prEtriAL DEtEntion &
Community SupErviSion
b e s t p r ac t i c e s a n d r e s o u r c e s f o r c a l i f o r n i a co u n t i e s

september 2012
sharon aungst
editor

County AB 109 Plans

1

cafwd.org/pce

preface

California Forward launched the Partnership for Community Excellence (Partnership) in December 2011 to assist
counties to envision, design and implement their own strategies to effectively implement new responsibilities
related to the adult criminal justice Realignment under Assembly Bill 109 and related legislation. The
Partnership’s goal is to provide actionable information to local leaders and agencies so they can make smart
decisions in building capacity, choosing evidence-based programs, and measuring and improving results.
Realignment also creates an opportunity for counties to examine new governance models that will help them
achieve better outcomes in other areas of local government. Good governance is centered on collaborative
planning, using models and services shown to work, and measuring and improving results. Given the diversity
of California, these good governance practices can be expected to result in different strategies. There is no
“one right way,” yet government must be accountable to Californians for results. Adopting effective governance
models will assist counties to improve transparency, accountability and results. Public leaders need accurate and
up-to-date information in order to make good decisions and drive system change.
Effective pretrial practices are important to the success of Realignment and improving public safety, given that
71 percent of jail beds currently are occupied by pretrial detainees. Making pretrial release decisions based
on a detainee’s risk and needs, versus their ability to post bail, is key to improving public safety and offender
outcomes. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of best practices and practical information to
assist county leaders in determining how pretrial programs could assist their local jurisdiction. The report
includes the following:
•	

Summary of national pretrial best practices;

•	

Summary of five California counties’ experiences in effectively implementing pretrial programs;

•	

Suggestions related to offender tracking and data collection and analysis;

•	

Issues for consideration in implementing a pretrial program; and,

•	

Resources including technical assistance available to counties.

We are grateful to the Partnership’s team of collaborators for their expertise and efforts in developing this report.
Members include:
LEAD: Lenore Anderson, Director, Californians for Safety and Justice
Linda Connelly, President, Leaders in Community Alternatives
Meghan Guevara, Managing Associate, Crime and Justice Institute
Brian Heller de Leon, Policy and Government Outreach Coordinator, Center on Juvenile
and Criminal Justice
Allen Hopper, Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Director, ACLU of Northern California
Catherine McCracken, Program Director, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Dan Macallair, Executive Director, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Mark Morris, Criminal Justice Consultant
Sharon Aungst, Director, Partnership for Community Excellence
Kathy Jett, Consultant, Partnership for Community Excellence
Danielle Williams, Project Associate, Partnership for Community Excellence
The Partnership strives to provide non-partisan, factual, actionable information and quality reports to those
involved in implementing, or who have an interest in, Realignment. We want to improve the quality of our work
over time so we welcome all suggestions and advice regarding this report as well as topics and other information
to be included in future reports.

For more information or to provide feedback, please contact:
Sharon Aungst, Director, The Partnership for Community Excellence
sharon@cafwd.org
916-529-0912
cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

2

4

Introduction

6

Pretrial Issues in California Counties

7

High Rates of Pretrial Detention across California
Presumptive Bail and the Absence of Individualized Risk Assessment
National Best Practices in Managing Pretrial Arrestees

9

Contents

Executive summary

Pretrial Services Programs
Pretrial Investigations
National Standards
Risk Assessment for Pretrial Arrestees
National Examples of the Use of Pretrial Best Practices
Court Notification
Electronic Monitoring
Pretrial Supervision
The Use of Pretrial Services Programs in California

14

Marin County
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
San Francisco County
Yolo County
Tracking the Non-Non-Non (N3) Population

20

Data on Pretrial Populations
County Pretrial Data Analysis
Statewide Data Analysis
Issues for Consideration

23

Assessing Pretrial Populations and Applying Data to Policy
Justice System Data
Challenges to Implementation
Garnering Local Support for Reform
Resources for California Counties

26

A Sampling of Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools
Pretrial Assistance to California Counties (PACC) Project
PACC Timeline
Site Selection
Technical Assistance
Californians for Safety and Justice, The Local Solutions Project
Publications
Bibliography

3

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

29

cafwd.org/pce

executive summary

The 2011 Public Safety Realignment (Realignment) is the most significant criminal
justice legislation passed in three decades in California. Realignment moved authority,
responsibility and accountability to counties for non-serious, non-violent and non-sex
offenders formerly sentenced to state prisons. The State retained responsibility for
serious, violent and sex offenders. This change allows counties to have more flexibility
to develop local solutions to improve results. The legislation anticipates that counties
would invest in community-based supervision and treatment to reduce long-term
recidivism. This shift of state responsibilities to local government poses many challenges
and opportunities.
One challenge of Realignment is the lack of jail beds available for locally sentenced
offenders and parole and probation violators.  In California, 32 out of 58 counties plan
to add new jails or expand lockups, one of the most expensive ways to reduce risk other
than prisons.  Given the significant expense of constructing and operating jail beds,
counties may want to consider alternatives that would reduce the demand for jail beds
while maintaining public safety. Among the alternatives are pretrial programs that
assess risk and manage in the community those defendants who are low risk for flight
and committing a new crime.
In California, 71 percent of jail beds are filled with pretrial detainees, from very low risk to
high risk. That compares to 61 percent nationally. Whether or not detainees are released
often is based on their ability to pay bail versus their risk. As a result, many defendants
who are considered low risk for flight and to commit a new crime are detained in jails
because they cannot afford bail. The higher rate of pretrial detention coupled with plans
to allocate considerable funds to build and operate new jail beds are reasons for counties
to carefully consider whether establishing a pretrial program could reduce cost while
maintaining public safety.
Many California counties have significantly reduced their need for expensive jail beds by
implementing pretrial programs that use assessments to determine risk and then release
detainees who are low risk for flight and committing new crimes on own recognizance
(OR) or an OR bond with some form of supervision.
A review of the pretrial programs in five California counties (Marin, Santa Clara, Santa
Cruz, San Francisco and Yolo) found that all had positive outcomes related to the
number of pretrial detainees in jails, defendant court appearance rates, and new crimes
committed. A recent study of Santa Clara County’s pretrial program concluded that the
program saves the county $32 million per year.
The American Bar Association and the National Association of Pretrial Services
Agencies have promulgated standards for pretrial programs, which call for limiting
the circumstances under which pretrial detention may be authorized and providing
procedural safeguards to govern pretrial detention proceedings. This standard is based
on the law which favors the release of defendants pending adjudication of charges.
Though the research on effective pretrial programming is not as robust as in some other
areas of corrections, evidence does point to the benefit of pretrial risk assessment and the
implementation of a continuum of pretrial supervision options.
Risk and needs assessment is a core component of any pretrial program. Objective
risk and needs assessment tools that have been validated for the local population are

cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

4

critical to determining which defendants are low risk for flight and committing a new crime
and determining services needed to reduce risk (e.g. drug treatment/testing, intensive or nonintensive supervision).
It is critical that data are collected and analyzed to determine the impact of Realignment, both at
the state and local level. Counties have agreed to provide some important, yet basic, data to assist
in evaluating Realignment. Counties considering implementation of a pretrial program should
collect and analyze data on individual defendants  – failure to appear and commission of new
crimes – and on system outcomes.  Pretrial services is part of a system, requiring several entities
(courts, probation, law enforcement , etc.) to work together and it is important that the pretrial
programs help assist the system in achieving overall goals.
Issues to consider in implementing pretrial programs include:
1.	 Each part of the criminal justice system must rely on information and data from other
entities to effectively implement its responsibilities. Officials should consider early on
how best to share information and data systems.
2.	 Implementation of new programs requires changes at the staff level so it is critical to
involve staff in the process and provide training so the change is well understood and
accepted as a new way to do business.
3.	 For new programs to work, the necessary infrastructure must be in place.  The lack of
sufficient community programs in many counties hampers efforts to provide alternatives
to detention and incarceration.
4.	 Misinformation and a lack of understanding of evidence-based alternatives continues to
be a primary concern around Realignment. State and local elected officials, as well as the
public, struggle with the complexity and the risks associated with various proposals and
decisions. Counties should educate and involve their elected officials and the public in
their planning if they are to garner support for innovative and evidence-based strategies.
5.	 Data and analysis are useful in informing policy at the state and local level and in
demonstrating results to key stakeholders and the public.
A number of resources are available to counties that want to consider implementing a pretrial
program. The Crime and Justice Institute will be working with two counties to implement pretrial
programs. Californians for Safety and Justice, partnering with various experts, will be providing
direct support to counties that are building innovative approaches to increase safety and reduce
justice system costs. Pretrial services is one of their areas of focus. A bibliography of important
resources also is provided.

5

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

cafwd.org/pce

INTRODUCTION

The 2011 Public Safety Realignment (Realignment) is the most significant criminal justice
legislation passed in three decades in California. This legislation resulted from the convergence of
a poor economy and a resulting tight state budget with a federal court order, subsequently upheld
by the U.S. Supreme Court, to reduce California’s prison population from 170,000 inmates (2011)
to 110,000 by June 2013 and to maintain an overcrowding rate of no more than 137.5 percent.  A
recent report shows that California has achieved two-thirds of the population reduction required
by the court (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice [CJCJ], 2012a).

71 percent of jail
beds are filled with
pretrial detainees,
from very low
risk to high risk.
Whether or not
detainees are
released is based
on their ability
to pay bail versus
their risk.

