to defendants urging return to court.

______ (d) Uses authority to arrest defendants.

______ (e) Assists police in locating defendants.

______ (f) Tries to locate defendants who have apparently left the jurisdiction.

______ (g) Seeks quashing of warrant when defendants return.

______ (h) Places defendants back on court calendar.

______ (i) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

______ (j) None.

44. Does your program provide information to probation departments for use in presentence reports?

______ (a) Yes, routinely.

______ (b) Only upon request.

______ (c) No.

VI. Dealing With Special Populations

45. In the pretrial interview, does your program ask about defendants’ current mental health status and current or past

treatment?

______ (a) No mental health questions are asked.

______ (b) Program asks about mental health status and treatment only if there are indicators (i.e., observed 

behavior, reports from other sources) that a particular defendant may have a mental illness.

______ (c) Program asks about past mental health status and treatment as a regular part of the interview.

46. If there are indications (through self-report, observed behavior, or other sources) that a defendant has mental health

problems, what action does your program take? (Check all that apply.)

______ (a) Report the information to the court at the initial appearance.

______ (b) Arrange for an assessment by a mental health professional to be conducted before the initial appearance.

______ (c) Refer the defendant for possible placement in a mental health court.

______ (d) Other (specify) _____________________________________________________________________.

______ (e) No action is taken.
100

Pretrial Services Programming

47. Has your program implemented any special procedures to supervise pretrial release conditions of defendants with

mental illness?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If yes, describe those procedures. __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Year began ____________________.

48. Does your program use a separate risk assessment instrument for juveniles who are charged as adults?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If yes, year began ______________.

49. Has your program implemented any special procedures to supervise pretrial release conditions of juveniles being

prosecuted as adults?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If yes, describe those procedures. __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Year began ____________________.

50. Has your program implemented any special procedures to assess the risks of pretrial misconduct of people charged

with domestic violence offenses?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If yes, year began________________.
101

Appendix B. Survey Instrument

51. Has your program implemented any special procedures to supervise pretrial release conditions for people charged

with domestic violence offenses?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If yes, describe those procedures. __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Year began ____________________.

52. Has your program implemented any special procedures to assess the risks of pretrial misconduct of women?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If yes, year began ______________.

53. Has your program implemented any special procedures to supervise pretrial release conditions for women?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If yes, describe those procedures. __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Year began ____________________.

54. Has your program implemented any special procedures to supervise pretrial release conditions for any other special

populations?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If yes, describe those procedures. __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Year began ____________________.
102

Pretrial Services Programming

VII. Miscellaneous Services

55. Does your program have the authority to release defendants (i.e., “designated release authority”) prior to the initial

court appearance? (Check all that apply.)

______ (a) Yes, for moving traffic offenses (“major traffic” cases).

______ (b) Yes, for all infractions or ordinance violations (less serious than criminal misdemeanors).

______ (c) Yes, for all misdemeanors.

______ (d) Yes, for some misdemeanors.

______ (e) Yes, for some felonies (specify) _______________________________________________________.

______ (f) No, our program has no designated release authority.

56. Does your program conduct a bail review of those defendants who fail to post bail in the amount originally set by the

court following an initial court appearance?

______ (a) Yes, always.

______ (b) Yes, in certain circumstances (specify) __________________________________________________.

______ (c) No.

57. Does your program provide pretrial diversion services?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If yes, year began ______________.

58. Does your program provide mediation/arbitration services?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If yes, year began ______________.

59. Does your program provide jail classification services?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If yes, year began ______________.
103

Appendix B. Survey Instrument

60. Does your program provide defendant indigency determination services?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If yes, year began ______________.

61. Does your program notify victims of crime of the time and location of the initial court appearance?

______ (a) Yes, in all cases.

______ (b) Yes, in selected cases (specify) ________________________________________________________.

______ (c) No.

If yes, year began ______________.

62. Does your program notify victims of crime of the pretrial release of the defendant?

______ (a) Yes, in all cases.

______ (b) Yes, in selected cases (specify) ________________________________________________________.

______ (c) No.

If yes, year began ______________.

