Title: Pretrial Services Programming at the Start of the 21st Century: A Survey of Pretrial Services Programs Series: Monograph Author: John Clark and D. Alan Henry Published: July 2003 Subject: pretrial services, court management, case processing, statistics 83 pages 155,648 bytes ---------------------------- Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site. ---------------------------- 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 Monograph BJA ---------------------------- 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 NCJ 199773 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. 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. ---------------------------- Pretrial Services Programming at the Start of the 21st Century: A Survey of Pretrial Services Programs by John Clark and D. Alan Henry July 2003 NCJ 199773 ---------------------------- Acknowledgments We wish to thank the more than 200 state and local pretrial services program administrators 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. ---------------------------- Contents Executive Summary o Surveys Past and Present o Highlights of Findings I. Introduction o Methodology o How This Report Is Organized II. General Characteristics of Pretrial Services Programs o Type of Jurisdiction o Size of Jurisdiction Population o Nature of Jurisdiction Area o Annual Number of Arrests o Number of Interviews Conducted o Decade Program Began o Administrative Locus o Program Budgets o Source of Funding- o Staff Size o Hours of Operation o Delegated Release Authority o Summary III. Pretrial Program Services Compared to National Standards o Pretrial Services Investigation o Timing of Initial Interview o Advise Before Interview o Verification o Criminal Records Check o Risk Assessment o Presentation of Information to the Court o Supervised Pretrial Release o Court Date Reminders o Followup on Defendants Who Fail To Appear in Court o Review of Status of Detained Defendants o Information Provided for a Presentence Investigation o Summary IV. Management and Evaluation of Program Practices o Mission Statement o Training o Operations Manual o Validation of Risk Assessment Instrument o Calculating Outcomes: FTA Rates o Calculating Outcomes: Rearrest Rates o Summary V. Dealing With Special Populations o Defendants With Mental Illness o Juveniles Charged as Adults o Domestic Violence Cases o Women o Summary VI. Technology and Pretrial Services o Drug Testing as a Supervision Tool o Alcohol Testing as a Supervision Tool o Electronic Monitoring as a Supervision Tool o Information Systems o Summary VII. Jail Crowding and Pretrial Services o Jail Capacity and Average Daily Population o Jail Crowding in Jurisdictions Served by Pretrial Programs o Summary VIII. Conclusions Endnotes Bibliography Appendixes o A. Tables o B. Survey Instrument o C. List of Participating Pretrial Services Programs ---------------------------- Executive Summary Since their inception in the 1960s, pretrial services programs 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. 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: o 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. o 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. o Sixty percent use a defendant-based measure to calculate FTA, and 32 percent use an appearance-based measure. Seventy-one percent of programs do not calculate rearrest rates; of those that do, there is variation in how those rates are calculated: o 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. o 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 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. Fifty-seven percent of programs that add subjective input to an objective instrument are in jurisdictions with overcrowded jails. ---------------------------- I. Introduction In 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: o 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. o Assessing each arrestee's likelihood of failure to appear and chances of being rearrested. o 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 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 e-mail 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. 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. ---------------------------- II. General Characteristics of Pretrial Services Programs The 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] [Tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site.] 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 one-third 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. 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. 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 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, 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 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. 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. [Figures are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site.] ---------------------------- III. Pretrial Program Services Compared to National Standards In 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. 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 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 out-of-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. 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 first-appearance 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 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 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 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 "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. ---------------------------- IV. Management and Evaluation of Program Practices This 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 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 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. Seventy-one 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. 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. Thirty-two 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 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. ---------------------------- V. Dealing With Special Populations The 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 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 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. 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/jail-based (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 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. ---------------------------- VI. Technology and Pretrial Services This 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 Patch , 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 mid-sized 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. Sixty-nine 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 probation- and sheriff/jail-based programs and 67 percent for court-based 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. 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 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 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. ---------------------------- VII. Jail Crowding and Pretrial Services This 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 probation-based 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 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. ---------------------------- VIII. Conclusions Each year more than 10 million arrests are made for criminal 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: o 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. o 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-of-state charges. Pretrial services programs should work with appropriate local, state, and federal officials to ensure that they have timely access to complete criminal records. o 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 one-third 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. o 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 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. ---------------------------- Endnotes 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. ---------------------------- Bibliography 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. ---------------------------- Appendix A. Tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site. ---------------------------- 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 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: o Program Structure and Management. o Information Gathering (Interviews, Verification, Records Check). o Risk Assessment Procedures. o Information and Risk Assessment Reporting Procedures. o Supervision and Monitoring. o Dealing With Special Populations. o Miscellaneous Services. o Information Systems. o Pretrial Data. 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: o Fill it out on the web page and submit it electronically. o Call John Clark at the Pretrial Services Resource Center at 202-638-3080 and submit it by telephone. o 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. o 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 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. ____(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--____ 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. ____(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. 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. ____(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. ____(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. ____(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. 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. ____(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). 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. 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 ____. 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 ____. 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 ____. 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. 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: ____. 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). 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. ---------------------------- Appendix C. List of Participating Pretrial Services Programs 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 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 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 3rd 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 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 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 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 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 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: o Mail P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 o Visit 2277 Research Boulevard Rockville, MD 20850 o Telephone 1-800-688-4252 Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. eastern time o Fax 301-519-5212 o BJA Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA o NCJRS Home Page www.ncjrs.org o E-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org o r--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 Official Business NCJ 199773