Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:53 pm
Time: 8:53 pm
Results for pretrial services
13 results foundAuthor: Pretrial Justice Institute Title: 2009 Survey of Pretrial Services Programs: August 11, 2009 Summary: This report presents the findings of a survey of pretrial services programs. The findings describe how pretrial services programs compare in relation to one another, in relation to programs of the past, and in relation to the standards of the American Bar Association (ABA) and the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA). Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2009 Source: Bureau of Justice Assistance Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117290 Keywords: Pretrial Services |
Author: VanNostrand, Marie Title: Alternatives to Pretrial Detention: Southern District of Iowa: A Case Study Summary: The pretrial detention rates for the Southern District of Iowa reached their highest levels between July 2006 and June 2007 with detention rates of 69.5% including immigration cases and 67.3% excluding immigration cases. The detention rates at that time were significantly above the national average of 61.7% and were the highest in the 8th Circuit which averaged 57.2% during the same period. It was the awareness of the increasing detention rates that led U.S. Pretrial Services in the Southern District of Iowa to commence a project with the goal of increasing the utilization of alternatives to detention when appropriate to increase pretrial release rates while assuring court appearance and community safety. The District partnered with Luminosity, Inc. to conduct an objective and research-based assessment of the project progress two years following implementation. This report contains (1) background information related to pretrial release and detention, pretrial services, the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, and the concept of the EBP risk principle and (2) detailed findings of the assessment. The assessment revealed that the Southern District of Iowa was able to substantially increase the utilization of alternatives to detention resulting in a pretrial release rate increase of 15% while assuring court appearance and community safety. In fact, the increased pretrial release rate was accompanied by an increase in court appearance rate by 2.6% and decreases in both new alleged criminal activity rate (1.7% decrease) and revocations due to technical violations (2.8% decrease) for defendants released pending trial. Details: St. Petersburg, FL: Luminosity, 2010. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: https://www.pretrial.org/download/risk-assessment/Alternatives%20to%20Pretrial%20Detention%20Southern%20District%20of%20Iowa%20-%20VanNostrand%202010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://www.pretrial.org/download/risk-assessment/Alternatives%20to%20Pretrial%20Detention%20Southern%20District%20of%20Iowa%20-%20VanNostrand%202010.pdf Shelf Number: 119566 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationBailPretrial Detention (Iowa)Pretrial JusticePretrial ServicesRisk Assessment |
Author: Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) Title: National Symposium on Pretrial Justice - Convened by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs and the Pretrial Justice Institute - Summary Report of Proceedings Summary: The 2011 National Symposium on Pretrial Justice convened by the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, together with the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI), highlighted the major shortcomings in current pretrial release decision-making practices and showcased efforts to improve those practices. The Symposium brought together representatives of associations from a broad array of stakeholder groups, including law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, jails, and victims, as well as county, state, and federal legislative and executive branch officials, and private funders. The Summary of Proceedings provides a summary of the Symposium and recommendations for improving pretrial justice for all. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2011. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2012 at http://pretrial.org/NSPJ%20Report%202011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://pretrial.org/NSPJ%20Report%202011.pdf Shelf Number: 124172 Keywords: Criminal Justice AdministrationPretrial AgenciesPretrial Services |
Author: Maryland. Commission to Reform Maryland's Pretrial System Title: Commission to Reform Maryland's Pretrial System: Final Report Summary: The Governor's Commission to Reform Maryland's Pretrial System ("the Commission") was established by Executive Order on May 27, 2014 to gather experts and interested parties, with the goal of developing recommendations to ensure that Maryland operates the best possible statewide pretrial system. The Commission was preceded by the Task Force to Study the Laws and Policies Relating to Representation of Indigent Criminal Defendants by the Public Defender. The work of the Commission was also informed by legislative deliberations during the 2014 Session of the Maryland General Assembly. On July 1, 2014, the State of Maryland began to implement a Court of Appeals decision that requires state-furnished counsel for indigent