www.crj.org/cji
Tennessee Pretrial Pilot Project:
Pretrial Standards and Practices
Antonio Nesbitt
January 2016
Crime and ...
www.crj.org/cji 2
Presentation Overview
•Project Objectives & Stages
•Pretrial Release Decision
•Pretrial Process
•Pretria...
www.crj.org/cji
Project Objectives & Stages
www.crj.org/cji 4
Project Objectives
•Identify local jurisdiction’s pretrial system features and
needs
•Identify local jur...
www.crj.org/cji 5
Project Methods
•Conduct comprehensive system assessment
• Identify jail and system drivers and pretrial...
www.crj.org/cji 6
Project Methods
•Implement pretrial practices and pretrial risk
assessment with fidelity
• Develop and a...
www.crj.org/cji 7
Project Stages
•Systems change and transform – passing through a
sequence of steps – with each step movi...
www.crj.org/cji 88
Project Stages
Exploration Installation
Initial
Implementation
Full
Implementation
National Implementat...
www.crj.org/cji 9
Project Stages
•Implementation can take 2 to 4 years to complete
• Well constructed practices to support...
www.crj.org/cji
Pretrial Release Decision
www.crj.org/cji 11
Pretrial Release Decision
•Purpose & significance
• Provide due process
• Maintain judicial integrity b...
www.crj.org/cji 12
Pretrial Release Decision
• Balancing act between
• Honoring presumption of innocence, providing due pr...
www.crj.org/cji 13
Pretrial Release Decision
•Bail Reform Act of 1984
• Allows for detention where necessary to protect co...
www.crj.org/cji 14
Pretrial Release Decision
•Difficult to make an informed pretrial release decision
•Timeframe to make t...
www.crj.org/cji 15
Pretrial Release Decision
•Measuring & Managing Risk
• Concept of risk is inherent with pretrial releas...
www.crj.org/cji 16
Pretrial Release Decision
•Measuring Risk
• Administer an objective pretrial risk assessment instrument...
www.crj.org/cji
Pretrial Process
www.crj.org/cji 18
Pretrial Process
•The pretrial process starts with initial contact with law
enforcement and lasts throu...
www.crj.org/cji 19
The Pretrial Process
www.crj.org/cji 20
Alternatives to Detention
•Citations in Lieu of Arrest
•Use of Summons in Lieu of Arrest
•Release on re...
www.crj.org/cji 21
Pretrial Release and Standards
•Jurisdiction should establish a pretrial services agency
to
• Conduct f...
www.crj.org/cji 22
Pretrial Services
•Two primary functions
• Administer an objective risk assessment that predicts failur...
www.crj.org/cji 23
Pretrial Services
•Benefits
• Provides a reliable source of information to inform pretrial
release deci...
www.crj.org/cji
Pretrial Risk Assessment
www.crj.org/cji 25
A Shift to an Objective View
•Research shows that the use of actuarial risk
assessments results in a hi...
www.crj.org/cji 26
Pretrial Risk Assessment
•The current state of pretrial risk assessment research
focuses on three areas...
www.crj.org/cji 27
Risk Factors
•Static Risk Factors
• Historical factors that have been demonstrated to relate to
pretria...
www.crj.org/cji 28
Risk Factors
•Not all risk factors commonly found in pretrial tools
are strong predictors of pretrial f...
www.crj.org/cji 29
Risk Factors
•Many of the strongest predictors of pretrial failure are
static risk factors – but not ne...
www.crj.org/cji 30
Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools
•Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment (VPRAI)
•Ohio Risk Assessment System ...
www.crj.org/cji 31
Implementation Challenges
•Challenges to implementing pretrial risk tools
• Time Constraints
• Money ba...
www.crj.org/cji 32
Implementation Challenges
•Jurisdictions select tools that are either developed or
validated on a diffe...
www.crj.org/cji 33
Pretrial Risk Tools – Next Steps
•Provide training & coaching to pretrial services to
support accurate ...
