1 A Framework for Pretrial Justice ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF AN EFFECTIVE PRETRIAL SERVICES AGENCY 2 Getting It Right. BAIL: DEFINITION: Requirements to reasonably assure a defendants appearance in court and, where appropriate, public safety. TENETS:
1. There is no right to bail in most states and the Federal system. (Present in about a quarter of states) 2. Pertains only to appearance and safety concerns 3. Individualized to the defendants unique characteristics 4. Least restrictive means needed to ensure goals 5. Due process forbids detention on unspecified charges or without due cause. 3 4 The Framework Elements of a high functioning pretrial system 5 Pretrial release and detention decisions based on risk and designed to maximize
release, court appearance, and public safety Legal framework that includes presumption of least restrictive nonfinancial release; restrictions or prohibition against the use of secured financial conditions of release; and preventive detention for a limited and clearly defined type of defendant Release options following or in lieu of arrest Defendants eligible by statute for pretrial release are considered for release, with no locally-imposed exclusions not permitted by statute Experienced prosecutors screen criminal cases before first appearance Defense council active at first appearance Collaborative group of stakeholders that employs evidence-based decisionmaking to ensure a high functioning system Dedicated pretrial services agency Elements of an effective pretrial agency Operationalized Mission Universal Screening Validated Pretrial Risk Assessment Sequential Bail Review
Risk-based Supervision Performance Measurement and Feedback 6 Goal: To Maximize Court Appearance, Public Safety, and Release rates. All other essential elements flow from this defining principle. Appearance: Bail set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated to [ensure court appearance] is excessive under the Eighth Amendment. Stack v. Boyle 342 U.S. 1 (1951). The 3 Ms Safety: Detention may be authorized when defendants are found after an adversary hearing to pose a threat to the safety of individuals or to the community which no
condition of release can dispel. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987). Release: In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception. Salerno. 7 8 Legal Foundatio n The proper legal framework greatly facilitates maximizing the 3Ms, and includes: 1. A presumption of nonfinancial release on the least restrictive conditions necessary to ensure future court appearance and public safety.
2. Prohibition or restrictions on the use of secured financial conditions. 3. Provisions for detention without bail for a clearly defined and limited population of defendants who pose an unmanageable risk to public safety. Detention without bail must include robust due process protections for detention-eligible defendants and those detained. All three of these components are interrelated and must exist within a legal framework to achieve maximized rates of release, appearance, and public safety. Neither the Constitution nor our rules of criminal procedure permit a judge to base a pretrial release decision solely on the severity of the charged offense. Bail is not pretrial punishment and is not to be set solely on the basis of an accusation of a serious crime. As the United States Supreme Court has emphasized, [t]o infer from the fact of indictment
alone a need for bail in an unusually high amount is an arbitrary act. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. at 6. (Rule 5-401) requires the judge to make an informed, individualized decision about each defendant and does not permit the judge to put a price tag on a persons pretrial liberty based solely on the charged offense. State of New Mexico v. Brown No. 34,531. Decided: November 6, 2014 9 10 No Locally- Pretrial systems screen all defendants eligible statute for pretrial release consideration. imposed by Local justice systems do not impose limitations on pretrial screening and Exclusions assessment eligibility beyond those
established in the controlling bail law. to Release Collaborative Stakeholders Inter-agency coordination that help allocate scarce resources efficiently, reduce jail overcrowding, and increase public confidence in and support for criminal justice processes, enhancing system performance and, ultimately, the integrity of the law. Coordinating bodies include all three branches of government and other relevant stakeholders and address specific and systemic issues. Within the pretrial context, coordinating bodies analyze current performance (e.g., of detain/release decisions), and suggest opportunities for improvement.
NACo, JMI and BJA (2014). "From Silo to System: The Importance of Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils (CJCCs)" (Webinar). http://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/event_attach ments/NACo%20From%20Silo%20to%20System%2 0-%20Sept%2024.pdf . 11 12 8 Characteristics of Highly Effective Teams 1. 2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. A CLEAR AND ELEVATING GOAL RESULTS-DRIVEN STRUCTURE COMPETENT TEAM MEMBERS UNIFIED COMMITMENT COLLABORATIVE CLIMATE STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE EXTERNAL SUPPORT AND RECOGNITION PRINCIPLED LEADERSHIP TeamWork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong, Carl E. Larson and Frank M. LaFasto. 1989. Sage Publications.