defendants at initial appearances before a District Court Commissioner. The Commission studied characteristics of the current pretrial system, including outcomes associated with the provision of counsel at the initial appearance phase. The Commission met five times and also formed three subcommittees related to Managing Public Safety through Risk-Based Decision Making, Pretrial System Improvement, and Individual Rights and Collateral Consequences. These three subcommittees held five additional meetings. The Commission ultimately voted to approve the following 14 recommendations: - Recommendation One: Create a uniform pretrial services agency which mandates a process that will ensure continuity and consistency across all 24 jurisdictions. Pretrial services will be responsible for gathering criminal records, administering a statewide risk assessment tool and other relevant information that will be beneficial in determining the initial appearance and to avoid the redundancy of various agencies pulling the same information. Pretrial services will also be responsible for supervision of those released under pretrial supervision and provide referrals for treatment, counseling and other services, particularly for those individuals with limited means, to address the underlying needs that may have caused the criminal behavior. - Recommendation Two: Provide adequate funding and/or personnel to implement a validated risk assessment tool modeled after best practices to pilot in jurisdictions to be utilized by the Court Commissioners after the data has been analyzed. - Recommendation Three: The Judiciary should evaluate the current pretrial system to determine whether it has the capacity to implement best practices in pretrial justice. This evaluation should consider the re-purposing of District Court Commissioners from their current duties to conducting risk assessments on defendants and supervising defendants pretrial. - Recommendation Four: The use of secured, financial conditions of pretrial release (cash, property, or surety bond) that require a low-risk defendant to pay some amount of money in order to obtain release, while permitting high-risk defendants with the resources to pay their bonds to leave jail unsupervised, be completely eliminated. - Recommendation Five: Cash bail, and its associated impact, should be monitored by the Maryland Insurance Administration to determine if changes need to be developed and implemented including a comparison between secured and unsecured bond. - Recommendation Six: The Commission recommends that under no circumstances should we institutionalize the Judicial Branch of Government as the line manager of what amounts to the Lawyer-Referral Service Program for Attorneys to represent indigent criminally accused in their First Appearance before a Commissioner. The Office of the Public Defender was created by statute to represent indigent criminally accused. It is an Executive Branch Agency of State Government and should have that responsibility from the initial appearance through appeals. - Recommendation Seven: The Commission recommends earlier and enhanced prosecutorial screening, particularly of citizens' complaints, by way of Maryland rule, prior to the issuance of a summons or warrant, except for domestically related crimes. - Recommendation Eight: Maximize and expand the use of the criminal citation process by law enforcement. - Recommendation Nine: Create a system so that only one entity in the pretrial process has to pull and summarize the arrestee's record, consistent with and in accordance with state and federal law and the independent needs of the system in order to operate efficiently. - Recommendation Ten: Provide state funding to create a shared jail management system, possibly through the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services' Offender Case Management System (OCMS), to allow for data collection on the pretrial population statewide. - Recommendation Eleven: It is recommended that funding be provided for court and public safety-designated facilities to be outfitted with audio/visual equipment to optimize court hearing efficiencies. - Recommendation Twelve: That whatever pretrial system is contemplated, the critical principle of prompt presentment no later than 24 hours of arrest remain. - Recommendation Thirteen: Data are needed in order to effectively determine impact of process and procedures on various demographics (race, gender, non-English speaking, and indigence defined as eligibility for representation by the Office of the Public Defender or appointed attorney). Additionally, timeliness factors such as rates of waiver to arrests and time between arrest and presentment, by jurisdiction, should be compared and measured. - Recommendation Fourteen: A Commission to Study the Maryland Criminal Justice System shall be created. The purpose of the Commission shall be to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of state and local criminal justice systems by providing a centralized and impartial forum for statewide policy development and planning with a focus on evidence-based decision making. The primary duty of the Commission shall be to develop and maintain a state criminal justice policy and comprehensive, long-range plan for a coordinated and cost-effective state criminal justice system that encompasses public safety, defendant and offender accountability, crime reduction and prevention, and defendant and offender treatment and rehabilitation. Details: Baltimore: The Commission, 2014. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2015 at: http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/pretrial/documents/2014-pretrial-commission-final-report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/pretrial/documents/2014-pretrial-commission-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 134944 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice PolicyPretrial Detention (Maryland)Pretrial ReleasePretrial ServicesRisk Assessment |