63. Does your program provide any other miscellaneous services?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If yes, describe._________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

VIII. Information Systems

64. What method(s) do you use to gather/store/retrieve case file information? (Check all that apply.)

______ (a) Manual.

______ (b) Mainframe computer.

______ (c) Network of personal computers.

______ (d) Combination of manual and automated.

If answer is “a” only, skip to section IX.
104

Pretrial Services Programming

65. What best describes your automated information system? (Check only one.)

______ (a) Software customized to your program by outside vendor (specify product)______________________.

______ (b) Software developed by in-house or county information system team.

______ (c) Tied to jurisdiction’s mainframe computer.

______ (d) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

66. Is your computer information system integrated with computers from other criminal justice programs in your

jurisdiction?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No. 

67. What parts of your program’s operations are done by computer? (Check all that apply.)

______ (a) Interviews.

______ (b) Risk assessment.

______ (c) Report preparation.

______ (d) Monitoring compliance with release conditions.

______ (e) Management information reports.

______ (f) Administrative records, such as personnel reports.

______ (g) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

IX. Pretrial Data

Note: For the purpose of answering the questions in this section, pretrial data should be reported for your program’s last

full year. Where the information is unknown, please indicate N.A.

68. In the jurisdiction covered by your program, approximately how many total arrests (excluding minor ordinance

violations) occurred last year?

(a) Felony: ______________________________________________________________________.

(b) Misdemeanor: ________________________________________________________________.

69. Indicate how many defendants were interviewed by your program staff last year.

(a) Defendants charged with felony offenses: __________________________________________.

(b) Defendants charged with misdemeanor offenses: ____________________________________.
105

Appendix B. Survey Instrument

70. Indicate how many defendants (excluding fugitives) were excluded from an interview as a matter of policy in the past

year: ____________.

71. What was the average time under supervision for defendants being supervised by your program during the last year? 

(a) Felony: ______________________________________________________________________.

(b) Misdemeanor: ________________________________________________________________.

72. What was the jail capacity (“design capacity”) in your jurisdiction during the past year? ____________ 

73. What was the average daily jail population in the past year? ____________ 

74. What was the average daily percentage or number of pretrial defendants in your jail in the past year?

____________% or ____________(no.)

75. What was the average length of time in days between initial court appearance and disposition of a case in your

jurisdiction?

(a) Felony: ____________ days.

(b) Misdemeanor: ____________ days.

76. Does your program calculate failure-to-appear (FTA) rates?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If “no”, skip to question 81.

77. For what population does your program calculate FTA rates?

______ (a) All those interviewed by our program, regardless of the type of release.

______ (b) Only those interviewed by our program and placed on any type of nonfinancial release 

(ROR, conditions, etc.).

______ (c) Only those released to the supervision of our program.

______ (d) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

78. How does your program define when an FTA has occurred?

______ (a) Only when a bench warrant or capias has been issued.

______ (b) Whenever a court appearance has been missed.

______ (c) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.
106

Pretrial Services Programming

79. How does your program calculate the FTA rate?

______ (a) Number of scheduled court appearances divided by the number of missed court appearances 

(appearance-based).

______ (b) Number of defendants with pending cases divided by the number of defendants who miss at least one 

court appearance (defendant-based).

______ (c) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

80. What was the FTA rate for the last full year?

(a) Misdemeanor: ____________%.

(b) Felony: ________________%.

(c) Overall: ________________%.

81. Does your program calculate pretrial crime rates?

______ (a) Yes.

______ (b) No.

If “no”, skip to end.

82. For what population does your program calculate pretrial crime rates?

______ (a) All those interviewed by our program, regardless of the type of release.

______ (b) Only those interviewed by our program and placed on any nonfinancial release (ROR, conditions, etc.).

______ (c) Only those released to the supervision of our program.

______ (d) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

83. How does your program define when a pretrial crime has occurred?

______ (a) Any rearrest for any criminal charge.

______ (b) Any rearrest for a dangerous or violent offense.

______ (c) Only when the rearrest results in a conviction.

______ (d) Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________.

84. What was the pretrial crime rate for the last full year?

(a) Misdemeanor: ______________________________________________________________%.

(b) Felony: ____________________________________________________________________%.

(c) Overall: ____________________________________________________________________%.