Realignment moved authority, responsibility and accountability to counties for non-serious,
non-violent and non-sex offenders formerly sentenced to state prisons The State retained
responsibility for serious, violent and sex offenders. This change allows counties to have more
flexibility to develop local solutions to improve results. Realignment contemplated that counties
would invest in community-based supervision and treatment to reduce long-term recidivism. This
shift in the state and local relationship poses many challenges and opportunities.
One challenge of Realignment is the lack of jail beds available for locally sentenced offenders and
parole and probation violators. There are a number of ways to address this problem and each
county has important choices to make.
In California, 32 out of 58 counties plan to add new jails or expand lockups, one of the most
expensive ways to reduce risk other than prisons.  Interestingly, 71 percent of jail beds are filled
with pretrial detainees, from very low risk to high risk. Whether or not detainees are released is
based on their ability to pay bail versus their risk.  Many counties have significantly reduced their
need for expensive jail beds by implementing pretrial programs that use risk assessments to
determine risk and then release detainees who are low risk for flight and reoffending, on an own
recognizance (OR) bond, or under some form of supervision.
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of pretrial models and practices so counties
can make informed decisions about how pretrial services could cost-effectively improve public
safety outcomes.

This report highlights:

1 Best practices in safe and cost-effective pretrial practices
2 Examples of pretrial programs from select California counties
3 Lessons learned by counties currently implementing pretrial services
for consideration by local leaders in adopting and implementing
pretrial services
4 Issues
list of publications that provide a more thorough analysis of pretrial
5 Aissues
and best practices
6 Technical assistance that will be available to counties

cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

6

h i g h r at e s o f p r e t r i a l
detention across california
Data from the Board of State and Community Corrections shows that the percentage of
individuals awaiting trial in California’s county has risen 12 points from 1995 through the third
quarter of 2011 (Board of State and Community Corrections [BSCC], 2011). That proportion was
71 percent for most of 2011 and the same in 2010, above the national average of 61 percent
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011) comprising roughly 50,000 of the 71,000 jail inmates in the
state.
Many factors affect whether or not a defendant is detained prior to trial. One of the most
prominent factors is whether or not the defendant can make bail. The current bail system is
intended to ensure that defendants who have been determined not to pose a public safety
risk appear for their scheduled court dates.  In practice, however, individualized assessment
of defendants’ public safety and flight risk are routinely forgone, making pretrial release less
a question of public safety and more a question of defendants’ financial ability (Center on
Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2012b).  The lack of individualized risk assessment at the time of
arraignment has contributed to the high rates of pretrial detention.  Individuals with financial
means, such as a home to use as collateral, can secure release and return to their jobs, families,
and communities. Others who cannot raise the necessary collateral must stay in jail, for several
months in some cases, and may more readily accept a plea bargain as a result (Patterson &
Lynch, 1991) (Clark & Kurtz, 1983) (Rankin, 1964) (Foote, 1954) as cited in (ACLU of California
[ACLU], 2012). Disproportionate outcomes also have occurred as a result of an defendant’s race
and ethnicity. Latino and black defendants are more likely than white defendants to be held in
custody because of an inability to post bail (Demuth, 2003) as cited in (ACLU, 2012).
Public defenders and private defense counsel across the state report that a substantial number
of the pretrial detainees in county jails have bail set, but cannot afford to post bail. Few, if any,
counties currently track specific information about their jail populations.  Data reported to and
maintained by the State combines all unsentenced prisoners without identifying who among
them had bail set, and many remain in jail pending trial because they cannot post the court
ordered bail amount. Better data collection by counties indicating who is held in lieu of bail and
the reason(s) would greatly facilitate the implementation of improvements (ACLU, 2012).

The lack of
individualized risk
assessment at the
time of arraignment
has contributed to
the high rates of
pretrial detention.

pretrial issues in California counties

p r e t r i al i ss u es
i n cal i f o r n i a c o u n t i es

presumptive bail and absence of
individualized risk assessment
The California Penal Code requires judges to consider a number of factors when setting bail and
deciding the terms of pretrial release, including the defendant’s history of criminal convictions,
past failure to appear in court, and the impact of pretrial release on victims (California Constitution) (California Penal Code) (Administrative Office of the Courts [AOC], 2011) (Clark v. Superior
Court, 1992) (Ex Parte Ruef, 1908) (In re Christie, 2001) (In re Burnette, 1939) (People v. Gilliam,
1974) as cited in (ACLU, 2012). Despite this, counties have gradually transitioned to a presumptive bail system, where judges set bail according to the figure listed in the county bail schedule,
without meaningful consideration of the specific circumstances of the defendant or the alleged

7

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

cafwd.org/pce

offense. As a result, many people who present no public safety or flight risk remain in jail prior to
trial, while others who do present a public safety risk are released because they can afford to post
the scheduled bail amount.
Bail schedules also vary widely from county to county. Presumptive bail for possession of a controlled substance under California Health and Safety Code section 11350 can range from $5,000 in
San Diego to $25,000 in San Bernardino (California County Superior Courts, 2011). Relying solely
on a county schedule to set bail raises serious due process concerns.  The lack of individualized
pretrial risk assessment has already led some courts outside of California to hold that presumptive
bail practices violate defendants’ due process rights (Carlson, 2011) as cited in (ACLU, 2012).
The increased cost of bail has resulted in the advancement of the commercial bond industry in
California and significant statewide losses.  According to a 2010 investigative series by National
Public Radio, bail bond companies routinely fail to pay counties when their clients fail to appear
for court. The series reported that in California bond companies owe counties $150 million (NPR,
2010).
The information discussed above evidences incongruence with regard to bail issues. There is,
however, a great deal of research on individualized risk assessment.  According to an extensive
review by the Vera Institute (which includes ample national models and sample risk assessment
inventories), much of the research on pretrial release has focused on risk assessment and supervision practices that help reduce pretrial failure while protecting the rights of the individual (Vera
Institute of Justice, 2010).  

cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

8

As the public safety system moves towards greater collaboration across agencies (often referred
to as a systems approach), the pretrial stage of the criminal justice process is gaining increasing
attention as the first opportunity to focus on risk reduction of offenders.  Though the research on
effective pretrial programming is not as robust as in some other areas of corrections, evidence
does point to the benefit of pretrial risk assessment and the implementation of a continuum of
pretrial supervision options. Below is a brief discussion of the national pretrial landscape, as well as
references to more in-depth explorations of the subject.

pretrial services programs
Pretrial release programs generally serve two primary functions:
1.	 They supply information to the court on which to base pretrial release decisions; and,
2.	 They provide a range of supervision options for defendants who are released to the
community with terms of release.
Pretrial programs focus on a defendant’s risk to re-offend and to fail to appear. These programs
can supplement a bail system that includes surety bonds. They also can replace bonds with a
system based solely on risk as recommended in the American Bar Association’s (ABA) national
pretrial standards. When used effectively, pretrial programs can uphold the presumption of
release as outlined in federal law, reduce unnecessary incarceration, and help maintain public
safety.

p r e t r i a l i n v e s t i g at i o n s
Pretrial investigations generally include an interview with the defendant, a review of court
records and other collateral information, and a formal report presented to the court. The types
of information collected in pretrial investigations can vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Federal law allows judges to consider a number of factors, including the nature of the alleged
offense, drug and alcohol use, mental health, employment, and ties to the community; state
statute or court rule may refine the list of elements for local courts.  As part of the overall pretrial
investigation, evidence-based pretrial agencies also conduct an objective pretrial risk assessment
to evaluate risk of flight and re-offense. The data elements that are predictive of risk often are only
a subset of the information considered by a judge. (See pretrial risk assessment discussion below.)
The supervision function of pretrial programs varies widely.  It is important to highlight that
pretrial programs can be administered by probation departments, sheriffs, the courts, or
independent agencies, public or private, and statute may dictate who can be supervised and in
what manner. Evidence suggests that the intensity of supervision should be linked to risk, with
low risk offenders receiving passive supervision, or none at all, and high risk offenders receiving
active supervision (Latessa, 2012). Passive supervision, which is reported back to the court,
includes periodic reviews of defendant’s terms of release to identify changes in eligibility such as a
change in employment status. More active interventions include court date reminders, electronic
monitoring, or home confinement.  Additionally, pretrial services programs may assist defendants
by addressing needs such as employment and medical care. National standards are available to
provide guidance for how programs should operationalize these goals.  
9

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

The pretrial stage
of the criminal
justice process is
gaining increasing
attention as the first
opportunity to focus
on risk reduction
of offenders.

national best practices in managing pretrial arrestees

n at i o n al bes t p r ac t i ces i n
m a n a g i n g p r e t r i al a r es t ees

cafwd.org/pce

N at i o n a l S ta n d a r d s

Taken together,
the ABA and
NAPSA standards
present details for
introducing effective
practices into all
facets of pretrial
decision making.

Two organizations have promulgated standards for pretrial: the ABA and the National Association
of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA). The ABA standards, updated in 2007 and currently under
revision, provide guidance on pretrial decision-making from arrest through the court process. The
ABA states that “[t]he purposes of the pretrial release decision include providing due process to
those accused of crime, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process by securing defendants
for trial, and protecting victims, witnesses and the community from threat, danger or interference.
The law favors the release of defendants pending adjudication of charges. Deprivation of liberty
pending trial is harsh and oppressive, subjects defendants to economic and psychological hardship,
interferes with their ability to defend themselves, and, in many instances, deprives their families of
support.  These standards limit the circumstances under which pretrial detention may be authorized
and provide procedural safeguards to govern pretrial detention proceedings” (American Bar
Association [ABA], Criminal Justice Section, 2007a).
In principle, the standards favor maintaining defendants in the least restrictive environment
necessary to ensure public safety and a return to court, as well as balancing due process rights with
objective risk assessment and placement decisions. The ABA also advocates for the abolition of
commercial surety systems (i.e. bail bondsmen) (ABA, 2007).
The following standards on pretrial release were approved by the ABA in 2002 and were published
with commentary in ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Pretrial Release, Third Edition, 2007.
(American Bar Association [ABA], Criminal Justice Section, 2007b).  Counties can find more details
on the individual standards from the ABA website at http://www.americanbar.org/publications/
criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_pretrialrelease_toc.html.
The NAPSA standards purposefully align with the ABA standards, but also provide additional detail
on the operation of effective pretrial services agencies, from the structure and management of a
supervision program to responses to violations (National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies
[NAPSA], 2004). Taken together, the two documents present details for introducing effective
practices into all facets of pretrial decision making. This begins with risk assessment.