13 Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial Services Agency THE BASIC FOR HIGH FUNCTIONING PRETRIAL AGENCIES 14 Pretrial Services Agencies A dedicated pretrial services agency ensures that management of essential functions occurs under a single organization goal and better coordination among
elementsfor example, ensuring that release recommendations match supervision resources and capacity. A single management structure also provides better staff direction and motivation to critical work priorities and clearer lines of communication. The justice system has also has a single actor responsible for pretrial functions. 15 Preferably, the pretrial services agency should be a separate, independent entity. Jurisdictions may incorporate pretrial services agencies within a larger parent organization, if that component has: 1. a clearly-defined, pretrial service related function as its purpose; 2. staff assigned only to pretrial-related work with pretrial defendants; and
3. management that can make independent decisions on budget, staffing, and policy. 16 Pretrial Services Agencies 1.Help courts make informed bail decisions. 2.Promote maximized pretrial release, appearance, public safety, and compliance outcomes. 3.Ensure that release options are realistic, enforceable, and measurable. Several jurisdictions have legislation authorizing or
encouraging pretrial services agencies: Kentucky Federal courts Washington, D.C. Virginia Illinois Colorado Hawaii Nevada New Jersey Vermont West Virginia Alaska Maine 17 Metrics Satisfaction
Feedback Needs Assessment Substance Use Disorders Mental Health Trauma Supervision Monitoring Support Background investigation Defendant interview Criminal history check Validated Risk Assessment
Recommendations Measure Integrat e Promote Assess 18 19 Operationalized Mission Statement A mission statement identifies a programs focus and desired outcomes. 1. Tells the world who you are and why
youre important. 2. Guides agency structure and day-today operational decisions. 3. Focuses Leadership, Staff and Customers on goals and principles. 4. Gives Management a clear leading message and set of principles. 5. Helps define agencies within a larger organization. 20 PSAs mission is to assess, supervise, and provide services for defendants, and collaborate with the justice community, to assist the courts in making pretrial release decisions. We promote community safety and return to court while honoring the constitutional presumption of innocence. Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia (2008) Promote pretrial justice and enhance community
safety (current) 21 Outcomes Appearance Safety Continued Release Strategic Goals Judicial Concurrence with PSA recommendatio ns Continued compliant pretrial release
Minimize rearrests Maximize court appearance Strategic Objectives Risk assessment Risk-based supervision Behavioral Health integration Effective agency administration Measurement To promote pretrial justice and enhance community safety
22 23 screening [skrniNG] NOUN screenings (plural noun) 1.the evaluation or investigation of something as part of a methodical survey, to assess suitability for a particular role or purpose. Universal Screening Ensuring Bail Eligibility 24
The Rule: Pretrial services agencies should screen all defendants eligible by statute for bail to make informed, individualized recommendations to the court. 25 Defendant Interview Criminal History Check Verification Risk
Assessmen t 26 Screening should occur before the defendants initial court appearance so that the judicial officer can factor screening results into his or her release decision. Screening results also can help determine the defendants eligibility for pretrial diversion options or the need for referrals to behavioral health or social services programming to augment pretrial supervision. Recommendations should not depend on a defendants participation in a screen 27 assess
[ses] VERB 1.evaluate or estimate the nature, ability, or quality of. 2.evaluate judge gauge rate estimate appraise form an opinion of check out form an impression of make up one's mind about get the measure of determine [more] Re-Thinking Risk LESSONS FROM RISK ASSESSMENT SCIENCE Session Goals Define Pretrial Risk Assessmen
t Definitio n Goals Best Practices Discuss the Nature of Pretrial Risk 28 Analyze Real-world RAI Outcomes
29 ADMISSION TO BAIL ALWAYS INVOLVES A RISK THAT THE ACCUSED WILL TAKE FLIGHT. THAT IS A CALCULATED RISK WHICH THE LAW TAKES AS THE PRICE OF OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. Stack v. Boyle 342 U.S. 1 (1951) at p. 8. 30 Quiz: 1. 2. 3. 4. What is pretrial risk?