www.crj.org/cji
Pretrial Release Conditions
www.crj.org/cji 35
Release Conditions
•The use of release conditions is a substantial
component of the pretrial process in...
www.crj.org/cji 36
Release Conditions
•Many pretrial conditions and interventions follow
closely the interventions adopted...
www.crj.org/cji 37
Release Conditions
•Pretrial release should be done under the least
restrictive conditions
• Courts mus...
www.crj.org/cji 38
Release Conditions
•Standard Conditions
• No arrest contact with law enforcement
• Updating the court w...
www.crj.org/cji 39
Release Conditions
•Although due process challenges arise when such
conditions are viewed as blanket co...
www.crj.org/cji 40
Release Interventions
•Pretrial Supervision
• Intended to facilitate, support, and monitor defendants
c...
www.crj.org/cji 41
Release Interventions
•Court Date Notification
• Studies have shown that there is some benefit to intro...
www.crj.org/cji 42
Release Interventions
•Alcohol and Drug Testing
• Research revealed that there was no significant diffe...
www.crj.org/cji
Summary
www.crj.org/cji 44
Summary
•The pretrial stage provides multiple opportunities for
defendants to be diverted out of the sy...
www.crj.org/cji 45
Summary
•Measuring and managing risk is critical to both
reducing the likelihood for pretrial failure; ...
www.crj.org/cji 46
Summary
•Project will support each jurisdiction’s specific system
needs and pretrial features
•Each jur...
www.crj.org/cji 47
Questions
•Contact Information:
Antonio Nesbitt
anesbitt@crj.org
Jesse Revicki
jrevicki@crj.org
Kristin...
of 47

Pretrial Pilot Presentation

Published on: Mar 4, 2016
Source: www.slideshare.net


Transcripts - Pretrial Pilot Presentation

  • 1. www.crj.org/cji Tennessee Pretrial Pilot Project: Pretrial Standards and Practices Antonio Nesbitt January 2016 Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ
  • 2. www.crj.org/cji 2 Presentation Overview •Project Objectives & Stages •Pretrial Release Decision •Pretrial Process •Pretrial Risk Assessment •Pretrial Release Conditions •Summary
  • 3. www.crj.org/cji Project Objectives & Stages
  • 4. www.crj.org/cji 4 Project Objectives •Identify local jurisdiction’s pretrial system features and needs •Identify local jurisdiction’s pretrial performance baseline •Build jurisdiction’s capacity to select and implement pretrial practices and pretrial risk assessment with fidelity •Assess performance of pretrial practices and pretrial risk assessment & modify practices and assessment based on data
  • 5. www.crj.org/cji 5 Project Methods •Conduct comprehensive system assessment • Identify jail and system drivers and pretrial performance baseline • Review pretrial practices, system capacity and resources • Describe case flow process from arrest/citation through disposition •Educate justice system on pretrial risk assessments and pretrial practices • Vet existing pretrial risk assessments or develop pretrial risk assessment • Identify pretrial practices that will support findings and recommendations from system assessment
  • 6. www.crj.org/cji 6 Project Methods •Implement pretrial practices and pretrial risk assessment with fidelity • Develop and adhere to implementation plan • Set up process to ensure proper scoring of risk tool •Evaluate implementation of practices, pretrial risk assessment performance and assess impact on pretrial performance baseline •Use data to make improvements – if appropriate, to existing pretrial practices and risk assessment
  • 7. www.crj.org/cji 7 Project Stages •Systems change and transform – passing through a sequence of steps – with each step moving closer toward the intended outcome (Morgan, 2006) •Implementation stages map out clear process to reach intended outcomes • Exploration/Evaluation • Installation • Initial implementation • Full implementation
  • 8. www.crj.org/cji 88 Project Stages Exploration Installation Initial Implementation Full Implementation National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) © 2013 Blase and Fixsen • If one or more stages is incomplete, it can disrupt the fidelity of implementation and impact long- term sustainability
  • 9. www.crj.org/cji 9 Project Stages •Implementation can take 2 to 4 years to complete • Well constructed practices to support existing resources and capacity • Ensure a process to maintain fidelity and sustainability • Supports delivery of research-based practices •Conducting all stage-appropriate activities is necessary for new practices to be successful • Supports time needed to increase buy-in and address concerns of new practices