End of survey—thank you.
107

2002 Survey Respondents

Alabama

Mobile County Pretrial Services

Mobile, AL 

Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime

Birmingham, AL 

Arizona

Coconino County Pretrial Services 

Flagstaff, AZ 

Maricopa County Pretrial Services Agency 

Phoenix, AZ 

Navajo County Pretrial Services 

Holbrook, AZ 

Pima County Pretrial Services

Tucson, AZ 

Yavapai County Pretrial Services Program 

Prescott, AZ 

California

Berkeley Own Recognizance Project 

Berkeley, CA 

Detention Release 

West Santa Ana, CA 

North Santa Barbara County Pretrial Services

Santa Maria, CA 

County of Santa Clara

San Jose, CA 

Pretrial Services 

Los Angeles, CA 

Pretrial Services 

Sacramento, CA 

Riverside County Superior Court

Riverside, CA 

Santa Barbara Pretrial Services 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Santa Cruz Probation/Pretrial 

Santa Cruz, CA 

San Diego Superior Court Pretrial Services 

San Diego, CA 

San Francisco Institute for Criminal Justice 

San Francisco, CA 

Colorado

Adams County Sheriff’s Office 

Brighton, CO 

Arapahoe County Pretrial Release Service 

Englewood, CO 

El Paso County Department of Justice Services 

Colorado Springs, CO 

Justice Services Department 

Golden, CO 

Larimer County Pretrial Release Services 

Fort Collins, CO

Mesa County Criminal Justice Services 

Grand Junction, CO

Connecticut

Court Support Services Division 

Rocky Hill, CT

Appendix C. List of Participating Pretrial

Services Programs
108

Pretrial Services Programming

District of Columbia

District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency

Washington, DC 

Delaware

Bureau of Community Corrections 

Dover, DE

Florida

12th Judicial Circuit Pretrial Services Program 

Sarasota, FL

Bay County Pretrial Release Program 

Panama City, FL

Brevard County Pretrial Release 

Sharpes, FL

Broward Sheriff’s Office Pretrial Services 

Fort Lauderdale, FL

Seminole County Community Justice 

Sanford, FL

Dade County Pretrial and Monitoring Service

Miami, FL 

Okaloosa County Pretrial Services 

Crestview, FL

Orange County Corrections Department 

Orlando, FL 

Osceola County Pretrial Release Program 

Kissimmee, FL

Palm Beach County Pretrial Services 

West Palm Beach, FL

Pasco County Sheriff/Pretrial 

Land O Lakes, FL

Pinellas County Pretrial Services 

Clearwater, FL

Pretrial Release 

Naples, FL

Pretrial Services 

Key West, FL

Santa Rosa County Court Services 

Milton, FL

Volusia County Pretrial Services 

Daytona Beach, FL

Georgia

Cobb County Pretrial Court Services 

Marietta, GA

Fulton County Superior Court Pretrial Services 

Atlanta, GA

Office of Atlanta Pretrial Services 

Atlanta, GA

Pretrial Services 

Canton, GA

Idaho

Bannock County Court Services 

Pocatello, ID

Illinois

Cook County Adult Probation Department 

Chicago, IL 

Lake County Adult Probation and Pretrial 

Waukegan, IL

Macon County Probation and Court Services 

Decatur, IL 

Rock Island County Court Services 

Rock Island, IL

Tazewell County Pretrial Services 

Pekin, IL

Whiteside County Court Services 

Morrison, IL 

Winnebago County Pretrial Services 

Rockford, IL
109

Appendix C. Participating Programs

Indiana

Allen Superior Court Pretrial Services 

Fort Wayne, IN 

Lake Superior Court Pretrial Release Services 

Crown Point, IN

Marion County Pretrial Release Program 

Indianapolis, IN

Iowa

Department of Correctional Services

Des Moines, IA

Department of Correctional Services

Walcott, IA

Department of Correctional Services

Ames, IA

Kansas

3rd Judicial Court of Kansas 

Topeka, KS

13th Judicial District Court Services 

El Dorado, KS

23rd Judicial District Court Services 

Hays, KS

10th Judicial District Court 

Olathe, KS

Kentucky

Pretrial and Court Security Services

Frankfort, KY

Maine

Maine Pretrial Services, Inc. 