Author: Kennedy, Spurgeon Title: Outcome and Performance Measures for Pretrial Diversion Field Summary: This publication outlines suggested outcome and performance measures and critical operational data for pretrial diversion programs. Its goals are to present clearly defined and easily calculable measures that pretrial diversion programs can use to gauge progress in achieving their mission and strategic goals, improve business decisions, and illustrate pretrial diversion's value in an evidence-based criminal justice system. The suggested measures are compatible with established national pretrial diversion standards and appropriate for any program established as a voluntary option to traditional criminal case processing and with a mission to: Reduce the likelihood of future arrests through appropriate interventions based on thorough assessments and intervention plans tailored to an individual participant's risks and needs; and/or Conserve/redirect criminal justice resources to more serious crimes and those that warrant prosecution by providing a meaningful response to participant conduct. Each measurement description includes a definition, data needed to track the metric, and a sample calculation. Also included are appendices of recommended procedures on setting measurement targets and establishing meaningful quality assurance and quality control" (p. vi). Sections of this publication cover: the Evidence Based Decision Making Framework (EBDM); introduction; data quality; outcome measures - success rate, safety rule, and post-program success rate; performance measures - screening, placement, compliance, response, provision, and satisfaction; and critical operational data - referrals, time to diversion program placement, time in diversion, time in programming, and exits. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies, 2015. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 13, 2015 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/029722.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 136011 Keywords: Evidence Based PracticesPretrial DiversionPretrial Services |
Author: George, Christine C. Title: An Evaluation of the Cook County States Attorneys Office Deferred Prosecution Program Summary: The study looks at the development, implementation, and impact of the Cook County State Attorneys' Deferred Prosecution Program (DPP). Researchers used a mixed methodological approach involving qualitative and quantitative methods including a quasi-experimental design to measure outcomes. Following we summarize the program model, key findings and recommendations. The DPP Model The model is predicated on an ongoing operational collaboration of the State's Attorney's Office with the Cook County First Municipal District Judicial Circuit Court, the Department of Probation Pre-Trial Services Division, and TASC, all of which have key operational roles in the DPP model. The Assistant State's Attorneys (ASA) at various Cook County Branch Courts identify potential candidates, first time non-violent felony offenders, before preliminary hearings are conducted. If victims agree and DPP candidates accept the 12-month program offer, the preliminary hearing is waived and the case is transferred to the DPP program. The low demand program requirements includes regular court appearances in a DPP branch court, assessment, monthly meeting with pre-trial services officer, meeting of certain conditions, dependent on their particular offense and their educational and employment status and not reoffending. Upon successful completion of the program, the felony charge is dismissed by the SAO, exercising its prosecutorial discretion and the participant can then have his or her record expunged. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2015. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2015 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Cook_County_Deferred_Prosecution_Evaluation_0715.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Cook_County_Deferred_Prosecution_Evaluation_0715.pdf Shelf Number: 136063 Keywords: Criminal CourtsPretrial Services ProsecutionProsecutorial Discretion |