ABA Standards on Pretrial release
PART I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Standard 10-1.1 Purposes of the pretrial release decision
Standard 10-1.2       Release under least restrictive conditions; diversion and other 	 	
	
alternative release options
Standard 10-1.3       Use of citations and summonses
Standard 10-1.4 Conditions of release
Standard 10-1.5 Pretrial release decision may include diversion and other adjudication 		
	
alternatives supported by treatment programs
Standard 10-1.6 Detention as an exception to policy favoring release
Standard 10-1.7 Consideration of the nature of the charge in determining release 			
options
Standard 10-1.8       Pretrial release decision should not be influenced by publicity or public 	 	
opinion
Standard 10-1.9       Implication of policy favoring release for supervision in the community
Standard 10-1.10 The role of the pretrial services agency

cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

10

ABA Standards on Pretrial release (cont.)

PART II. RELEASE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ACTING WITHOUT AN ARREST WARRANT
Standard 10-2.1

Policy favoring issuance of citations

Standard 10-2.2

Mandatory issuance of citation for minor offenses

Standard 10-2.3       Permissive authority to issue citations in all cases
Standard 10-2.4

Lawful searches

PART III. ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS IN LIEU OF ARREST
Standard 10-3.1       Authority to issue summons
Standard 10-3.2       Mandatory issuance of summons
Standard 10-3.3       Application for an arrest warrant or summons
PART IV. RELEASE BY JUDICIAL OFFICER AT FIRST APPEARANCE OR ARRAIGNMENT
Standard 10-4.1       Prompt first appearance
Standard 10-4.2       Investigation prior to first appearance: development of background 	
	
information to support release or detention determination

	

Standard 10-4.3       Nature of first appearance
PART V. THE RELEASE AND DETENTION DECISIONS
Standard 10-5.1       Release on defendant’s own recognizance
Standard 10-5.2

Conditions on release

Standard 10-5.3       Release on financial conditions
Standard 10-5.4

Release order provisions

Standard 10-5.5

Willful failure to appear or to comply with conditions

Standard 10-5.6
	

Sanctions for violations of conditions of release, including revocation 		
of release

Standard 10-5.7

Basis for temporary pretrial detention for defendants on release

Standard 10-5.8       Grounds for pretrial detention
Standard 10-5.9

Eligibility for pretrial detention and initiation of the detention hearing

Standard 10-5.10
	

Procedures governing pretrial detention hearings: judicial orders for 		
detention and appellate review

Standard 10-5.11

Requirement for accelerated trial for detained defendants

Standard 10-5.12
		

Re-examination of the release or detention decision: status reports 		
regarding pretrial detention

Standard 10-5.13      Trial
Standard 10-5.14

Credit for pre-adjudication detention

Standard 10-5.15

Temporary release of a detained defendant for compelling necessity

Standard 10-5.16     Circumstances of confinement of defendants detained pending 	 	
adjudication

	

PART VI. NOTICE TO VICTIMS OF CRIME
Standard 10-6.1

11

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

Judicial assurance of notice to victims

cafwd.org/pce

Risk Assessment for Pretrial Arrestees

A 2011 analysis
identifies factors that
have been shown to
relate to pretrial risk,
including criminal
history, prior failures
to appear, alcohol and
transportation. Items
that are generally not
correlated with risk
include age, family,
and length of time at
current residence.

The goals of pretrial detention are to ensure that defendants return to court, and to protect public
safety. The challenge lies in successfully predicting who is at risk to fail to appear or to commit
a new crime, and setting release terms that mitigate that risk, all while protecting a defendant’s
rights. Many jurisdictions use a bond schedule that links the severity of the alleged offense to
a dollar amount, but there is no research to indicate whether or not this accurately predicts or
mitigates risk. Conversely, research does show that certain elements of a defendant’s past and
current behavior and circumstances are predictive of risk, and can be accurately measured. For
more information on assessing pretrial risk, see State of the Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment,
published by the Pretrial Justice Institute (Mamalian, 2011).
Pretrial risk assessment tools function by considering a number of factors about the defendant
and assigning points for each factor that increases the defendant’s risk. The points are then
translated into a risk level (usually low, moderate, or high), and used to inform a supervision
recommendation to the court. Pretrial risk tools are not designed to assist in assigning an amount
of surety bond, since there is no research to support such a tie, and since the ability to pay a bond
is more closely linked to economic circumstances than to risk.
A 2011 analysis identifies factors that have been shown to relate to pretrial risk, including criminal
history, prior failures to appear, alcohol and transportation.  Items that are generally not correlated
with risk include age, family, and length of time at current residence. However, the study does
caution that significant factors can vary between jurisdictions, and each jurisdiction needs
to complete its own analysis when either developing a new tool or adopting an existing one.
Fortunately, the brevity of these types of instruments and the volume of cases going before the
court often makes this validation analysis relatively quick and feasible. Engaging in a validation
study ensures that the risk assessment instrument being used in a jurisdiction is predictive and
achieves desired public safety goals (Bechtel, Lowenkamp, & Holsinger, 2011).

N at i o n a l E x a m p l e s o f t h e U s e o f P r e t r i a l B e s t P r a c t i c e s
The body of research on effective pretrial programs is growing steadily, and provides lessons
learned from around the country. The following examples are drawn from the State of the Science
of Pretrial Release Recommendations and Supervision (VanNostrand, Rose, & Weibrecht, 2011).
Court Notification
A low-cost, highly effective intervention to ensure return to court is simply to remind defendants
of their court dates, either by mail or phone, using an automated system or a person. VanNostrand, Rose and Weibrecht (2011) reviewed numerous evaluations and studies conducted
in six different states over nearly 30 years.  All the studies examined the effectiveness of court
date notification programs.  The target populations among the studies varied and ranged from
defendants issued a citation/summons for minor offenses to those charged with felony offenses.
Different approaches of notifying defendants were utilized and included (1) “live” callers such as
volunteers or paid staff to call defendants to remind them of upcoming court dates, (2) an automated calling system, (3) notification letters or post cards, and (4) a combination of notification
letters and phone calls.  All of the studies concluded that court date notifications in some form are
effective in reducing failures to appear in court.
In Multnomah County, Oregon, a randomized study compared defendants receiving automated
reminders by phone to those who did not receive calls. The study found that those who received
the reminders had a 16 percent failure to appear rate, compared to 28 percent in the comparison
group.  Coconino County (Flagstaff ), Arizona implemented a telephone reminder system using
volunteers.  Results of a randomized trial found that 25.4 percent of the control group failed to appear, while the rate for the reminder group was 12.9 percent.
cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

12

Electronic Monitoring
As an alternative to incarceration, electronic monitoring (EM) provides a way to closely track
offender movement while ideally serving as a deterrent to committing crime or leaving
town. When EM became available, many in the criminal justice system saw opportunities to
reduce jail crowding by electronically monitoring offenders in lieu of incarceration. EM has
been used as an alternative to detention for pretrial defendants for over 20 years. Although
much of the EM research focuses on the application of EM for post-conviction offenders,
there is a body of research that examines the efficacy of EM applied in pretrial settings.
Results of EM are mixed, likely due to the fact that increased monitoring makes it more likely
that the defendant will be caught violating. For example, U.S. Federal Pretrial Services found
that defendants on EM were slightly more likely to fail to appear, and to be rearrested. More
research is necessary to accurately assess the effectiveness of electronic monitoring tools
with treatment and other targeted interventions used for pretrial release.
Pretrial Supervision
The practices known collectively as “pretrial supervision” are diverse, so it is difficult to
capture their efficacy with examples.  It is known, though, that basing a system on objective risk with interventions targeted to higher risk offenders is effective with other criminal
justice populations.  A randomized study conducted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, tested
two different intervention models with moderate and high risk offenders. Though there was
no variation in outcomes depending on the type of interventions received, the two groups
did lower their risk score as compared to baseline after participating in an intervention
consisting of an orientation, phone reporting, and in some cases, in-person reporting. More
research is needed in this area to identify the relative impact of risk and the type of supervision received (Goldkamp & White, 2006).
As a field, pretrial services still has a long way to go to realize its potential in risk reduction,
population management and public safety. However, the fundamental elements for success
have been proven through research, and pioneers have discovered ways to translate those
elements into successful operations. As more criminal justice systems adopt these approaches and measure their results, counties and their courts will have better information to
make choices that cost-effectively improve public safety.

13

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

cafwd.org/pce

use of pretrial services programs in california

t h e u se o f p r e t r i al se r v i ces
p r o g r a m s i n cal i f o r n i a

Several California counties have implemented pretrial services programs, some of which have been
independently evaluated and have demonstrated positive results. Generally the goals associated
with the county pretrial programs we reviewed are:
1.	 Reduced number of jail beds used for pretrial detainees who are low risk for failure to
appear and re-offend so beds are available for sentenced offenders;
2.	 Reduced rates of re-offense;
3.	 Reduced rates of failure to appear; and,
4.	 For some, reduced recidivism.