How likely are defendants to fail? How good are we at assessing risk? What factors are most predictive of pretrial risk? 5. Whats the best method to assess pretrial risk? Defining Risk A defendants likelihood of: Missing a scheduled court date Arrest on a separate criminal offense global rearrests rearrests on specific charge types 31 100 94
91 90 93.5 88 89 88 80 88 84 83 93
90 89 81 80 68 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Washington DC
Kentucky New Jersey NF Release Appearance Cook County Safety Allegheny County, PA 32 Assessing Risk Fourth Generation: Explicit integration of risk/needs management into assessment. The goal extends beyond risk
assessment to enhancing supervision and treatment. (Examples: Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS), Wisconsin Risk and Needs Tool (WRN), Public Safety Assessment (PSA)). 33 Assessing Risk 34 The consensus from the behavioral science, economic, and criminal justice fields is that actuarial risk assessment is the superior method. Adjusted actuarial assessmentswhere practitioners have limited and well defined rules to override RAI resultsis the preferred actuarial risk assessment technique. 35
ASSESS ADJUST RECOMMEND Gather data Apply the tool Calculate result Consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances Adjust supervision response as needed Recommend supervision level and conditions consistent to risk level and other factors
36 Whats Out There? Court PSA Virginia (VPRAI Revised) Federal Court (FRAI)
Ohio (ORAS/PAT) Colorado (CPAT) Florida RAI Alaska Nevada (NPR)
Locally-validated assessments Washington, DC Allegheny County, PA El Paso, TX Maine Pretrial Services, Inc. Risk Assessment Instrument Instrument Completion Date___________________ First Name____________________________
Last Name________________________ Race___________________ SSN__________________________________ Sex_________________ DOB__________________ Arrest Date____________________________ Court Date_______________________ Charges_________________________________________________________________________________________ Bail Commissioner Bail___________________ Court Bail________________________________________________ Risk Factors 1. Charge Type Felony or Misdemeanor 2. Pending Charge(s) Yes or No 1 0 3. Criminal History Yes or No 1 0
4. Two or More FTA Convictions Yes or No 2 0 5. Two or More Violent Convictions Yes or No 1 0 6. Less than 1yr at Current Residence Yes or No 1 0 LOW BELOW AVERAGE 7. <2 yrs continuous employment/primary child caregiver Yes or No ABOVE AVERAGE 8. History of Drug Abuse
Yes or No 1AVERAGE 0 TOTAL 3 1 HIGH 0 1 0 1 2 4
5-9 Risk Level Risk Factor(s)____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Comments/ Recommendations__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Where do PRAIs Come From? 38 Bivariate analyses: Identify relationship of independent variables to the dependent variables. Logistic regression: Measure the strength of relationship between independent and dependent variables.
