From the Pretrial Justice Institute

On this page:


Pretrial Justice Institute Project Update – Evidenced Based Decision Making for Local Criminal Justice Systems


For the last year, PJI, has been working in partnership with the Center for Effective Public Policy, the Justice Management Institute, and The Carey Group on a large project funded by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC): "Evidence Based Decision Making for Local Criminal Justice Systems." The goal of the initiative is to build a system-wide decision making framework that will result in more collaborative, evidence based decision making in local criminal justice systems. The project seeks to equip criminal justice policymakers in local communities with the information, processes, and tools that will result in measurable reduction of pretrial misconduct and post-conviction risk of re-offending. The project has a large NIC Advisory Committee, comprised of nationally recognized leaders in pretrial, the courts, prosecution, defense and corrections.

The project is nearing completion of Phase 1, during which the team has completed developmental work on a publication, hosted focus groups to test concepts, and worked with private sector leaders in evidence based decision making. This summer the project will be conducting a public opinion poll and a tabletop exercise, and will be developing a communications strategy for the Framework and its supporting tools. The publication, a “Framework For Evidence Based Decision Making for Local Criminal Justice Systems,” is due to be released near the end of 2009. Phase 2 of the project will entail the selection of demonstration sites and an expansion of tools and trainings. For more information, please contact Cherise Fanno Burdeen at cherise@pretrial.org.

Project Update - Pretrial Program Survey

With funding from the JEHT Foundation and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), PJI recently completed the fourth national survey of pretrial services programs. Prior surveys were published in 1979, 1989, 2001. The survey found that pretrial services programs are more likely than in the previous survey to serve multiple counties, are on average larger than they were in the previous survey, and they work longer hours. Fifteen percent of pretrial programs were established in this decade, and 61% of these programs serve jurisdictions with populations of 100,000 or less, with an additional 26% serving populations of between 100,001 and 500,000. Forty-four percent of pretrial programs begun in this decade serve areas that are primarily rural. Half the programs started since 1990 are housed administratively within probation departments. Half of probation-run programs have annual budgets of less than $200,000 and half have five or less staff persons, suggesting that smaller jurisdictions are using their existing probation departments to provide pretrial services.

There have been several improvements in the extent to which these programs are meeting core functions as set forth in the ABA and NAPSA Standards. For example:
  • The standards call for the interview and investigation of all defendants in custody – the percent of programs that have at least one automatic exclusion for interviewing fell from 84% in the 2001 survey to 76% in the current survey.
  • The standards call for the use of objective criteria in assessing risks of pretrial misconduct – while the percentage of programs using exclusively objective criteria has remained about the same in the past several surveys, the percentage that use a combination of objective and subjective criteria rose significantly, from about 42% in the 2001 survey to 64% currently.
  • The standards state that risk assessments should be based on local research – 42% of programs developed their risk assessment criteria based upon local research in the current survey, compared to 25% in 2001.
  • The standards state that pretrial programs should have the capability to supervise conditions of release imposed by the court – the percentage that provide supervision has gone from 81% in 1989 and 93% in 2001 to 97% currently.
  • The standards state that pretrial programs should review the detained population in jail on a regular basis to assess their eligibility for pretrial release – the percentage that provides bail reviews on a regular basis is up from 18% in 1989 and 21% in 2001 to 39% currently.
The percentage of programs that had validated their risk assessment procedures in the previous year rose slightly from 11% in 2001 to 15% currently. Discouragingly, 48% of programs had never had a validation done, the same figure as in the 2001 survey. The percentage of programs that calculate FTA rates rose from 55% to 68%, while the percentage that calculate re-arrest rates rose from 29% to 37%, although there are differences among the programs in how those rates are calculating – making it difficult to compare rates across jurisdictions. The current survey is but the first of a two-phase effort to learn more about pretrial release decision making practices throughout the country. Part of the grant from BJA is also being used to conduct a nationwide scan of pretrial practices. That scan is designed to identify local jurisdictions where pretrial services programs exist, but which have not come to attention in the surveys that have conducted. Once identified, these jurisdictions will be asked to take this same survey, with the results updated in an on-line version of this report.

New Project - Milwaukee County Jail Population Analysis

PJI recently contracted with Milwaukee County, Wisconsin to conduct a Population Analysis of its county jail and house of corrections. The county is providing PJI with comprehensive data on all persons booked into either of these facilities between 2003 and 2008. As part of the analysis, PJI will look at overall county population growth, trends in population demographics, and changes in statutes that may have limited or expanded official discretion, number of bookings, average length of stay, the amount of time it takes a case to reach a disposition, the amount and types of bail being set, and average daily populations – between 2003 and 2008. A report, with findings, will be submitted to the county in September.

King County Pretrial Risk Assessment

Officials in King County, Washington have established a Pretrial Risk Assessment Work Group to explore the implementation of a pretrial risk assessment instrument to be used by the Community Corrections Division’s Intake Services Unit.

The county recently contracted with PJI to facilitate work group discussions in defining the potential goals and benefits of a pretrial risk assessment, to work with the group to develop one or two options for a pretrial risk assessment instrument for King County, and to assess the operational and staffing requirements to implement and test the validity of selected risk assessment procedures. This project will be completed by September 2009.

Pretrial Help Desk

NAPSA and PJI continue to ask members to provide materials for the Pretrial Help Desk (www.pretrial.org). The goal of the site is to provide an on-line version of the annual Program Materials – to showcase the efforts of pretrial practitioners from all over the country, in one place, immediately and conveniently available to all.

To send program materials, go to www.pretrial.org and click on the “Suggest a Document” button at the top. It will take you to a page where you can upload items directly.

Information we are working to collect include:
  • Advisement of Rights/Warning Interview Forms
  • Risk Assessment Instruments
  • Override policy
  • Written report to Court
  • Release Conditions Contract
  • Monitoring and Supervision Policy
  • Electronic Monitoring Protocols
  • Drug Testing Protocols
  • Reporting Protocols
  • Court Notification Procedures
  • Failure to Appear/Violation of Conditions of Supervision Notification forms
  • Policy and Procedure Manuals
  • Performance Measures/Report Templates
  • Sample Job Descriptions
  • Sample staff performance evaluations
  • Organizational Goals
  • Mission, Vision statements
  • Strategic Plan
  • Annual Report (or other regularly provided public reports)

Programs are also invited to bring publications, articles, etc., to the conference for display on the Program Exchange table. Materials will be accepted beginning Sunday September 13th; please see any staff person at the registration tables for more information.