Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:04 pm
Time: 8:04 pm
Results for pretrial supervision
6 results foundAuthor: VanNostrand, Marie Title: State of the Science of Pretrial Release and Recommendations and Supervision Summary: Earlier this year, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Pretrial Justice Institute published the document, State of the Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment. That document focused on what the field knows about our ability to predict the likelihood of failure to appear in court or rearrest on new charges among pretrial defendant populations. It described the great strides that the field has made in assessing risks of pretrial misconduct, as well as the challenges that researchers face in validating pretrial risk assessment instruments, and guidance on how they can face those challenges. This document, State of the Science of Pretrial Release Recommendations and Supervision, has a different focus. It picks up where the first document left off. It asks the question: now that we know so much more about predicting risks of pretrial misconduct, how can we use that information to better assure that defendants are appropriately matched to conditions of pretrial release that are designed to minimize their identified risks? In most counties across the country, pretrial release recommendations are subjective. Even when pretrial services agency staff have access to the results of a validated pretrial risk assessment, if it exists in the county, there is often no objective and consistent guidance for making pretrial release recommendations. In addition, many pretrial services agencies require the same frequency and types of contacts for all defendants during pretrial supervision while some have identified their own levels of supervision with varying frequencies and types of contacts. In both cases there is no objective and consistent policy for providing differential pretrial supervision based on the risk of pretrial failure. The appropriate matching of defendant risks with conditions of pretrial release should take place in the framework of Legal and Evidence Based Practices (LEBP). These are interventions and practices that are consistent with the legal and constitutional rights afforded to accused persons awaiting trial and methods research have proven to be effective in reducing unnecessary detention while assuring court appearance and the safety of the community during the pretrial stage. A component of this larger LEBP initiative involves the development and implementation of research-based guidelines for use by pretrial services agencies that are (1) risk-based, (2) consistent with legal and evidence-based practices, and (3) provide guidance for pretrial release recommendations and differential pretrial supervision. This document begins with a discussion of the legal issues that are relevant to persons who have been accused, but not yet adjudicated, of a crime. It describes the possible legal implications of pretrial release practices, including the setting of specific conditions of pretrial release. Following that is a discussion of research results regarding pretrial release conditions and interventions. The final section presents existing guidelines for pretrial release recommendations and differential pretrial supervision. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2011 at: http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20State%20of%20the%20Science%20Pretrial%20Recommendations%20and%20Supervision%20%282011%29.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20State%20of%20the%20Science%20Pretrial%20Recommendations%20and%20Supervision%20%282011%29.pdf Shelf Number: 122039 Keywords: BailPretrial Release (U.S.)Pretrial SupervisionRisk Assessment |
Author: Erez, Edna Title: GPS Monitoring Technologies and Domestic Violence: An Evaluation Study Summary: This study examines the implementation of Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring technology in enforcing court mandated “no contact” orders in domestic violence (DV) cases, particularly those involving intimate partner violence (IPV). The research also addresses the effectiveness of GPS as a form of pretrial supervision, as compared to other conditions in which defendants are placed. The project has three components: First, a national web-based survey of agencies providing pretrial supervision reported on patterns of GPS usage, as well as the advantages, drawbacks, and costs associated with using GPS for DV cases. The results indicate a gradual increase in agencies’ use of GPS technology for DV cases since 1996, primarily to enhance victim safety and defendant supervision. Second, a quasi-experimental design study of three sites from across the U.S. – referred to as “Midwest,” “West,” and “South” – examined the impact of GPS technology on DV defendants’ program violations and re-arrests during the pretrial period (referred to as the “short term”), and on re-arrests during a one-year follow-up period after case disposition (referred to as the “long term”). The results indicate that GPS has an impact on the behavior of program enrollees over both short and long terms. Examination of the short-term impact of GPS enrollment shows it is associated with practically no contact attempts. Furthermore, defendants enrolled in GPS monitoring have fewer program violations compared to those placed in