Author: Tafoya, Sonya M. Title: Pretrial Detention and Jail Capacity in California Summary: California's persistently overcrowded jails are facing additional challenges now that public safety realignment has shifted many lower-level offenders from state prisons to county supervision. Jail capacity challenges are prompting a reconsideration of California's heavy reliance on holding unsentenced defendants in jail pending trial - known as pretrial detention. The legal rationale for pretrial detention is to ensure court appearances and preserve public safety. But California's high rates of pretrial detention have not been associated with lower rates of failure to appear or lower levels of felony rearrests. This report concludes that pretrial services programs - if properly implemented and embraced by the courts, probation, and the jails - could address jail overcrowding and improve the efficiency, equitability, and transparency of pretrial release decision making. Details: San Francisco: Public policy Institute of California, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_715STR.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_715STR.pdf Shelf Number: 136337 Keywords: JailsPretrial DetentionPretrial Services |
Author: New Mexico Sentencing Commission Title: Assessment Of The Second Judicial District Court Pretrial Services Office Summary: According to the American Probation and Parole Association and the Pretrial Justice Institute, in perhaps no more than 15% (460) of the nation's 3,065 counties, judicial officers are aided by pretrial services programs in the balancing act between the presumption of innocence and public safety (APPA, 2010). At midyear 2011, about 6 in 10 jail inmates were not convicted, but were in jail awaiting court action on a current charge - a rate unchanged since 2005 (Minton, 2012). U.S. jails over the past two decades have become largely occupied by individuals awaiting trial, with only a minority of inmates serving out convictions. Before the mid-1990s, jail populations historically were evenly split between pretrial and sentenced prisoners. Since 1996, however, pretrial inmates have grown in numbers and at a faster rate than sentenced inmates, even though crime rates have been falling (Bechtel, et al, 2012). During the 2012 regular session of the New Mexico State Legislative session, the Legislature passed House Joint Memorial 20 (HJM 20) "Bernalillo Case Management Pilot Project." HJM 20 lists a series of conditions justifying the passage of the memorial; a shortage of incarceration options; $30 million to house felony arrestees; the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) has exceeded its design capacity for years; opportunities to alleviate burdens on county jails, but the opportunities were too difficult to implement; and the old Bernalillo County Detention Center could be renovated into a treatment center. HJM 20 resolves that the Bernalillo County Commissioners create a pilot project that will streamline case management, evaluate and expand treatment and diversion programs, create an alternative incarceration facility, as well as start new mental health and substance abuse treatment options, alternative incarceration, transitional living, and reintegration programs. The major stakeholders of the Bernalillo County criminal justice system should be represented in the pilot project. Additionally, HJM20 requests the NM Sentencing Commission (NMSC) collect jail population data, research case management practices, and evaluate the viability and effectiveness of the proposed pilot project. In response to HJM 20, NMSC entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Bernalillo County. The scope of work was, "evaluate the effectiveness of the expanded pretrial services program operated by the [Second Judicial District Court (SJDC)] - [also evaluate] new or expanded treatment programs and diversionary programs [if time and budget allow]." Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2014. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2015 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2014/assessment-of-the-second-judicial-district-court-pretrial-services-office.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2014/assessment-of-the-second-judicial-district-court-pretrial-services-office.pdf Shelf Number: 137239 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCase ManagementDiversionJail InmatesMental Health ServicesPretrial ServicesSubstance Abuse TreatmentTreatment Programs |
Author: Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts Title: Pretrial Reform in Kentucky Summary: Kentucky Pretrial Services was created in 1976 as part of the Bail Bond Reform Act when commercial bail bonding for profit was abolished. Pretrial Services is a statewide agency housed under Kentucky's Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), the operations arm for Kentucky's judicial branch, also known as the Court of Justice. Kentucky courts are a unified, four-tiered system consisting of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court and District Court. District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and handles misdemeanors, violations, traffic offenses, city and county ordinances, felony probable cause hearings, juvenile matters, and a variety of civil cases. Circuit Court is a court of general jurisdiction and hears felony and capital offenses, appeals from District Court, and various other civil matters. The Supreme Court is the state court of last resort and the final interpreter of Kentucky law. Court unification means that all courts operate under the same administrative rule, while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as the administrative head of the entire court system. Pretrial Services has 294 employees divided into forty-nine (49) local program