Each county
collected and
analyzed data
on their pretrial
programs to
determine their
effectiveness.

Although all of the counties reviewed have the same goals, they have used different strategies in
designing and implementing their pretrial programs. Most importantly, they have all collected
and analyzed data on their pretrial programs to determine their effectiveness.  However, each
jurisdiction used different metrics to measure outcomes so direct comparisons of outcomes should
not be made among these counties. These counties’ pretrial programs are models for how to
effectively implement good governance strategies. Each county:
1.	 Brought together leaders from all county agencies that had a stake in the pretrial program
and worked together to develop and implement their agreed upon strategies;  
2.	 Chose practices that have demonstrated success;
3.	 Collected and analyzed data to measure progress (some had independent evaluations);
4.	 Used effective quality improvement processes to improve results; and,
5.	 Achieved positive outcomes.

Marin Count y
In 2011 the Adult Services Division of the Marin County Probation Department, , contracted with
Leaders in Community Alternatives (LCA) to provide pretrial services. The objective of the Pretrial
Release Program is to determine which defendants can be successfully released in the community
while awaiting sentencing.  The decision rationale includes:  utilizing an evidence-based risk
assessment to evaluate eligibility for community release and supervision; addressing the economic
discriminatory nature of the bail system; establishing additional validated decision-making criteria
in preparation for the impact of Realignment and AB109; and, saving costs by contracting with a
community based organization (Daly, 2012).
LCA Pretrial Services staff is based in the Marin County Probation Department, working in
cooperation with the Marin County Sheriff’s Department and the courts. Detainees are excluded
from pretrial release evaluation if they have: an U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
hold, probation violation, zero bail, or are charged with committing a heinous crime, or if they have
already been released on bail.  Utilizing the Ohio Risk Assessment System - Pretrial Assessment
Tool (ORAS-PAT), LCA Pretrial Services staff assess all eligible defendants including new arrestees
and those who have been arrested for conditional violations of probation. The ORAS-PAT consists
of seven risk variables in three dimensions (criminal history, employment and residential stability,

cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

14

and drug use) and is administered in 10 to 15 minutes involving a face-to-face interview with the
defendant in custody, with some questions verified through official records or otherwise.  Based
on the scores of these items, cut-points differentiate between groups that are low, medium, and
high risk to violate pretrial supervision (failure to appear or new arrest) (Connelly, 2012).
LCA Pretrial Services staff prepares the Pretrial Release Report following additional evaluation
of verified community ties, flight risk, and danger to self or others.  There is an override option,
based on information gained. The risk assessment score is the primary criterion for pretrial
release recommendation. Detainees with low risk scores are generally recommended for release
without conditions (OR); however Continuous Alcohol Monitoring (CAM) is considered for alcoholrelated incidents. Arrestees with medium risk scores are generally recommended for release with
conditions of appropriate electronic technology; home detention and/or CAM.  Arrestees with
high risk scores are typically not recommended for release, but release may be considered with
conditions of the appropriate electronic technology – GPS and/or CAM.  The LCA report with
recommendation to deny or to approve release, without or with varying levels of supervision, is
then submitted to Marin County Probation for review and approval, and subsequently to the court
(Daly, 2012).
LCA Pretrial Services staff only supervises defendants who have been released on electronic
supervision. Pretrial Services had no up front cost. The ongoing cost to Marin County Probation
is $25,000 annually for .5 FTE staff to conduct assessments and prepare the reports. On average,
six to eight assessments are completed each day. The cost of supervision is paid by program
participants, based on their ability to pay (sliding scale). An indigent fund is available which is
funded through AB109 (Daly, 2012).
The outcomes measured are: failure to appear, re-offense, and failing to abide by the conditions of
the electronic monitoring program during pretrial status. This information is tracked through the
court’s database system.
Below are the results for January through May 2012 for all pretrial releases under this program:
•	

79 percent successfully appeared at their next court date with no further incidents;

•	

9 percent had new charges filed;

•	

3 percent were remanded due to program violations related to electronic monitoring;
and,

•	

9 percent failed to appear.  

These results are based on 116 total releases, a relatively small sample (Connelly, 2012).

S a n ta C l a r a C o u n t y
Santa Clara’s Office of Pretrial Services was established as a separate agency in 1971. According
to Garry Herceg, director of the Office of Pretrial Services, it remains the only such independent
agency in California, although San Francisco may have a comparable agency, (Herceg, 2012).
The agency has an annual budget of about $5 million, and a recent study concluded that the
agency saves the County about $32 million per year (Santa Clara County, Board of Supervisors,
Management Audit Division, 2012).
Pretrial Services has a station in the jail booking area, staffed by a 7 FTE court team. The team has
phone and computer access to the courts, so there is no need to wait until court is in session to
make release recommendations. The program also reviews in-custody defendants regularly for
probable cause, to make recommendations regarding release and bail setting. Total FTEs for the
agency, including supervision staff, is 47.

15

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial cases also
are assessed for
substance abuse,
employment, and
housing by other
appropriate county
agencies.

Santa Clara policy is that no misdemeanors are booked except domestic violence cases (which
according to California law must be booked). Most of the work is done with low end felonies.
The Virginia Pretrial Release Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI) is used for initial screening; a
local validation study will be completed very soon. The instrument measures the likelihood of
appearance in court and likelihood of new offenses.  The VPRAI examines a defendant’s status
at the time of the arrest as it relates to the current charges, pending charges, criminal history,
residence, employment, primary caregiver, and history of drug abuse.  Initial indications from the
validation study suggest that information on mitigation factors, such as education, should be
added to the instrument.
Pretrial Services staffs Own Recognizance (OR) and Supervised OR and, reflecting the fact that most
of their cases are low level felonies, the agency is seeking to establish an Electronic Monitoring
Program (EMP). EMP currently is not operative, pending a grant for equipment. Field supervision
of cases includes weekly meetings and frequent drug testing.  Currently, there are 390 defendants
in OR and 660 in Supervised OR. The average length of supervision in 2011 was 120 days. Pretrial
cases also are assessed for substance abuse, employment, and housing (especially for transients) by
other appropriate county agencies. According to Director Herceg (2012) there is no memorandum
of understanding for coordination with these agencies.
Defendant outcomes and program performance are tracked in two distinct systems. The County
Justice Information system tracks recidivism and the Pretrial On-line Production System (POPS) for
case managers addresses need factors such as substance abuse. Outcomes data for the justicerelated variables for the first quarter of 2012 (January through March) show that 88 percent of
defendants in the pretrial program appeared for their court date and 98 percent had no new
offenses (Herceg, 2012).

S a n ta C r u z C o u n t y
Santa Cruz County, a mid-sized central coast county, has initiated several reform efforts in the last
ten years to improve services for youths and adults under their supervision. As result of deliberate
interventions through a collaborative effort between the Probation Department and the Sheriff’s
Department, Santa Cruz County’s non-sentenced jail population remains significantly below the
state average of 71 percent (BSCC, 2011) with a non-sentenced jail population of 53.8 percent in
2010 (Smith & Penny, 2012).
Santa Cruz County historically faced the challenge of jail overcrowding after the construction of
its main jail in 1981.  In 2004 justice administrators formed a strategic task force in response to
a county grand jury report that highlighted unsafe and crowded conditions in the jail facilities.
Shortly thereafter, a comprehensive study was conducted of the Probation Department’s practices
(Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2012c) This study led to an expansion of the county’s
pretrial services program, housed in the probation department.
The expansion included stationing four deputy probation officers in the jail booking area, forming
a new unit within the department. This created a streamlined process of conducting best practice
risk assessments. The process was enhanced because of the probation department’s wellestablished relationship with the Sheriff’s Department. The pretrial services staff does not provide
services on a 24-hour basis; however, the officers are stationed in the jail from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. seven
days a week.
Staff from the Pretrial Services Unit (PTS Unit) utilize the Virginia Pretrial Release Risk Assessment
Instrument (VPRAI), which is built into the development of their report for the court.  This risk
assessment tool is connected to the Sheriff’s booking case management system (CMS). This
interconnection is essential as information will generate into the risk assessment if already
contained in the CMS.

cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

16

Pre-arraignment release is the unit’s first priority.  If not eligible for this release, the probation
officer will conduct a full interview for further eligibility assessment. During this process, the
officer verifies the individual’s residence and employment.  Additionally, if it is relevant, the
probation officer will contact the victim. The report is then submitted to the court for the judge’s
decision. To determine eligibility, the probation officer determines whether or not the individual
will remain law abiding and appear for scheduled court dates.
The probation department utilizes the standards of the California Association of Pretrial Services
as a guide. A low risk score does not automatically result in release. The probation officer can
override a score and provide reasons for the override to the court.  In Santa Cruz County, to be
eligible for pretrial services individuals must be under county jurisdiction. Therefore, individuals
who are from out-of-state or who have out-of-county warrants are not eligible.
The PTS Unit is internally responsible for collecting and analyzing data.  The unit is most interested
in two indexes, appearance rates and new violation and/or technical violations.
The unit is held in high regard among local law enforcement.  Its success is due, in part, to its wellestablished relationship with the courts and the sheriff’s department. This allows the PTS Unit
staff access to additional information with ease and efficiency (Smith & Penny, 2012).

San Francisco Count y

A low risk score does
not automatically
result in release.
The probation officer
can override a score
and provide reasons
for the override to
the court.