traditional electronic monitoring (EM) that utilizes radio frequency (RF) technology (i.e., remotely monitored and under house arrest, but without tracking). GPS tracking seems to increase defendants’ compliance with program rules compared to those who are monitored but not tracked. Defendants enrolled in the Midwest GPS program had a lower probability of being rearrested for a DV offense during the one-year follow-up period, as compared to defendants who had been in a non-GPS condition (e.g., in jail, in an RF program, or released on bond without supervision). In the West site, those placed on GPS had a lower likelihood of arrest for any criminal violation within the one-year follow-up period. In the South site, no impact deriving from participation in GPS was observed. The heterogeneity of the defendants who are placed on GPS at this site, and the different method for generating the South sample of DV defendants, may account for the absence of GPS impact on arrest in the long term. An examination of the relationship between GPS and legal outcomes across the three sites revealed similar conviction rates for defendants on GPS and those who remained in jail during the pretrial period. Further, a comparison of conviction rates for GPS and RF defendants at the Midwest site found a significant difference – with GPS defendants being likelier to be convicted as compared to RF defendants; conviction rates in the Midwest and South sites were also higher for GPS defendants compared to defendants released on bond without supervision, suggesting that defendants’ participation in GPS increases the likelihood of conviction. These findings may be related to the fact that GPS provides victims with relief from contact attempts, empowering them to participate in the state’s case against the defendant. The third component of the study is a qualitative investigation conducted at six sites, entailing in-depth individual and group interviews with stakeholders in domestic violence cases – victims, defendants and criminal justice personnel. The interviews identified a variety of approaches to organizing GPS programs, with associated benefits and liabilities. Victims largely felt that having defendants on GPS during the pretrial period provided relief from the kind of abuse suffered prior to GPS, although they noted problems and concerns with how agencies and courts apply GPS technology. Interviews with defendants supported quantitative findings about the impact of GPS on defendants’ short- and long-term behavior, and found both burdens and occasional benefits associated with participation. Benefits of GPS enrollment for defendants included protecting them from false accusations, providing added structure to their lives, and enabling them to envision futures for themselves without the victim. Burdens pertained to living with restrictions and becoming transparent, managing issues related to stigma and disclosure of one’s status as a DV defendant tethered to GPS, and handling the practical issues that emerge with the technology and equipment. Policy implications highlight the importance of having a logical connection between defendant attributes and program details, avoiding enrollment in cases where the GPS has minimal or no value and is imposed for reasons other than protecting victims or enforcing restraining orders, the need for justice professionals to cultivate relationships with victims whose abusers are on GPS, and the importance of maintaining an appropriate balance between victim safety and due process for the defendant. Details: Unpublished report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2012. 245p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2013 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238910.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238910.pdf Shelf Number: 128015 Keywords: Domestic Violence OffendersElectronic MonitoringFamily ViolenceGlobal Positioning System (GPS)Intimate Partner ViolenceOffender Monitoring (U.S.)Pretrial Supervision |
Author: Pierce-Danford, Kristy Title: Creating an Effective Pretrial Program: A Toolkit for Practitioners Summary: These are times of significant change for county jails and justice systems. Public Safety Realignment, the 2011 law that shifted management of people convicted of certain nonviolent, non-serious, non-sex offenses from state prisons and parole to county jails and probation, has had a major impact. More individuals are being sentenced to county jail instead of state prison, including people who violate conditions of their parole. Some county jails face limited capacity or strained resources. Combined with ongoing county budget challenges, more than ever, local leaders need effective strategies to safely manage their justice populations and reduce costs at the same time. On average, more than 60 percent of those in local jails in California are awaiting trial. They are being detained "pretrial" while their case goes through criminal proceedings. There are models of pretrial diversion and supervision programs that can effectively manage these individuals in a community setting. Reducing the number of pretrial detainees in jails or the length of their stay can conserve considerable resources and allow the jail to meet other public safety needs. In a post-Realignment California, assessing pretrial program options is both an opportunity and a necessity. Fortunately, pretrial program