Weighting of variables on a risk scale. ROC AUC (Receiver Operating Characteristic/Area under the Curve): Determination of the improvement of risk prediction over chance. Test on validation set. 39 Static Dynamic History of FTA Substance Use Previous Felonies Residence
Previous Incarcerations Employment Pending Charges Previous Misdemeanors Age Criminal History 40 Instant Offense Demographic/Social Drug Use (Test Result) Justice Status Criminal FTA
75 8 7 8 2 Rearrest 85 5 5 3
2 Rearrest Charge 0.36% 41 10.87% 32.74% 19.35% 8.24% 28.43% Violent Property
Drug Public Order Misdemeanor Unk. Felony RAIs: The Results Allegheny County 19.00% 52.00% Low 19.00%Lowmedium High10.00% medium
42 Harris County LEVEL I 8.91% 8.91% 35.64% 4.95% LEVEL II 41.58% LEVEL III RAIs: The Results
VPRAI-Revised 1 2 10.00% 3.00% 22.00% 3 19.00% 4 23.00% 5 6 23.00% 43 Indiana Risk Assessment System 20.00% 40.00% Low Moderate
High 40.00% RAIs: The Results Colorado Pretrial Assessment Tool Kentucky 9.00% 47.00% 44 Low 44.00% Moderate High
8.00% 20.00% 23.00% 49.00% 1 2 3 4 RAIs: The Results 45 El Paso, TX Weld County Low Below AVG
15.00% 15.00% 25.00% 1 2 3 4 AVG 7.00% 10.00% 20.00% 45.00% 26.00% Above AVG
37.00%High No Rearrest Lo w Rearrest 6 9 12 94 91
88 Mo der at e 46 H i gh 7 93 TOTAL 47 No Failure 3 6
Any Failure 11 12 24 97 94 89 88 76 Low
L o w-m e d i u m H i g h -m e d i u m High T OT A L 02/25/202 0 THE VIOLENCE FLAG Violent Rearrests by Violent Flag: Cook County Cook County 48 Yes No
3.90% 96.10% 100 80 60 40 20 0 99.5 98.9 1.1 Violence Flag 0.5 No Violent Flag
Violent Rearrest No Violence Rearrest Cautions 1. RAIs show the group to which you belong, not your individual risk level 2. The definition of risk is relative and not consistent in the research 3. Separate assessments are the better practice, although some risk factors are predictive of both court appearance and arrest-free behavior 4. RAIs should not be the final say on release/detention 49 Issues 1. RAIs and Pretrial Interviews
2. Locally validated vs. publicly available RAIs 3. Supervision to match risk factors and levels 4. When needs play a role 5. Inter-rater Reliability and Quality Assurance 6. Staff Overrides 50 Maine Risk Assessment Study Sample 51 The sample is made up of 8,257 defendants from all 11 counties that use the MPRAI. To be in the sample, defendants met the following criteria: Released to pretrial supervision
MPRAI completed from 2008 through 2017 Discharge status was either successful or revocation Maine Sample Demographics 52 Age: Mean = 37; Mode = 30; Range 18 to 86 Sex Race 8.3% 27.3% 91.7%
72.7% Sex Female Male Race Non-white White MPRAI Scale and Failure Rates 53 Overall failure = 32.2% Scale
Total Score Total % Failure % 1 0-2 19.6 17.7 2 3
22.7 26.0 3 4 27.1 34.2 4 5 20.8 40.5
5 6-9 9.8 52.2 MPRAI Scale and Failure Rates 54 100 90 80 70 52.2%
Failure 60 40.5% 50 34.2% 40 30 20 26.0% 17.7% 10 0 1
N = 8,257 Average failure rate = 32.2% 2 3 4 Scale Sample distribution: 1 = 19.6%; 2 = 22.7%; 3 = 27.1%; 4 = 20.8%; 5 = 9.8% 5 MPRAI Scale and Failure Rates by Sex 55
100 90 80 70 Failure 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3
Total N = 8,257 Average failure rate = 32.2% Female 4 Male There are no significant differences in failure rates at any risk level when comparing females to males, p < .01 5 MPRAI Scale and Failure Rates by Race 56
100 90 80 70 60 Failure 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3
Total N = 8,257 Average failure rate = 32.2% White 4 Non-white There are no significant differences in failure rates at any risk level when comparing non-whites to whites, p < .01 5 MPRAI Validation Summary 57
All risk factors are statistically significantly related to whether defendants on pretrial supervision are discharged successfully or revoked. When risk factors are summed and collapsed into five risk levels, the resulting scale is statistically significantly related to outcome in such a way that failure increases with level of risk. There are no statistically significant differences in how the MPRAI performs for males compared to women, nor whites compared to nonwhites. 58
Questions? 59 sequential [skwen(t)SHl] ADJECTIVE screenings (plural noun) 1.forming or following in a logical order or sequence. Sequential Bail Review Continuing the Risk Principle 60 Judicial officers have authority to make determinations regarding bail in all stages of a criminal case, up to and
including the trial stage Federal Bail Reform Act 18 USC 3141 (a) 61 Notify the Court of continued after the initial pretrial court appearance and offer the Court judicial officer reviewing the bail non-financial options appropriate to the defendants assessed risk level. For detained defendants, notify the court of any new favorable information that would aid in facilitating a defendant's release or information that would affect the defendant's status while on release.