The San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project, Inc. (SFPDP) was established in 1976 through a
collaborative effort with the San Francisco Bar Association, a contingent of judges from the
Municipal Courts, and a group of citizen-advocates concerned about un-sentenced incarcerated
individuals.  SFPDP has an annual budget of $3.4 million and operates nine different pretrial best
practice programs that have significantly reduced San Francisco’s un-sentenced population over
the last 35 years.  These programs have provided rehabilitation and mental health programming
for thousands of individuals (Rodriguez & McCovey, 2012).
Pretrial services in San Francisco are almost entirely managed by a single non-profit agency that
is funded directly through contracts with the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department. Memorandums
of understanding are not formally established with local criminal justice agencies, but rather
with partnering organizations through contracts.  A significant portion of SFPDP’s contracts are
established through a local Request for Proposal (RFP) process managed by the San Francisco
Sheriff’s Department. The signed contracts clearly delineate expectations and accountability
measurements.
Of SFPDP’s nine programs, three demonstrate an innovative approach to both the real needs of
their clients as well as the realities and gaps that exist within the San Francisco judicial system.
The Supervised Pretrial Release program (SPR) and the Own Recognizance program (OR) are
both designed to serve felony defendants and provide judges with real alternatives to detention
pending trial. Both programs involve thorough risk assessments and considerations of criminal
history, “OR work-ups,” that are provided to judges during pre-arraignment and pre-booking.  In
the OR program, duty judges review cases before arraignment to determine whether or not the
individual qualifies for an OR release.  The conditions of an OR release are relatively minimal, with
the main requirement being a daily check-in with the SFPDP, the supervising agency.
In those cases where judges determine a greater need for structure and programming support for
the individual, a judge can provide for release to the SPR program through the agency. Through
this program, judges can mandate a broad spectrum of classes and group sessions for individuals,
based on the determined needs. Through the agency’s Court-Accountable Case Management
Center, individuals on SPR take classes and participate in group sessions focused on substance

17

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

cafwd.org/pce

abuse, mental health concerns (including dual diagnosis), anger management, domestic violence,
as well as groups for the specific needs of women and youth.
A third program focuses specifically on homeless felony defendants.  The San Francisco judicial
system had traditionally struggled with a large number of homeless persons who were spending
long periods of time as pretrial detainees in local jails. The SFPDP adapted a program started
by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) that provided intensive one-on-one case
management to homeless defendants currently in custody. Case managers develop a treatment
plan that includes a range of counseling and life skills options. Positive results are seen in the large
drops of homeless defendants using jail beds that could be used for more high-risk defendants or
sentenced offenders (Rodriguez & McCovey, 2012).
Using the FileMaker Pro database system, the agency tracks both failure to appear (FTA) rates, as
well as successful and unsuccessful completion of the court-mandated programming. The data
provided by SFPDP are as follows:
1.	 For defendants with both felony and misdemeanor charges, the Structured Pretrial Release
program (SPR) has only a 3 percent failure to appear rate, and that rate has been trending
downwards over the past several years.
2.	 The Pretrial Diversion Program, which focuses exclusively on defendants with
misdemeanor charges, showed a 73 percent successful completion rate in 2010 with
another 12 percent of cases successfully completing the program in the following years.
The program had a 15 percent failure rate of defendants failing to comply with the courtordered components of the program.

One of the ongoing
struggles the agency
faces is how to
maintain up-todate technology
to most effectively
track clients,
process results, and
disseminate that
information to their
partnering agencies.

3.	 The agency’s No Violence Program (NoVA), a collaborative effort established by the San
Francisco Sheriff’s Department, is the only program that tracks long-term recidivism.
NoVA is specifically geared for offenders with violent histories, and showed a 0 percent
recidivism rate from two to five years after detainees left the program.  The only individual
to recidivate did so five years after exiting the program.
San Francisco has the fourth lowest rate of jail incarceration in the state. The city relies heavily on
alternatives to incarceration for its sentenced population; therefore the remaining jail population
has a higher concentration of unsentenced inmates –  83 percent – well above the state and
national averages. Although San Francisco’s pretrial jail population percentage is high, overall use
of incarceration is very low, as reflected in the surplus of empty jail bed spaces, even with the newly
realigned non-serious, non-violent, non-sex offender population.
	
The SFPDP describes several key elements as essential to their success with pretrial populations.
They commended the ability of the criminal justice system to be able to collaborate with an outside
agency such as theirs.  Agency staff emphasizes the important of trust between the various public
agencies and their non-profit, including the public defender’s office, the sheriff’s department, the
district attorney’s office, the courts, and the health department. One staff commented that “a chain
is only as good as its weakest link” and their agency strives hard to ensure strong collaborations
and open communication among agencies. The degree of trust and collaboration is a testament to
agency’s 35-year history and track record of success.
One of the ongoing struggles the agency faces is how to maintain up-to-date technology to most
effectively track clients, process results, and disseminate that information to their partnering
agencies. Staff are regularly trained on the various technology tools, but there is a sense that the
agency is “always running to catch up” with new demands. The Chief Operating Officer indicated
the agency is impacted by limited fiscal resources as city contracts are being cut by as much as
20 percent.  Contracts cover salaries and some fringe benefits, but costs such as rent, travel, and
employee benefits present threats to the long-term sustainability of the program (Rodriguez &
McCovey, 2012).

cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

18

Yo lo Co u n t y
In August 2009 the Yolo County Probation Department was awarded a $2.76 million Byrne Grant from
the federal government for a two-year implementation of a new pretrial services program. The program
started in February 2010 and the grant funding will end on September 30, 2012.  The chief of probation
is hopeful that AB 109 or other funding will be forthcoming to continue this highly successful program
(Rist & Fruchtenicht, 2012).
The pretrial program was intended to help relieve overcrowding, which has historically been an issue for
the Yolo County Jail given the federally mandated population cap. The program also was built to assess
the value of utilizing a validated risk assessment and to provide direct supervision and services to pretrial
defendants in the community.  As a part of the grant, ongoing data has been collected and analyzed.  
Funds for the program were used for all operations including staffing, equipment and electronic
monitoring (GPS and SCRAM alcohol monitoring).
The Pretrial Services Unit (PSU) collaborates closely with criminal justice stakeholders in the county
including the district attorney, public defender, sheriff, and the court. These stakeholders were very
involved in establishing the initial criteria for the program and have met every three months since
the inception of the program for updates. Due to the great cooperation and support among the
stakeholders, there is no formal memorandum of understanding.
There are eight probation officers and a supervisor who manage Yolo County’s PSU seven days a week.
The jail booking roster is reviewed daily, and those eligible for release are interviewed. Exclusion criteria
are set by law and by policy established by stakeholders.  Generally those with specific holds (ICE,
parole, etc.) are not eligible. Once the hold is removed those defendants are interviewed. The criteria
for inclusion in the program has expanded over the past two years as the program has demonstrated
success and garnered credibility with its judicial partners.

The high level of
supervision and
accountability
has led to success
for defendants in
the program. The
success of these
defendants has
resulted in greater
support from
stakeholders.

The ORAS-PAT risk assessment tool has been utilized for all eligible defendants.  Full reports are prepared
for the court for the date of arraignment or own recognizance (OR) hearings, usually the next day.  This
allows time for the Probation Department to check criminal history, contact victims, and confirm release
addresses and community ties. On average, six to ten reports are completed each day. A PSU officer is
present at each arraignment hearing.
PSU officers provide community supervision for each defendant released on Supervised OR (SOR). “High
risk” defendants are seen weekly in face-to-face meetings or home contacts. Low and moderate risk
defendants are seen less often. Clients who perform well are rewarded with reduced office visits and
lessened sanctions. All defendants are required to call the office every day. The high level of supervision
and accountability has led to success for defendants in the program. The success of these defendants
has resulted in greater support from stakeholders.
An outside consultant’s analysis found that defendants in the pretrial program had a 92 percent court
appearance rate and 95 percent did not commit new offenses. The court accepted 90 percent of all
recommendations from the program. According to the court, those released on SOR would not have
been released at arraignment without the program. Pretrial services has acted as a relief valve in certain
instances where defendants could not be held at the jail for medical reasons (Luminosity, Inc., 2012).
Over the past two years, the PSU has learned the following:
1.	 A data analyst is needed from the start.  It is important for establishing credibility and to assure
timely and appropriate changes are made in procedures.
2.	 Terms and conditions for each defendant should be specifically tailored to their criminogenic
needs.
3.	 A graduated sanctions program with built in rewards for good behavior should be implemented.
4.	 The unit has to be willing to step outside of established comfort zones to fulfill their purpose
(Rist & Fruchtenicht, 2012).
19

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

cafwd.org/pce

tracking the non-non-non (n3) population

t r ac k i n g t h e n o n - n o n - n o n
( n 3 ) p o p u lat i o n

The Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC) released their first report regarding Realignment
in July 2012 (Chief Probation Officers of California [CPOC], 2012). They are tracking data related
to “non-serious, non-violent, non-sex offenders” (from here on referred to as the “N3” population)
on Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS) and “1170(h)” offenders or felons ineligible for
state prison who are sentencing to local jails, probation or both (split sentence). CPOC currently is
collecting 13 data elements.
13 Data elements collected by each county,
Chief probation officers of california
Type of
Number

Data Elements
Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS)
PRCS offenders released

Count

PRCS warrant-before

Count

PRCS closures (6-12 months)

Count

PRCS closures (1 year)

Count

PRCS closures (18 months +)

Count

PRCS recidivism

Count

Active PRCS offenders population

Snapshot

Active PRCS warrant-after population

Snapshot

1170h (Felons ineligible for state prison who are sentenced)
1170h (a) jail only sentences

Count

1170h (b) split sentences

Count

1170h (b) no jail sentences

Count

Active 1170 (b) offenders Population

Snapshot

Context Variables
New felony probation grants

Count
(cpoc, 2012)

All 58 counties agreed to report specific data elements and there was 100 percent participation for
the period from October 2011 to March 2012. CPOC’s early data and report reveal positive results
for both the State and counties.  Although there are no specific outcome measures at this point,
CPOC has committed to reporting on outcomes in a future report. Much more data and analysis
is needed to draw any specific conclusions but the data shows that Realignment is moving in the
right direction (CPOC, 2012).
The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) has analyzed significant Realignment data
and suggests that the courts would be an appropriate collection entity for N3 information.  Court
records document the final conviction offense codes and sentencing information in a centralized

cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

20

location.  Some adaptation would be required to track N3s at the sentencing phase of the court
proceedings. This could involve a “flag” on the offender’s record so that as the offender moves
through the system and are tracked by other agencies, they can be identified as a N3 (CJCJ,
2012a).
It is important that all county criminal justice agencies are involved in designing the right system
for data collection and organization and offender tracking for the county as well as to assist
broader statewide efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of Realignment.