Portland, ME

Maryland

Anne Arundel County Circuit Court 

Annapolis, MD

Carroll County Circuit Court 

Westminster, MD

Montgomery County Circuit Court 

Rockville, MD

Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Baltimore, MD 

Circuit Court for Wicomico County

Salisbury, MD 

Michigan

Calhoun County Court Pretrial Services

Battle Creek, MI

67th District Court 

Flint, MI

Kalamazoo County Pretrial Services 

Kalamazoo, MI

Kent County Pretrial Screening and Investigation 

Grand Rapids, MI

Monroe County Pretrial Services 

Monroe, MI

Oakland County Pretrial Services 

Waterford, MI

Pretrial Services of Third Circuit Court 

Detroit, MI

Minnesota

Anoka County Tenth Judicial District 

Anoka, MN

Brown County Probation Department

New Ulm, MN 

Chisago County Court Services 

Center City, MN

Kandiyohi County Community Corrections 

Willmar, MN

Hennepin County Community Corrections

Minneapolis, MN
110

Pretrial Services Programming

Project Remand

St. Paul, MN

Tri-County Community Corrections 

Crookston, MN

Scott County Department of Court Services 

Shakopee, MN

Waseca County Court Services 

Waseca, MN

Missouri

Adult Court Services 

Columbia, MO

Montana

Pretrial Supervision Program 

Missoula, MT 

Nebraska

Douglas County Pretrial Release 

Omaha, NE

Nevada

Las Vegas Justice Court Pretrial Services 

Las Vegas, NV

Washoe County Court Services 

Reno, NV

New Hampshire

Merrimack County Pretrial Services 

Concord, NH

New Jersey

Burlington County PTI Program 

Mt. Holly, NJ 

New Mexico

11th Judicial District Court of New Mexico 

Aztec, NM

Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court 

Albuquerque, NM

New York

Allegany County Probation Department 

Belmont, NY

Broome County Probation Pretrial Release 

Binghamton, NY

Cattaraugus County ATI Program

Little Valley, NY

Cayuga County Pretrial Release Services 

Auburn, NY

Chautauqua County ROR Screening 

Jamestown, NY

Delaware County Alternatives to Incarceration 

Delhi, NY

Erie County Pretrial Release Services 

Buffalo, NY 

Fulton County Alternatives to Incarceration 

Johnstown, NY

Jefferson County Pretrial Release Program 

Watertown, NY

Lewis County Pretrial Services

Lowville, NY

New York City Criminal Justice Agency 

New York, NY 

Niagara County Pretrial Program 

Niagara Falls, NY

Oneida County Pretrial Release Program 

Utica, NY 
111

Appendix C. Participating Programs

Ontario County Alternatives to Incarceration 

Canandaigua, NY

Oswego County Enhanced Pretrial Release 

Oswego, NY

Steuben County Probation and Community Corrections

Bath, NY

Schuyler County Pretrial Services

Watkins Glen, NY

Onondaga County Probation Department

Syracuse, NY

Ulster County Probation Department

Kingston, NY

St. Lawrence County Probation

Canton, NY 

Pre-Trial Services Corporation of the Monroe County 

Bar Association 

Rochester, NY

Rensselaer County Probation Pretrial Services Program 

Troy, NY 

Saratoga County Pretrial Services 

Ballston Spa, NY

Seneca County Department of Probation and 

Community Corrections 

Waterloo, NY 

Washington County Alternative Sentencing 

Fort Edward, NY 

Wayne County Pretrial Services, Inc. 