  • 10. www.crj.org/cji Pretrial Release Decision
  • 11. www.crj.org/cji 11 Pretrial Release Decision •Purpose & significance • Provide due process • Maintain judicial integrity by securing defendant’s appearance • Demonstrate consideration for public safety (ABA Standards of Pretrial Release)
  • 12. www.crj.org/cji 12 Pretrial Release Decision • Balancing act between • Honoring presumption of innocence, providing due process, and affording all legal and constitutional rights of defendants WITH • Maintaining integrity of judicial process, assure court appearance, and considering need to protect public safety
  • 13. www.crj.org/cji 13 Pretrial Release Decision •Bail Reform Act of 1984 • Allows for detention where necessary to protect community safety • Detention hearings are required in cases involving violence and certain drug offenses •United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) • Upheld the Bail Reform Act of 1984 • Detention is the limited exception
  • 14. www.crj.org/cji 14 Pretrial Release Decision •Difficult to make an informed pretrial release decision •Timeframe to make the pretrial release decision is very brief • Initial court appearance is guided by statute • Limits ability to collect reliable and objective information to inform pretrial release decision
  • 15. www.crj.org/cji 15 Pretrial Release Decision •Measuring & Managing Risk • Concept of risk is inherent with pretrial release decision • Risk of failure to appear • Risk to public safety • Justice system is expected to take this risk • Focus should turn to • How well we measure risk • How well we manage risk
  • 16. www.crj.org/cji 16 Pretrial Release Decision •Measuring Risk • Administer an objective pretrial risk assessment instrument • Report likelihood of risk of pretrial failure to court to inform release decision •Managing Risk • Provide least restrictive options to mitigate risk • Concept of risk principle applies to pretrial • Release low risk with no to few conditions • Release moderate risk with only the conditions needed to ensure court appearance and protect public safety • Detain those who are of highest risk – and if released, provide the necessary conditions to reduce pretrial failure
  • 17. www.crj.org/cji Pretrial Process
  • 18. www.crj.org/cji 18 Pretrial Process •The pretrial process starts with initial contact with law enforcement and lasts through case disposition •Many decisions are made by various justice system stakeholders • Each decision provides an opportunity to support the purpose and significance of the pretrial release decision
  • 19. www.crj.org/cji 19 The Pretrial Process
  • 20. www.crj.org/cji 20 Alternatives to Detention •Citations in Lieu of Arrest •Use of Summons in Lieu of Arrest •Release on recognizance (ABA Standards of Pretrial Release)
  • 21. www.crj.org/cji 21 Pretrial Release and Standards •Jurisdiction should establish a pretrial services agency to • Conduct first appearance inquiries • Develop and provide appropriate and effective supervision • Present information to judge • Risk of failure to appear • Risk of new criminal activity (ABA Standards of Pretrial Release)
  • 22. www.crj.org/cji 22 Pretrial Services •Two primary functions • Administer an objective risk assessment that predicts failure to appear and new arrest pending case disposition • Provide court ordered supervision to moderate and higher risk defendants
  • 23. www.crj.org/cji 23 Pretrial Services •Benefits • Provides a reliable source of information to inform pretrial release decision • May be able to verify additional information for the court • May be able to perform pretrial supervision and support release conditions •Challenges • May not be able to administer pretrial risk assessment to all defendants • Supervision capacity and resources may be limited
  • 24. www.crj.org/cji Pretrial Risk Assessment
  • 25. www.crj.org/cji 25 A Shift to an Objective View •Research shows that the use of actuarial risk assessments results in a higher predictive validity than clinical or professional judgement alone (Latessa and Lovins, 2010) •The Vera Point Scale • First pretrial risk assessment – not an actuarial risk tool • Developed in 1961 •Pretrial risk assessment instruments are developed to predict both failure to appear (FTA) and new criminal arrest (NCA) pending case disposition