D ata o n P r e t r i a l P o p u l at i o n s
The Department of Justice data shows the aggregate unsentenced population in county jails.
However, this number could include detainees who were determined a flight or public safety risk,
inmates awaiting transfer to federal ICE facilities, inmates who were eligible but could not afford
to post bail, and so on. To fully assess the eligible pretrial population, these data would have to
be disaggregated at the county level to better determine the demographics of the unsentenced
jail population.  In addition, information regarding defendants who successfully post bail and
defendants who qualify for pretrial services could be collected.
The Department of Justice provides data regarding unsentenced inmates by county online at
http://stats.doj.ca.gov/cjsc_stats/prof09/index.htm.
All 58 sheriffs provide monthly data, including the number of unsentenced inmates, to the
Board of State and Community Corrections.  (See Jail Profile Surveys at http://www.bscc.ca.gov/
resources.)
In addition, CJCJ lists the unsentenced county jail populations on its interactive sentencing map at
http://casi.cjcj.org.

C o u n t y P r e t r i a l D ata A n a ly s i s
To analyze pretrial data and to compare the effectiveness of interventions, specifically with the
realigned N3 population, counties would need to collect and track the following data (CJCJ,
2012a).
1.

Establishing a baseline:
a.

Who comprises the unsentenced jail population in the county?
i.

Demographic information (race, gender, socio-economic status)

ii.	 How many are determined to be a flight risk?
iii.	 How many are determined as a danger to the community?
iv.	 How many are eligible for pretrial services?
v.	 How many cannot afford to post bail?
vi.	 How many are detained for transfer to other agencies/facilities?
vii.	 What are the needs of those individuals (mental health, drug use, etc.)?
viii.  How many are N3s?  Cross-tab N3s with above data elements.
b.

Who comprises the unsentenced, released population in the county?
i.	

Demographic information (race, gender, socio-economic status).

ii.	 How many pretrial individuals are out on bail?
iii.	   How many pretrial individuals are out on own recognizance (OR)?
iv.	 How many pretrial individuals are out on home detention?
v.	 How many pretrial individuals are out on pretrial services?
vi.	   How many are N3s?  Cross-tab N3s with above data elements.
21

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

cafwd.org/pce

2.

Measuring outcomes:
a.

b.

Of those on bail, in home detention, or on OR release:
i.	

What percentage of each type of release show up for their court date?

ii.	

What percentage of each type of release committed a new law violation?

Of those in pretrial detention:
i.	

What are the long-term outcomes of reintegration to society versus recidivism?

ii.	

What are the collateral consequences of extended pretrial detention.

iii.	    Are there significant increases or reductions in the  county un-sentenced jail  	
	
population ? This requires long-term tracking over time.
iv.	 What caused those increases or reductions?
v.     Did any of the following play a role:  Increased use of risk-assessment tools?      	
         Increased availability for pretrial services?  Changes to bail schedules?
vi.	   Is the N3 population overwhelming the county justice system?  

S tat e w i d e D ata A n a ly s i s
It would be helpful for the State or researchers to track offender N3 outcomes for counties that
have extensive pretrial services versus those that do not. Two examples of data collection and
outcome tracking are discussed below.

Santa Cruz
County found
that 92 percent of
supervised pretrial
participants did
not re-offend, and
89 percent made
all of their court
appearances.
Ninety jail beds a
day were saved .

cafwd.org/pce

Washington D.C.: Over a period of four decades, the D.C. Pretrial Services Agency instituted
a comprehensive pretrial policy including: validated risk assessments reported to courts in
preparation for bail decisions, programming for those released pending trial, and effective pretrial
supervision.  As a result, by 2008, 80 percent of all defendants were released without a money
bond (as opposed to the previous rate of 80 percent being held in jail, as is the case in many
California counties). Fifteen percent are typically held by the court without bail. Only 5 percent
have financial bail (ACLU, 2012).
Santa Cruz County, CA:  In 2005, the Santa Cruz probation department began working with the
sheriff’s detention staff to introduce a validated risk assessment tool to identify whether pretrial
defendants posed public safety risks to the community.  After two years, Santa Cruz County found
that 92 percent of supervised pretrial participants did not re-offend, and 89 percent made all of
their court appearances. Ninety jail beds a day were saved (a 25 percent reduction in average
daily population), thus amounting to significant cost savings to the county.  In 2011, Santa Cruz’s
pretrial detention rate was 56 percent, far below the state-wide average of 67 percent for the
fourth quarter of 2011 and 71 percent for the third quarter of 2011. None were released on
commercial surety bail.  Furthermore, the high non-financial release rate has been accomplished
without sacrificing the safety of the public or the appearance of defendants in court.  Agency
data show that 88 percent of released defendants make all court appearances, and 88 percent
complete the pretrial release period without any new arrests (ACLU, 2012).

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

22

issues for considerAtion

i ss u es f o r c o n s i de r at i o n

A s s e s s i n g P r e t r i a l P o p u l at i o n s
a n d A p p ly i n g D ata t o P o l i c y
The following discussion identifies offender-based individual data and system
performance data that is useful in justice systems’ ongoing decisions and operations and
in justice system planning.
The most important offender-specific data concerning pretrial issues is derived
from offenders’ risk and needs assessments. Pretrial risk and need assessments,
conducted by pretrial release or pretrial services officials for individual defendants,
serve several purposes. A major goal of pretrial assessment is, most importantly, to
balance considerations of public safety and fair, consistent treatment and protection
of the rights of defendants. Pretrial risk and needs assessments assist the courts in
determining whether or not to release detainees from incarceration, and with what bail
or other conditions, if release is granted. Pretrial risk assessment instruments generate
information about the risk to public safety and the likelihood of appearing as required in
court if the defendant is released.
A sound pretrial detention/release strategy also can benefit justice system operations,
reducing or forestalling court congestion and jail overcrowding. Also, a valid risk
assessment process can, by scoring levels of risk, assist probation agencies in guiding
supervision resources to cases in which supervision is most needed and effective.
In addition to risk-avoidance concerns regarding defendant behavior, pretrial risk
assessment instruments can and typically should consider responses to offender needs
for treatment or other assistance. “[T]these tools aid the decision-maker in choosing
which arrestees should receive available services and perhaps just as important, which
individuals do not need those services.” (Lowenkamp, Lemke, & Latessa, 2008).  Excessive
intervention with low risk offenders has been found to be counterproductive, because
offender contacts with antisocial peers may increase, while contacts with prosocial peer
and family influences may be hindered (Lowenkamp, Lemke, & Latessa, 2008).
There is a large body of literature documenting the need for objective instruments to
reduce the variability of traditionally subjective pretrial release decisions. The literature
also documents the need to identify the most important and reliable data elements to
capture in the assessment instrument. The assessment instrument should be validated
by analyzing its predictive performance in specific local settings.  An objective risk
assessment also provides sound rationales for release decisions, easing officials’ concerns
about the criticism which often arises when released defendants do commit new crimes.
The particular risk factors measured “...need to be demonstrably related to FTA and
rearrest rates, not solely to recidivism or general criminogenic factors” (Summers &
Willis, 2010). One risk assessment instrument used in California, the Virginia Pretrial
Risk Assessment, identified nine such risk factors, six of which address the defendant’s
individual criminal history and three of which included factors related to living
circumstances. Risk assessments also may include demographic variables, such as age,
gender, citizenship and, in some cases, peer or family relationships.

A valid risk
assessment process
can assist probation
agencies in guiding
supervision resources
to cases in which
supervision is most
needed and effective.

To compile a fuller profile of defendants in the system, the risk assessment can be
supplemented with information related to case management activities that agencies
23

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

cafwd.org/pce

in the justice system will be called upon to provide. For example, Santa Clara County’s pretrial
defendants are released for full substance abuse and mental health assessments. When
aggregated, the risk assessment data can provide a picture of the proportions of defendants
who are low, medium, and high risk, informing decisions regarding jail capacity needs and
community supervision resource needs.  Likewise, supplementing the risk profile with aggregated
data regarding defendant treatment or support needs is pertinent to planning for appropriate
rehabilitative resources (CJCJ, 2012).