Newark, NY 

North Carolina

Buncombe County Pretrial Release 

Asheville, NC

Caldwell County Pretrial Release 

Lenoir, NC 

Columbus County Pretrial Program 

Whiteville, NC 

Criminal Justice Partnership 

Wadesboro, NC

Cumberland County Pretrial Services 

Fayetteville, NC

Forsyth County Pretrial Release/Electronic House 

Arrest Program 

Winston-Salem, NC

Guilford County Pretrial Services 

Greensboro, NC

Haywood County Pretrial Release 

Waynesville, NC

Lee/Harnett Pretrial Release Program 

Sanford, NC

Mecklenburg County Pretrial Release Program 

Charlotte, NC

Montgomery County Pretrial Release

Troy, NC

Moore County Day Reporting Center 

Carthage, NC 

New Hanover County Pretrial Release Program 

Wilmington, NC

Pender County Pretrial Release Program 

Burgaw, NC

Randolph County Day Reporting Center Pretrial Release

Asheboro, NC

ReEntry, Inc., Pretrial Release Program 

Raleigh, NC

Repay, Inc., Pretrial Services 

Newton, NC

Rockingham County Pretrial Services 

Wentworth, NC
112

Pretrial Services Programming

Stanly County Pretrial Release 

Albemarle, NC

Wilkes County Pretrial Release Services 

Wilkesboro, NC

Ohio

Butler County Pretrial Services 

Hamilton, OH

Licking County Pretrial Program 

Newark, OH

Marion County Adult Probation Department 

Marion, OH

Montgomery County Pretrial Services 

Dayton, OH

Hamilton County Pretrial Division

Cincinnati, OH

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court

Cleveland, OH

Stark County Pre-Trial Release Services 

Canton, OH

Oklahoma

Oklahoma County Conditional Bond Program 

Oklahoma City, OK

Tulsa County Court Services 

Tulsa, OK

Oregon

Jackson County Court 

Medford, OR

Jefferson County Sheriff/Adult Correctional Facility

Madras, OR

Matrix Release

Oregon City, OR

Pennsylvania

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Bail Agency 

Pittsburgh, PA

Center for Alternatives in Community Justice 

State College, PA

Chester County Bail Agency 

West Chester, PA

Indiana County Pretrial Services 

Indiana, PA

Lehigh Valley Pretrial Services, Inc. 

Allentown, PA

Luzerne County Pre-Trial Services 

Wilkes-Barre, PA

Lycoming County Supervised Bail Program 

Williamsport, PA

Northampton County Pretrial Services 

Easton, PA

Westmoreland County Pretrial Services 

Greensburg, PA

Wyoming County Bail Supervision 

Tunkhannock, PA

Puerto Rico

Oficina de Servicios con Antelacion al Juicio 

San Juan, PR

Tennessee

General Sessions Court Pretrial Services 

Nashville, TN

Shelby County Pretrial Services 

Memphis, TN

Texas

Gregg County Pretrial Services 

Longview, TX
113

Appendix C. Participating Programs

Harris County Office of Court Services 

Houston, TX

Orange County Pretrial Release 

Orange, TX

Smith County Pretrial Release Services 

Tyler, TX

Tarrant County Pretrial Services 

Fort Worth, TX

Travis County Pretrial Services Department 

Austin, TX

Utah

Salt Lake County Pre-Trial Services 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Virginia

Alexandria Criminal Justice Services

Alexandria, VA

Arlington Sheriff’s Office Pretrial

Arlington, VA

Central Virginia Regional Jail Pretrial Program 

Orange, VA

Chesapeake Pretrial Services 

Chesapeake, VA

Chesterfield Community Corrections and 

Pretrial Services 

Chesterfield, VA

Colonial Community Corrections Pretrial Services 

Williamsburg, VA

Court-Community Corrections Program 

Salem, VA

Fairfax County General District Court

Fairfax, VA

Fauquier County Office of Adult Court Services 

Warrenton, VA

Halifax Pittsylvania Court Services 

Halifax, VA

Loudoun County Community Corrections and 

Pretrial Services 

Leesburg, VA

Middle Peninsula Pretrial Services 

Saluda, VA

Norfolk Pretrial Services 

Norfolk, VA 

OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corrections 

Charlottesville, VA

Prince William County Office of Criminal 

Justice Services

Manassas, VA

Piedmont Court Services

Farmville, VA

Portsmouth Pretrial Services 

Portsmouth, VA

Rappahannock Regional Pretrial Services 

Stafford, VA

Rockingham-Harrisonburg Court Services Unit 

Harrisonburg, VA

Southside Community Corrections and Pretrial Services

Emporia, VA 

Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Office—Pretrial Services 

Virginia Beach, VA

Washington

Clark County Corrections ROR/JR 

Vancouver, WA

Cowlitz County Pre-Trial Release 

Kelso, WA 

Pierce County PreTrial Services 

Tacoma, WA

Pretrial Services 

Yakima, WA
114

Pretrial Services Programming

Wisconsin

Kenosha Pretrial Program 

Kenosha, WI

Wisconsin Correctional Service 

Milwaukee, WI
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities, requesters can call

the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference

Service (NCJRS), shares BJA program information with state and local agencies and community groups

across the country. Information specialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication

distribution, participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities. The

clearinghouse can be reached by:

❒ Mail

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit

2277 Research Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone

1–800–688–4252

Monday through Friday

8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.

eastern time

❒ Fax

301–519–5212

❒ BJA Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS Home Page

www.ncjrs.org

❒ E-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.org

❒ JUSTINFO Newsletter

E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

Leave the subject line blank

In the body of the message,

type:

subscribe justinfo 

[your name]
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance Washington, DC 20531

*NCJ~199773*