  • 26. www.crj.org/cji 26 Pretrial Risk Assessment •The current state of pretrial risk assessment research focuses on three areas • The lack of the use of a pretrial risk tool in most jurisdictions • Slightly over 10% of jurisdictions use a pretrial risk tool • Identifying the strongest predictors of pretrial failure • Static and Dynamic factors • Distinguishing between which factors are predictive of failure to appear and new arrest pending case disposition • The importance of validating the risk assessment tool on the population in which it is to be administered (Bechtel, Holsinger, Lowenkamp & Warren, 2015; Bechtel, Lowenkamp, & Holsinger, 2011)
  • 27. www.crj.org/cji 27 Risk Factors •Static Risk Factors • Historical factors that have been demonstrated to relate to pretrial failure • Static means that these factors can’t change • History of failure to appear, prior convictions, prior incarcerations, pending case •Dynamic Risk Factors • Dynamic means that the factors associated with pretrial failure can change • Substance abuse, employment
  • 28. www.crj.org/cji 28 Risk Factors •Not all risk factors commonly found in pretrial tools are strong predictors of pretrial failure • Residence, alcohol, and current offense not consistently shown to be significant predictors of FTA • Residence, current offense, and employment not consistently shown to be significant predictors of NCA (Bechtel, Lowenkamp & Holsinger, 2011) •Some risk factors are only predictive of one pretrial failure outcome  meaning they do not predict both failure to appear and new arrest pending case disposition
  • 29. www.crj.org/cji 29 Risk Factors •Many of the strongest predictors of pretrial failure are static risk factors – but not necessarily of both FTA and NCA • History of failure to appear • Prior misdemeanor convictions • Prior felony convictions • Prior violence • Current violence • Pending case • Age • Prior incarceration (Mammalian, 2011; Bechtel, Lowenkamp, & Holsinger, 2011; Laura & John Arnold Foundation, 2014)
  • 30. www.crj.org/cji 30 Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools •Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment (VPRAI) •Ohio Risk Assessment System – Pretrial (ORAS-PAT) •COMPAS – Pretrial •Public Safety Assessment – Court (PSA-Court) • None of these pretrial tools have been subjected to a rigorous peer-review process (Bechtel, Holsinger, Lowenkamp, & Warren, 2015) • Many jurisdictions develop tools with local or state data • With the exception of the VPRAI, the other pretrial tools have not been independently reviewed – but even the VPRAI has shown mixed results in terms of predictive validity
  • 31. www.crj.org/cji 31 Implementation Challenges •Challenges to implementing pretrial risk tools • Time Constraints • Money bail schedules • Local capacity • Subjective risk assessment • Lack of buy-in & support from justice agency stakeholders • Data quality limitations
  • 32. www.crj.org/cji 32 Implementation Challenges •Jurisdictions select tools that are either developed or validated on a different population without considering their target populations characteristics •Pretrial agencies may not always prepare for a future evaluation of the instrument’s predictive validity
  • 33. www.crj.org/cji 33 Pretrial Risk Tools – Next Steps •Provide training & coaching to pretrial services to support accurate scoring of pretrial tool •Ensure that the pretrial risk assessment accurately predicts FTA and NCA for target population & appropriately classifies defendants by risk level •Expand use of pretrial risk tools at the earliest point possible in the process  to inform the pretrial release decision
  • 34. www.crj.org/cji Pretrial Release Conditions
  • 35. www.crj.org/cji 35 Release Conditions •The use of release conditions is a substantial component of the pretrial process in attempting to ensure a defendants appearance in court •Depending on the jurisdiction, a variety of release conditions may be available
  • 36. www.crj.org/cji 36 Release Conditions •Many pretrial conditions and interventions follow closely the interventions adopted to address and influence a post-conviction population •Most of these interventions have not been thoroughly tested for their effectiveness (Bechtel, Holsinger, Lowenkamp, & Warren, 2015)