Encourage defense counsel and prosecutors to notify the agency of changes in circumstances that would affect the defendant's bail status. Review the status of released defendants, including a check for new criminal arrests and compliance with conditions of release. Session Goals Describe Pretrial Supervision Purpose Risk Based Conditions Compliance 62 Discuss how
risk assessment should inform Supervision strategies Discuss what we know about best and promising practices 63 Most defendants will make scheduled court dates and remain arrest-free pending adjudication. The goal of supervision, mitigation, and support strategies is to promote that success among the greatest number of defendants. Promote Success rather than Manage Risk
64 Risk-based Interventions Using the least restrictive interventions needed to promote court appearance and community safety 65 Goal: promote court appearance and public safety. (Excludes rehabilitation, punishment, restitution) Interventions start with OR
and progress as risk levels and behaviors warrant. Conforms to the Risk Principle and the idea of least restrictive conditioning. No blanket conditioning. Incorporates treatment when needs become risk factors 66 Supervision Supports Effective pretrial supervision includes:
Notification to defendants of upcoming court dates Early and meaningful responses to defendant conduct Notification to the Court of defendant conduct and the possible need for supervision adjustment PSA for the District of ColumbIa: Caseloads FY 2015 67 Mental Health Services; 12.23% Ext Treatment; 3.24% PR; 24.64% High Risk Supervision; 6.95%
Monitoring; 6.60% Ext Supervision; 46.34% ALLEGHENY COUNTY Pretrial Services: Caseload 11/30/2017 (N=2,476) 68 HIGH (EM); 3.00% LOW (PHONE); 30.00% MEDIUM (IN PERSON); 67.00% LOW (PHONE) MEDIUM (IN PERSON) HIGH (EM)
69 In Kentucky, we are striving to limit costly and unproven options for release. We provide court date notifications and monitor for new criminal activity and court appearance for every defendant released. In the past 12 months, only 3% of the 135,324 people released before trial were placed on supervision. We choose to recommend release with minimal supervision for a lot of people and we get good results. For high-risk defendantsonly about 12% of all arrested peoplestandard supervision in Kentucky entails one contact (either by phone or in person) with the defendant per month, court notification and compliance verification. Even with supervision this minimal, high-risk defendants only get arrested 14% of the time while on pretrial release and 79% show up for court when scheduled. What We Know The body of knowledge about evidence-based and best Pretrial Supervision practices is still developing. Levels of supervision appear to influence outcomes, but the effect of individual conditions is an open question.
Risk assessment and outcome and performance measurement data suggest that low to moderate supervision levels are appropriate for most defendants. 70 Supervision levels tied to assessed risk levels greatly improve pretrial outcomes. Conversely, improper supervision produces poor outcomes and wastes resources. (The risk principle). Drawing on data from two states, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation examined the likelihood of new criminal arrest and failure to appear for defendants released pretrial with supervision and those released without supervision. The study found that moderate- and high-risk defendants who received pretrial supervision were more likely to appear in court, and all defendants who were supervised pretrial for 180 days or more were less likely to be arrested for new criminal activity.
Van Nostrand, M. and Lowencamp, C. 2013. Exploring the Impact of Supervision and Pretrial Outcomes. New York: LJAF 71 Supervision levels tied to assessed risk levels greatly improve pretrial outcomes. Conversely, improper supervision produces poor outcomes and wastes resources. (The risk principle). Moderate and higher risk defendants who were required to participate in ATD (e.g., drug testing, treatment, electronic monitoring) were more likely to succeed pending trial. Lower risk defendants who were required to participate in ATD pending trial were more likely to fail pending trial VanNostrand, M., & Keebler, G. (2009). Pretrial Risk Assessment in the Federal Court. Federal Probation, 72 (2)
72 73 Conditions Tied to mitigating risk of nonappearance or public safety Least restrictive Individualized (NO blanket conditions) Research about what specific conditions best mitigate which risk is lacking 74 Conditions- The research Court Notification (Appearance): Solid evidence-based practice. Should be used as a uniform intervention. Could be the baseline for low/moderate level supervision.