J u s t i c e S y s t e m D ata
Planning the response to pretrial population management must consider not only the profile
of defendants involved but also the efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system itself. For
example, questions to address might include whether defendants remain in custody longer than
necessary because the response time of the system is slow. Transferring detainees to suitable
pretrial alternatives may be impeded because court practice is slow, transfer procedures are
impeded, or the alternatives are simply not available.  In the long term, these delays affect not
only immediate, but also projected, future jail capacity requirements.
One source of data is what might be called an intake/release analysis.  In this exercise, defendant
releases from jail during a sample time period—weeks or months, as deemed representative—
are analyzed.  Typically, data on the defendant, the date of booking, charge at booking, and
the date of release and the release mechanism, is compiled. This data is used to identify how
long defendants arrested on various charge categories or released in various ways stay in jail,
with particular attention to identifying factors that may unduly delay release. For example, do
particular charge categories have longer lengths of stay?  Is this because of the severity of the
charge or because of technical probation violations? Are particular release options, such as
transfers to other jurisdictions, associated with longer stays? When the data on each release is
aggregated, an agenda of possible changes in practice or policy can be developed, for discussion
among local officials.
The intake/release analysis also can be enhanced by case tracking, i.e., following cases through
the adjudication process. This analysis would review such variables as the number of appearances
and the elapsed time between appearances or specific decision points.  With regard specifically
to pretrial releases, analysis of bail schedules and procedures for informing the court of pretrial
release recommendations could be included.
In summary, analysis of adjudication issues also can provide an agenda for policy discussions.  It
is worth noting that such policy discussions are most productive when informed by data such
as that summarized here and when all involved officials or agencies are represented in the
discussions.

C h a l l e n g e s t o I m p l e m e n tat i o n
Lessons from other jurisdictions demonstrate that implementing new strategies to manage pretrial defendants can be challenging. The process requires investment from a wide range of local
stakeholders and intensive work to change the culture of local systems. For counties interested
in new pretrial strategies, first and foremost, it is important to recognize that the process takes
extensive time and energy. Below are some challenges that counties may experience:
1.	Lack of support across and throughout criminal justice agencies:  Any significant
change in practices in local criminal justice systems has to be supported and understood
by all of the partners in the criminal justice system. Leaders implementing change can
encounter problems when individual agencies refrain from supporting the change or

cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

24

instruct their staff to disregard the change. Additionally, problems can arise when agency
leaders support changes that staff within their agencies are either unfamiliar with or do
not support.  Internal education and dialogue is key.      
2.	Lack of understanding among local elected officials: Criminal justice agencies often
understand details of criminal justice policies and practices but much of it can go beyond
the knowledge base of local elected officials.  If local elected officials are not familiar with
the reasons for the policy shift, they may not provide the support necessary to finance the
change or build public support for the change.
3.	Lack of integrated data systems: Advancing a new pretrial approach requires that
systems across agencies talk to each other and share relevant data. Counties run into
implementation problems when their data systems and data sharing approaches are in
silos.
4.	Lack of community infrastructure: Managing pre-trial defendants in the community
can be enhanced with community programs that help ensure pretrial defendants avoid
problems before trial. Many jurisdictions lack substantive community programs. This can
make it difficult for criminal justice agencies to partner with existing organizations.    
5.	Lack of community support: Residents want and deserve safety. Without sufficient
information and access to dialogue with public safety leaders, they can misunderstand
the intent behind changes in criminal justice system practices and policies. They need to
be a part of the process to develop support for more effective strategies to manage pretrial defendants.

G a r n e r i n g Lo c a l S u p p o r t f o r R e f o r m
Garnering local support is crucial to ensure the success of reforms. Given that each jurisdiction
is unique, there is no one size fits all approach to building the support necessary to effectively
implement new pretrial strategies and programs.
The challenges to implementation point to some steps county leaders can consider to build local
support for pretrial reform:
1.	Bringing all stakeholders to the table: Many jurisdictions have had success
implementing changes by bringing all of the stakeholders together from the beginning
of the process. This provides the opportunity for a broader group of key stakeholder to
have ownership in the success of the reform. This means that instead of a few individuals
responding to concerns raised, the broader group can participate in identifying concerns
and creating solutions to address them.  In this way potential problems are identified early
on and strategies to address them are integrated into the plan and its implementation.
2.	Providing training for local elected officials and the public:  It is important to help
decision-makers and community leaders understand the evidence base for the change,
expected outcomes, data that will be collected and analyzed to measure results, and
quality improvement efforts to improve results. This will assist in gaining the political
support that may be needed to adopt and implement the new program.

Many jurisdictions
have had success
implementing
changes by
bringing all of
the stakeholders
together from the
beginning of the
process.

3.	Educating the local media:  Giving local media outlets a briefing on the issues related
to pretrial services and strategies to improve pretrial practices may help them accurately
cover the issue and ask the right questions as the implementation process begins.
Key persons in the criminal justice system need additional education and training to recognize the
effectiveness of evidence-based risk assessments for pretrial (and other evidence-based criminal
justice programs and processes), including considerations of public safety and costs to the public
and the individuals involved.  This is critical to achieve optimal utilization of this valuable resource.  

25

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

cafwd.org/pce

resources for california counties

r es o u r ces f o r
cal i f o r n i a c o u n t i es

A Sampling of Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools
•	

Service Planning Instrument (SPIn).  Orbis Partners.  Pre-screening instrument;
approximately 30 questions.

•	

Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS).  
Northpointe Institute for Public Management, Inc.  Pre-screening instrument;
approximately 30 questions.

•	

Ohio Risk Assessment System – Pretrial Assessment Tool (ORAS-PAT).  University of
Cincinnati.  Available in the public domain; 7 questions.

•	

Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services: Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment
Instrument.  Available in the public domain; 8 questions.

Note: Other tools exist, but those listed above are the primary tools being used around the
country.

P r e t r i a l A s s i s ta n c e t o C a l i f o r n i a C o u n t i e s ( PACC ) P r o j e c t
Realignment requires innovative strategies for managing local correctional populations. Pretrial is
emerging as a key area of focus, given the pretrial population’s impact on court and jail resources.
The Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) at Community Resources for Justice has received a grant from
the Public Welfare Foundation (PWF) to provide technical assistance at the pretrial decision point to
support overall criminal justice Realignment efforts in California counties.  In May 2012, CJI began
working with a group of national advisors to develop a framework for pretrial technical assistance,
with a focus on public safety, effective population management, and evidence-based approaches.
That framework will then be piloted in two counties, which will receive 10 months of intensive
assistance.  Throughout this process, CJI will disseminate technical assistance tools and lessons
learned within California and nationally.
PACC Timeline
2012
May - August		
May - July		

Work with National Advisory Group on Technical Assistance Framework
Select two California counties as technical assistance recipients

2012 to 2013
September - June	
Ongoing		

Provide pretrial technical assistance to selected counties
Dissemination of tools and lessons learned

Site Selection
Sites will be selected through an informal vetting process that will involve conversations with key
stakeholders, discussions of current pretrial practices, and review of local population data. Two
sites will be selected to receive technical assistance; this is not a cash grant.  Final selections will
be made by CJI and PWF.  Criteria for selection will include the commitment of key stakeholders,
evidence of need, existing community partnerships, and specific goals for pretrial system change.  

cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

26

Technical Assistance
Though the technical assistance framework is still under development, it will likely include
components related to pretrial risk assessment, diversion, pretrial supervision, bonding,
population analysis and data collection. A lead technical assistance provider will work closely
with lead local agency/agencies and county stakeholders to assess local needs, develop and
implement a pretrial plan, and access additional expertise as needed.
For more information, or to express interest in participating in PACC, please contact Meghan
Guevara at 303-975-6801 or mguevara@crj.org.
About the Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ:  The Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) at CRJ
strives to make criminal and juvenile justice systems more efficient and cost effective, and to
promote accountability for achieving better outcomes.  CJI provides nonpartisan policy analysis,
capacity and sustainability-building technical assistance, research and program evaluation,
and educational activities throughout the country. We take pride in our ability to improve
evidence-based practices in courts and corrections; to gain organizational acceptance in difficult
work environments; to create realistic implementation plans; to put these efforts into practice;
to evaluate their effectiveness; and, to enhance the capacity and sustainability of corrections
agencies.  A key CJI strength lies in our ability to work with researchers, practitioners, academics,
and those affected by crime to bridge the gap between research and practice in corrections.
We have a reputation built over many decades for innovative thinking, unbiased issue analysis,
and our ability to translate research into practice.  CJI has provided technical assistance in more
than two dozen states to stakeholders at multiple criminal justice decision points.  For more
information on our current projects and staff, please see our website, www.crjustice.org.

For more
information, or to
express interest
in participating in
PACC, please contact
Meghan Guevara
at 303-975-6801 or
mguevara@crj.org.

Californians for Safety and Justice,
T h e Lo c a l S o lu t i o n s P r o j e c t
Partnering with experts from across the country, Californians for Safety and Justice’s Local Safety
Solutions Project aims to give direct support to counties building innovative approaches to
increase safety and reduce justice system costs.  The organization will provide:
1.	 Toolkits on topics that can help counties identify areas to enhance risk management and
save resources;
2.	 Training on developing low cost strategies to enhance justice system effectiveness; and
3.	 Education for local leaders and community members to help counties adopt best
practices and to expand support for best practices among diverse stakeholders.
Pretrial services will be one area of focus for this project. Additional information will be provided
as the project is launched.