  • 37. www.crj.org/cji 37 Release Conditions •Pretrial release should be done under the least restrictive conditions • Courts must have alternative release choices • Intended to limit detention • Can increase economic and other hardships • One study indicated a 20% increase in unemployment after being detained for 3+ days • Disruption to financial stability and residential status was also reported for defendants detained 3+ days (Holsinger & Bechtel, 2015)
  • 38. www.crj.org/cji 38 Release Conditions •Standard Conditions • No arrest contact with law enforcement • Updating the court with a current address • No contact with victims and witnesses •Specific Conditions • Maintain employment • Compliance with electronic monitoring • Compliance with alcohol and drug testing • Pretrial supervision
  • 39. www.crj.org/cji 39 Release Conditions •Although due process challenges arise when such conditions are viewed as blanket conditions, statute and common practice often result in certain conditions being applied to the vast majority of defendants, regardless of their risk
  • 40. www.crj.org/cji 40 Release Interventions •Pretrial Supervision • Intended to facilitate, support, and monitor defendants compliance with pretrial conditions • One study examined the effectiveness of pretrial supervision contact type and frequency in Philadelphia; the results offered some promise that pretrial supervision may help reduce failure to appear rates and new arrest rates (Goldkamp & White, 2006) • Pretrial supervision differentiated by risk level may support reductions in pretrial failure, along with staff training on cognitive interaction skills (Danner, VanNostrand & Spruance, 2015)
  • 41. www.crj.org/cji 41 Release Interventions •Court Date Notification • Studies have shown that there is some benefit to introducing this process into a jurisdiction • Financial, capacity, and resource burden (Bechtel, Holsinger, Lowenkamp & Warren, 2015) •Electronic Monitoring • Common tool during the post-conviction phase • There is no conclusive evidence of its effectiveness in reducing failure to appear or new criminal arrest pending case disposition (Bechtel, Holsinger, Lowenkamp & Warren, 2015; VanNostrand, Rose, & Weibrecht, 2011)
  • 42. www.crj.org/cji 42 Release Interventions •Alcohol and Drug Testing • Research revealed that there was no significant difference in pretrial failure when substance abuse testing and treatment conditions were assigned to defendants in the two highest risk level categories • However, lower-risk defendants who were required to participate had higher failure rates than their lower-risk counterparts who were not (Bechtel, Holsinger, Lowenkamp & Warren, 2015; VanNostrand & Keebler, 2009)
  • 43. www.crj.org/cji Summary
  • 44. www.crj.org/cji 44 Summary •The pretrial stage provides multiple opportunities for defendants to be diverted out of the system and to use the least restrictive options •The courts are under great pressure to make a pretrial release decision quickly and often with limited information •Risk is inherent in our justice system – as use of detention is to be the carefully limited exception
  • 45. www.crj.org/cji 45 Summary •Measuring and managing risk is critical to both reducing the likelihood for pretrial failure; however, it has to be implemented within a jurisdiction’s capacity and resources • Using a pretrial risk assessment will offer the court with objective information to inform the pretrial release decision • Providing supervision and services appropriately requires using the least restrictive options • Research is needed to identify which practices are the most effective in reducing pretrial failure
  • 46. www.crj.org/cji 46 Summary •Project will support each jurisdiction’s specific system needs and pretrial features •Each jurisdiction will be actively involved in the selection/development of a pretrial risk assessment and pretrial practices •Technical assistance will direct support toward implementing the risk assessment and practices with fidelity •Ongoing evaluation of implementation will occur to support sustainability of pretrial efforts
  • 47. www.crj.org/cji 47 Questions •Contact Information: Antonio Nesbitt anesbitt@crj.org Jesse Revicki jrevicki@crj.org Kristin Bechtel kbechtel@crj.org

Related Documents