models have evolved considerably in recent decades, and there is evidence to show that they can be more successful than the money bail system at ensuring public safety and court appearance. There are many evidence-based options available to communities seeking to implement or strengthen pretrial programs. There is not one "correct" model for pretrial programs, and they can be successfully administered through the courts, probation departments, sheriff departments, county administration, independent agencies or any combination of these. Many counties are now exploring such programs, asking critical questions about whom among those awaiting trial needs to be in jail and who can be managed successfully in the community. This toolkit offers guidance to county officials on how to develop and operate these programs at the local level, building upon available literature on effective pretrial policies and practices. Specifically, officials will find: - Key information about the legal framework and national standards for pretrial programs; - How to implement a pretrial risk assessment; - Pretrial diversion and supervision advice; - How to assess your current system; and - Recommendations on using data to measure and enhance pretrial programs. Details: Oakland, CA: Californians for Safety and Justice, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 23, 2016 at: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/211/9f/a/223/CSJ_pretrial_toolkit.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/211/9f/a/223/CSJ_pretrial_toolkit.pdf Shelf Number: 137944 Keywords: BailJailsPretrial DetentionPretrial DiversionPretrial InterventionsPretrial ReleasePretrial SupervisionRisk Assessment |
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: Latessa, Edward J. Title: The Ohio Risk Assessment System Misdemeanor Assessment Tool (ORAS-MAT) and Misdemeanor Screening Tool (ORAS-MST) Summary: In 2006, the University of Cincinnati (UC) Center for Criminal Justice Research (CCJR), in partnership with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC), developed the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS), a system designed to assess risk, need, and responsivity factors of offenders at each stage in the criminal justice system (see Latessa, Smith, Lemke, Makarios, & Lowenkamp, 2009). The ORAS is comprised of five validated risk assessment instruments: 1) Pretrial Tool (PAT), 2) Community Supervision Tool (CST), 3) Prison Intake Tool (PIT), 4) Reentry Tool (RT), and 5) Supplemental Reentry Tool (SRT)1, as well as two screening tools: 1) Community Supervision Screening Tool (CSST) and 2) Prison Intake Screening Tool (PST). Since its' inception, the ORAS has been implemented across the state and is used in municipal and common pleas courts, community based correctional facilities (CBCFs), and ODRC institutions. Details: Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research, 2014. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 11, 2016 at: https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/OCCS/Pages/Public/Reports/ORAS%20MAT%20report%20%20occs%20version.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/OCCS/Pages/Public/Reports/ORAS%20MAT%20report%20%20occs%20version.pdf Shelf Number: 139392 Keywords: Community SupervisionMisdemeanorsOffender Risk AssessmentPretrial DetentionPretrial SupervisionPrisoner ReentryRisk Assessment |
Author: Duane, Marina Title: Pretrial Strategy for Handling Intimate Partner Violence Cases: An Innovation Fund Case Study from Buncombe County, North Carolina Summary: Criminal justice system actors tasked with responding to violence between intimate partners are grappling with how to effectively secure victims' safety while ensuring that those who use violence are held accountable and put on a path to change their abusive behavior. One example of where those two goals can be difficult to balance is releasing aggressors when at least one incident of intimate partner violence (IPV) has already been reported. While some intimate relationships are abusive from the start, many others are violent in different ways or become subtly more violent over time, making it difficult to predict when victims are in danger. Pretrial supervision agencies are well positioned to manage or mitigate such risks by monitoring some aggressors in the community. Buncombe County, North Carolina, was one of the first counties in the country to develop and pilot a specialized pretrial protocol for such supervision. This case study, part of a series highlighting work supported by the Safety and Justice Challenge Innovation Fund, highlights Buncombe County's experience implementing the protocol, examines the early outcomes and implementation challenges, builds upon the scant research in the United States about the effective pretrial supervision of IPV cases, and charts a course for other localities that seek to institute an effective coordinated response. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2018. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 18, 2018 at: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/pretrial-strategy-handling-intimate-partner-violence-cases Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99167/pretrial_strategy_for_intimate_partner_violence.pdf Shelf Number: 152987 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolencePretrial SupervisionVictim SafetyVictims of Crime |