27

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

cafwd.org/pce

P u b l i c at i o n s
American Bar Association.  (2007).  ABA standards for criminal justice: Pretrial release (3rd ed.).  Washington,
D.C.: American Bar Association. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/
criminal_justice_standards/pretrial_release.authcheckdam.pdf.
Bechtel, K., Lowenkamp, C., & Holsinger, A.  (2011).  Identifying the predictors of pretrial failure: A metaanalysis. Federal Probation, 75(2). Retrieved from http://pretrial.org/Setting%20Bail%20Documents/
Identifying%20the%20Predictors%20of%20Pretrial%20Failure%20-%20A%20Meta%20Analysis%20(June%20
2011).pdf.
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.  (2012).  Lessons Learned: The Santa Cruz Story.  Retrieved from
http://www.cjcj.org/files/Santa_Cruz_Case_Study.pdf.
National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies.  (2004).  Standards on pretrial release (3rd ed.).  Retrieved
from http://pretrial.org/1964Present/NAPSA%20Standards%202004.pdf.
National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies. (2008).  Performance standards and goals for pretrial
diversion/intervention. Retrieved from http://www.napsa.org/publications/diversion_intervention_
standards_2008.pdf.
Pretrial Justice Institute.  (2009).  Pretrial services program implementation: A starter kit.  Washington,
DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance. Retrieved from http://www.cejamericas.org/manualsaj/[PJI]
PretrialServicesProgramImplementationKit_%20AStarterKit.pdf.
Pretrial Justice Institute.  (2011).  State of the science of pretrial risk assessment.  Washington, DC: Mamalian,
C. Retrieved from http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20State%20of%20
the%20Science%20Pretrial%20Risk%20Assessment%20(2011).pdf.
Pretrial Justice Institute.  (2011).  State of the science of pretrial release recommendations and supervision.  
Richmond, VA: VanNostrand, M., Roke, K. J., & Weibrecht, K. Retrieved from http://www.pretrial.
org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20State%20of%20the%20Science%20Pretrial%20
Recommendations%20and%20Supervision%20(2011).pdf.
Pretrial Justice Institute & American Probation and Parole Association.  (2010).  Promising practices in
providing pretrial services functions within probation agencies: A user’s guide. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Justice Assistance. Retrieved from http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/PPPPSFWPA.pdf.
Virginia Pretrial Services Agencies.  (2011).  In pursuit of legal and evidence-based pretrial release
recommendations and supervision. Washington, D.C.: VanNostrand, M., Rose, K. J., & Weibrecht, K. Retrieved
from http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/corrections/documents/VirginiaLEBPResearchProjectReportMarch2011.
pdf.

Also see:
Pretrial Justice Institute website at http://pretrial.org/Pages/Default.aspx.
California Association of Pretrial Services website at http://pretrialservicesca.org.

cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

28

b i bl i o g r a p h y
In re Burnette, 35 Cal. 2d 358, 360 (1939).
People v. Gilliam, 41 Cal. 3d 181, 191 (1974).
Clark v. Superior Court, 11 Cal. App. 4th 455, 458 (Superior Court 1992).
In re Christie, 92 Cal. App. 4th 1105, 1107 (2001).
ACLU of California [ACLU]. (2012). Public Safety Realignment: California at a Crossroads. Retrieved from
https://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/public_safety_realignment_california_at_a_crossroads.pdf

bibliography

Ex Parte Ruef, 7 Cal. 750, 753 (1908).

Administrative Office of the Courts [AOC]. (2011). California Judges Benchguide, Section 55.3. Retrieved 	
from http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/protem/pubs/bg55.pdf
American Bar Association [ABA], Criminal Justice Section. (2007a). Standard 10-1.1. Purposes of the pretrial
release decision. Pretrial Services Standards 3d ed. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/
criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_pretrialrelease_blk.html
American Bar Association [ABA], Criminal Justice Section. (2007b). ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: 	
Pretrial Release, 3d ed. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_
archive/crimjust_standards_pretrialrelease_toc.html
Bechtel, K., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Holsinger, A. (2011). Federal Probation, 75(2). Retrieved from http://pretrial.
org/Setting%20Bail%20Documents/Identifying%20the%20Predictors%20of%20Pretrial%20Failure%20-%20
A%20Meta%20Analysis%20(June%202011).pdf
Board of State and Community Corrections [BSCC]. (2011). Jail Survey, 3rd Quarter 2011. Sacramento. 	
Retrieved from http://www.bscc.ca.gov/programs-and-services/fso/resources
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2011). Jail Inmates at Midyear 2010 - Statistical Tables. Retrieved from http://bjs.
ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/sheets/jim10st.zip
California Constitution. (n.d.). Art. I, §§ 12, 28(b), 28(f ).
California County Superior Courts. (2011). Bail schedules. Retrieved from each county’s Superior Court website.
California Penal Code. (n.d.). §§ 1269c, 1275.
Carlson, L. (2011). Bail Schedules: A Violation of Judicial Discretion? Criminal Justice, 26(1). Retrieved from
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_magazine/cjsp11_bail.
authcheckdam.pdf
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice [CJCJ]. (2012a). UPDATE: Eight Months into Realignment: Dramatic
Reductions in California’s Prisoners. Retrieved from http://www.cjcj.org/files/Realignment_update_
June_19_2012.pdf
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (2012b). The Commercial Bail Industry: Profit or Public Safety?
Retrieved from http://www.cjcj.org/files/Profit_or_Public_Safety.pdf
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (2012c). Lessons Learned: The Santa Cruz Story. Retrieved from 	
http://www.cjcj.org/files/Santa_Cruz_Case_Study.pdf
Chief Probation Officers of California [CPOC]. (2012, July). A First Look at Statewide Data Trends and 	
Impacts. CPOC Issue Brief, Realignment Perspective, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.cpoc.org/php/realign/
dashboardinfo/CPOCbrief11.pdf
Clark, S. H., & Kurtz, S. T. (1983). The Importance of Interim Decisions to Felony Trial Court Dispositions. Journal

29

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

cafwd.org/pce

of Criminal Law and Criminology, 74, 476-518.
Connelly, L. (2012). Leaders in Community Alternatives Data on Marin County Pretrial Program.
Demuth, S. (2003). Racial and Ethnic Differences in Pretrial Release Decisions and Outcomes: A comparison of
Hispanic, Black, and White Felony Arrestees. Criminology, 41, 873-907.
Foote, C. (1954). Compelling Appearance in Court - Administration of Bail in Philadelphia. University of
Pennsylvania Law Review, 102, 1031-1079.
Goldkamp, J. S., & White, M. D. (2006). Restoring Accountablity in Pretrial Release: The Philadelphia Pretrial
Release Supervision Experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2. Retrieved from http://pretrial.org/
IncreasingAppearanceDocuments/Goldkamp%20and%20White%202006%20-%20Philadelphia.pdf
Herceg, G. (2012). Director for the Office of Pretrial Services, Santa Clara County. (M. Morris, & D. Williams,
Interviewers)
Latessa, E. J. (2012). What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: The Principles of Effective
Intervention. Los Angeles. Retrieved from https://cafwd.box.com/s/c9962d852ec4d0778d82
Lowenkamp, C. T., Lemke, R., & Latessa, E. (2008). The Development and Validation of a Pretrial Screening
Tool. Federal Probation, 72(3). Retrieved from http://host4.uscourts.gov/fedprob/December_2008/
PretrialScreeningTool.html
Luminosity, Inc. (2012). Yolo County Pretrial Services Program Analysis.
Mamalian, C. A. (2011). State of the Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment. Pretrial Justice Institute. Retrieved
from http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20State%20of%20the%20
Science%20Pretrial%20Risk%20Assessment%20(2011).pdf
National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies [NAPSA]. (2004). NAPSA Standards on Pretrial Release, 	
Third Edition. Retrieved from http://www.vccja.org/2004_NAPSA_Stndrds_3rd.pdf
NPR. (2010, January 21). Bail Burden Keeps U.S. Jails Stuffed With Inmates. Retrieved from http://www.npr.
org/2010/01/21/122725771/
Patterson, E. B., & Lynch, M. J. (1991). Bias in formalized bail procedures. Race and Criminal Justice.
Rankin, A. (1964). The Effects of Pretrial Detention. New York University Law Review, 39.
Rist, M., & Fruchtenicht, D. (2012). Yolo County Pretrial Program. (L. Connelly, & D. Williams, Interviewers)
Rodriguez, D., & McCovey, A. (2012, April 30). San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project, Inc. (CJCJ, Interviewer)
Santa Clara County, Board of Supervisors, Management Audit Division. (2012). Santa Clara County 	
Management Audit of the Office of Pretrial Services. Retrieved from http://www.sccgov.org/sites/bos/
Management%20Audit/Documents/PTSFinalReport.pdf
Smith, C., & Penny, B. (2012, April 23). Santa Cruz County Probation Department Pretrial Program. (CJCJ, Interviewer)
Summers, C., & Willis, T. (2010, October). Pretrial Risk Assessment: Research Summary. US Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Retrieved from https://www.bja.gov/Publications/
PretrialRiskAssessmentResearchSummary.pdf
VanNostrand, M., Rose, K. J., & Weibrecht, K. (2011, June). State of the Science of Pretrial Release
Recommendations and Supervision. Retrieved from http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20
Documents/PJI%20State%20of%20the%20Science%20Pretrial%2Recommendations%20and%20
Supervision%20(2011).pdf
Vera Institute of Justice. (2010, September 13). Criminal Justice Trends: Key Legislative Changes in Sentencing
Policy, 2001-2010. Retrieved from http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ccp-sentencingtrends.pdf

cafwd.org/pce

Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision

30

notes

For more information regarding realignment:
The Partnership for Community Excellence cafwd.org/pce
CALRealignment.org calrealignment.org
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation www.cdcr.ca.gov/realignment
Chief Probation Officers of California cpoc.org/php/realign/ab109home.php

SACrAmEnto 916-491-0022
SAn FrAnCiSCo 415-362-9650
LoS AngELES 213-488-9054
INFO@CAFWD.ORG
DESIGN	BY	STACY	DANIELSON