districts, including a Central Office, which includes the Chief Operating Officer, the Manager, eight (8) Regional Supervisors, a Project Specialist and support staff. Local programs consist of a Program Supervisor and frontline Pretrial Officers. Louisville, Lexington and the Northern Kentucky district also employ an Urban Supervisor. Many rural districts cover multiple counties, and thereby multiple courts, and sometimes, multiple jails. Pretrial Services operates in all 120 Kentucky counties and provides services seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Per court rule, pretrial officers are mandated to conduct an interview and investigation of all persons arrested on bailable offenses within 24 hours of his or her arrest, although many jurisdictions strive to provide their services within 12 hours of the defendant's initial incarceration. The interviews and investigations are voluntary and confidential, and are conducted in person at the local, incarcerating jail. As a part of the interview and investigation process, officers also screen defendants for alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health issues. Pretrial officers then verify the information provided by the defendant during the interview, conduct a thorough criminal history check and utilize a validated risk assessment that measures flight risk and anticipated criminal conduct. This information is used to make appropriate recommendations to the court regarding pretrial release. The risk assessment classifies defendants as low, moderate or high risk. Pretrial officers present the findings and make recommendations for release to their local district or circuit court judge - or in some rural areas, a specially appointed Trial Commissioner - who make the actual release decision. Details: Frankfort, KY: Administrative Office of the Courts, 2013. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2016 at: http://www.apainc.org/wp-content/uploads/Pretrial-Reform-in-Kentucky-Implementation-Guide-Final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.apainc.org/wp-content/uploads/Pretrial-Reform-in-Kentucky-Implementation-Guide-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 138600 Keywords: BailPretrial ReleasePretrial ServicesPretrial Supervision |
Author: Lawrence, Sarah Title: Managing Jail Populations to Enhance Public Safety: Assessing and Managing Risk in the Post-Realignment Era Summary: Just 20 months after Public Safety Realignment began, the effects of the legislation on California's criminal justice system are unprecedented both in depth and in scope. And they are still taking shape. Arguably, county jail systems have been one of the most significantly altered components of the criminal justice system. The management of county jail systems in California is a challenging, dynamic, and complex undertaking. Realignment is exacerbating some of the challenges and accelerating some of the changes that county jails were facing before October 2011 when Realignment began. The number of individuals in jail has been growing; the status of individuals held in jail custody has been changing; and the length of time individuals stay in jail is getting longer. In short, almost every aspect of California's jail population has been in a state of flux since Realignment was implemented. An examination of all of the contributing factors and criminal justice tools related to jail management is beyond the scope of this effort. The focus here is on a handful of selected topics that 1) are considered to play an important role in the management of jails, 2) have been directly affected by AB 109 or have newly emerged as a result of the new regime, and 3) are thought to be ripe subjects for law and policy debate and reform. We approach these topics by breaking down jail populations into two groups (non-sentenced versus sentenced) and the issue into two stages (assessment of risk and management of risk). The first section presents an overview of who is in jail in California based on the most recently available data. The second section examines how the risk profiles of defendants are assessed during the pretrial phase, and what we know from research to be the most effective approaches to addressing risk. Next, risk management options in the form of detention, bail release, own recognizance release, and pretrial services supervision are discussed. The attention then shifts to the sentenced population in California jails and some of the tools available to criminal justice practitioners to manage jail populations, including, split sentences, electronic monitoring, and early release. This paper is intended to help lay the foundation for the first meeting of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center's Executive Session on the Front-End Issues of Public Safety Realignment (see sidebar). The first of these four, day-long meetings will focus on issues related to jail management. A group of experts from across California representing a variety of perspectives will be convened to discuss some of the pressing issues related to Realignment's effect on jails. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2016 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/440504/doc/slspublic/Paper%20on%20jail%20mgmt%20July%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/440504/doc/slspublic/Paper%20on%20jail%20mgmt%20July%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 138635 Keywords: County JailsCriminal Justice ReformJail PopulationPretrial ServicesPublic Safety RealignmentRisk Assessment |