Conditions- The research 75 Drug testing (Appearance, Public Safety): Results are mixed and dated. Drug use often is a behavior, not a risk factor. Used when specific drug has a link to pretrial failure. Should not be a blanket condition. Dont drug test alone if there is an IOP or greater treatment need. Keeping up with drug use trends is a must. Electronic Surveillance (Safety): No evidence of safety benefit, though limited study suggests an appearance outcome benefit. Best used to monitor stay away and curfew conditions. Can encourage nonfinancial release but also increased technical violations. Possible legal issues with targeted
populations and costs imposed on defendants. 76 Conditions- The research Regular Reporting (Appearance): No significant research to date. Best used to verify court dates and as a complement to other conditions. Treatment (Appearance and Safety): Lets Talk. Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Infractions versus Violations Addressing failures to appear and arrests Reporting compliance to Court Sequential bail review Need versus Risk 77 78 AC-OK (Mental Health Section) 1. Have you experienced serious depression (felt sadness, hopelessness, loss of interest, change of appetite or sleep pattern, difficulty going about your daily activities)? Yes No 2. Have you experienced thoughts of harming yourself? Yes No 3. Have you experienced a period of time when your thinking speeds up and you have trouble keeping up with your thoughts?
Yes No 4. Have you attempted suicide? Yes No 5. Have you had periods of time where you felt that you could not trust family or friends. Yes No Have you been prescribed medication for any psychological or emotional problem? 7. Have you experienced hallucinations (heard or seen things others do not hear or see)? Yes No Yes No AC-OK Substance Use Section
8. Have you been preoccupied with drinking alcohol and/or using other drugs? Yes No 9. Have you experienced problems caused by drinking alcohol and/or using other drugs, and you kept using? Yes No 10. Do you, at times, drink alcohol and/or use other drugs more than you intended? Yes No 11. Have you needed to drink more alcohol and/or use more drugs to get the same effect you used to get with less? Yes No 12. Do you, at times, drink alcohol and/or use other drugs to alter the way you feel? Yes No 13. Have you tried to stop drinking alcohol and/or using other drugs, but couldnt? Yes No 79
AC-OK Trauma Section 14. 15. 80 Have you ever been hit, slapped, kicked, emotionally or sexually hurt, or threatened by someone? Yes No Have you experienced a traumatic event and since had repeated nightmares/dreams and/or anxiety which interferes with you leading a normal life? Yes No Maine Pretrial administers this in lock-up.
Further screening is administered if warranted. Includes ODARA (Ontario Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment) TCU-V (Texas Christian University Substance Use V) Columbia Suicide Risk Severity Screen MHSF III (Mental Health Screening Form III) 81 Questions? 82 measure [meZHr] VERB 1.ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units or by comparing it with an object
of known size. 2. calculate compute estimate count meter Measuring for Results USING OUTCOME AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO ACHIEVE MISSION AND GOALS Session Goals Improve rates and results of pretrial release, public safety, and court appearance 83
Create a resultsoriented culture that values mission-related strategic functions Define pretrial agencies value in a highfunctioning justice system Promote smarter decisions about agency resources, quality and effectiveness 84
Data are good Results are better 85 When you have mastered numbers, you will in fact no longer be reading numbers, any more than you read words when reading books. You will be reading meanings. Statistics are used like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination Harold S. Geneen Vince Scully The Issue Many pretrial agencies dont know how to define success or measure progress towards strategic outcomes. A focus on busy data prevents leaders from
measuring what really matters to their programs, systems, defendants and communities. BOTTOM LINE: Pretrial Leaders must move from data driven to results oriented. 86 Goals Achieve better results in public safety, court appearance and defendant accountability Create a results-oriented culture that values mission-related strategic functions Allow pretrial agencies to show through solid performance oriented information their value in a high-functioning criminal justice system Allow better decisions on agency resources, quality and effectiveness 87 Measurement Promotes Results
o Shifts the organizations focus from activities to results, from how a program operates to the good it accomplishes o Frees leaders to lead o Focuses and motivates management and staff on common goals and purposes o Identifies what works and whats promising o Positions organization within the system and community as successful, increasing support and resources 88 89 Measures are numeric (rates, totals) or qualitative (perception, feedback) indicators of how well an organization performs its mission-related and strategic functions. Outcome measures focus on mission Performance measures gauge operational goals that support the mission.
90 Inputs: Resources used to produce goods or services, including human, financial, facility, or material resources. Example: number of defendants supervised, number of defendants needing treatment or community service placements. Outputs: Indicators that count an organizations services and goods. Example: the number of assessments, program placements, sanctions imposed. 91 Efficiencies: Indicators of an organizations achieving a stated target. Example: percent of defendants sanctioned for noncompliance. Outcomes: Indicators of the actual impact of an organization's actions. An outcome measure is a means for quantified comparison between
the actual result and the intended result. Example: Appearance, safety, success and recidivism. 92 www.nicic.gov/library/025172 93 Appearance rate: the percentage of supervised defendants who make all scheduled court appearances. Recommended Data: Cases with a verified pretrial release and/or placement to the pretrial program and the subset of this population that have no bench warrants/capiases issued for missed scheduled court appearances. The appearance rate also may be tracked by various defendant populations, although the primary group targeted should be defendants released to the agencys supervision. Safety rate: the percentage of supervised defendants who are not charged with a new offense during case adjudication. A new offense is one: whose offense date occurs during the defendants period of pretrial release;
that includes a prosecutorial decision to charge; and that carries the potential of incarceration or community supervision upon conviction. This excludes arrest warrants executed during the pretrial period for offenses committed before the defendants case filing. Recommended Data: the number of defendants with a verified pretrial release or placement to the pretrial program and the subset of this population with no rearrests on a new offense. Programs also may track separate safety rates by charges type (for example, misdemeanors, felonies or local ordinance offenses) or severity (violent crimes, domestic violence offenses or property crimes) or by defendant populations. 94 95 Concurrence rate: the ratio of defendants whose supervision level or detention status corresponds to their assessed risk of pretrial misconduct. This measure excludes defendants detained on statutory holds, probation or parole warrants or holds and detainers from other jurisdictions. Recommended Data: the number of release and detention recommendations and subsequent release and detention outcomes.
96 Success rate: the percentage of released defendants who are 1) not revoked for technical violations, 2) appear for all scheduled court appearances, and 3) remain arrest-free. The measure excludes defendants that are detained following a guilty verdict and those revoked due to non pretrial related holds. Recommended Data: the total number of defendants released to the program and the subset of this population that experience no condition violations, failures to appear or rearrests. Creating Measures 97 Mission Outcome I Outcome II
Strategic Area 1 Strategic Area 2 Outcome III Goals Strategic Area 3 Objectives Performance Measure 1 Performance Measure 2 Performance Measure 3 Lessons on Implementation o Tie measures to mission, goals and objectives. Use performance measurement to track progress and direction toward strategic objectives.
o Use results for mission-driven items. Performance data should be the foundation for new initiatives, budgets, strategic planning, and priorities. o Create a measurement framework and advertise it at all levels. Everyone must know how measures relate to their work. Accountability is key as is knowing that what you do is worthwhile. o Create positive measurement systems. Successful performance frameworks are not "gotcha" systems, but learning environments that help the organization identify what works/what doesnt and continue with/improve on what works and fix/replace what doesnt. 98 NAPSA 4th EDITION RELEASE STANDARDS (condensed) 99 PART IV: Pretrial Services Agencies Purposes, management and functions of a pretrial services agency.
Pretrial services agency organization and management. Procedures for defendant background investigations. Procedures for applying validated risk assessment, making bail recommendations to court, and monitoring and supervising released defendants. Confidentiality and release of information guidelines. 100 Questions?