Author: Mulcahy, Jane Title: The practice of pre-trial detention in Ireland. Research report Summary: This report is one of 10 country reports outlining the findings of an EU-funded research project that was conducted in 10 different EU Member States in 2014 - 2015. While there have been numerous studies on the legal framework governing pre-trial detention in EU Member States, limited research into the practice of pre-trial detention decision-making has been carried out to date. This lack of reliable evidence motivated this major project in which NGOs and academics from 10 EU Member States, coordinated by Fair Trials International (Fair Trials), researched pre-trial decision-making procedures. The objective of the project is to provide a unique evidence base regarding what, in practice, is causing the use of pre-trial detention. In this research, the procedures of decision-making were reviewed to understand the motivations and incentives of the stakeholders involved (defence practitioners, judges, prosecutors). It is hoped that these findings will inform the development of future initiatives aiming at reducing the use of pre-trial detention at domestic and EU-level. Details: Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2016. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2016 at: http://www.iprt.ie/files/PTD_Country_Report_Ireland_FINAL_updated.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.iprt.ie/files/PTD_Country_Report_Ireland_FINAL_updated.pdf Shelf Number: 139601 Keywords: Pretrial Detention Pretrial ServicesPreventive Detention Prisoners |
Author: California. Courts. Judicial Branch Title: Pretrial Detention Reform: Recommendations to the Chief Justice Summary: The Chief Justice established the Pretrial Detention Reform Workgroup on October 28, 2016, to provide recommendations on how courts may better identify ways to make release decisions that will treat people fairly, protect the public, and ensure court appearances. In establishing the Workgroup, the Chief Justice recognized the central role of the courts. The Chief Justice provided the following guiding principles for the Pretrial Detention Reform Workgroup: Pretrial custody should not occur solely because a defendant cannot afford bail. Public safety is a fundamental consideration in pretrial detention decisions. Defendants should be released from pretrial custody as early as possible based on an assessment of the risk to public safety and the risk for failing to appear in court. Mitigating the impacts of implicit bias on pretrial release decision-making should be considered. Reform recommendations should consider court and justice system partner resources. Nonfinancial release alternatives should be available. Consistent and feasible practices for making pretrial release, detention, and supervision decisions should be established. During the course of its yearlong study, the Workgroup examined the complex issues involved in the current pretrial release and detention system. Members reviewed a wide variety of research and policy materials and heard presentations from state and national experts, justice system partner representatives, the commercial bail industry, state and local regulators, victim and civil rights advocacy organizations, California counties that have experience with pretrial services programs, and jurisdictions outside California that have undertaken pretrial reform efforts. At the conclusion of this process, the Workgroup determined that California's current pretrial release and detention system unnecessarily compromises victim and public safety because it bases a person's liberty on financial resources rather than the likelihood of future criminal behavior and exacerbates socioeconomic disparities and racial bias. Details: Sacramento: Judicial Council of California, 2017. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 20, 2018 at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/PDRReport-20171023.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/PDRReport-20171023.pdf Shelf Number: 149188 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticePretrial ReleasePretrial ServicesRacial DisparitiesRisk Assessment |
Author: Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) Title: Forging New Traditions in Pretrial Excellence: Allegheny County Pretrial Services (PA) Increases Pretrial Fairness and Safety Summary: This updated case study looks at the beginnings of Allegheny County Pretrial Services (PA) and its journey to become a nationally recognized and innovative pretrial services program. Details: Rockville, MD: 2018. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 2014 at: https://www.pretrial.org/essential-report/forging-new-traditions-in-pretrial-excellence-allegheny-county-pretrial-services-pa-increases-pretrial-fairness-and-safety/ Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=63a16732-9858-f645-2c03-4b582f5af17f&forceDialog=0 Shelf Number: 154196 Keywords: Allegheny County Bail Agency Case Study Criminal Court Cases Criminal Justice Reform Defendants Pennsylvania Pretrial Justice Institute Pretrial Services |