Pretrial services program

This premise is supported by federal and state constitutions. Pretrial Services operates in all Kentucky counties and provides services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Pretrial officers are mandated by Supreme Court rule to conduct an interview and assessment within 12 hours of arrest on individuals arrested on bailable offenses.

If a defendant does not qualify for administrative release, pretrial officers then present the findings to a judge, who makes the decision about pretrial release. The program has earned a national reputation for innovation in the field of pretrial release.

In , Kentucky became the second of four states to outlaw commercial bail bonding. Kentucky is also known for being among the first states to establish statewide evidence-based practices. Administrative Release. The Supreme Court authorized the Administrative Release Program to allow eligible defendants to be released without being presented to a judge. The order gives pretrial officers the authority to release based on specific criteria without contacting a judge.

The program is designed to expedite the pretrial release of low- to moderate-risk defendants charged with nonviolent, nonsexual misdemeanors.

MAPD Program. This program allows pretrial officers to identify defendants who might have a substance use disorder and encourage them to have a clinical assessment.

Misdemeanor Diversion. This voluntary program allows certain defendants to be released under the supervision of Pretrial Services. While the criteria for being accepted into a diversion program can vary by jurisdiction, individuals with little or no criminal history who have been charged with a misdemeanor or criminal violation are generally eligible for the program.

Misdemeanor diversion is available only in some counties. To learn more about eligibility and which counties offer this program, call the Pretrial office in the county.

Monitored Conditional Release. Monitored conditional release reduces the unnecessary detention of pretrial defendants who can be released into the community with minimal risk. Pretrial Services monitors the defendants who may be required to check in and others who may have additional conditions. MCR is available in all counties. Deferred Prosecution.

Results show that: unsecured bonds work as good as secured bonds at ensuring public safety, court appearances, and fugitive return; unsecured bonds work better at reducing jail bed use in that more defendants can post their bonds and these individuals have quicker release times; and secured bonds increase jail bed use but not court appearance rates.

While studies indicate court date reminder notification programs increase court appearance rates, additional peer-reviewed research is required before making confident inferences regarding the most effective type and timing of the notification. One study directly evaluating the impact of different notification methods robocalls vs. The two main pretrial outcomes that jurisdictions seek—and the only two outcomes that can legally be considered when deciding whether to detain or release a person pretrial—are to maximize court appearance and maximize community well-being and safety i.

This summary examines the current base of knowledge regarding the effectiveness of court date notification systems in achieving these positive outcomes. Here are the resources we have found. Please send us other resources that you know of, through the comment box below or through email. This recommendation was included in a report from a county Diversion Work Group, comprised of Dane County criminal justice officials and leaders of organizations that work with offenders, charged with reviewing all current adult and juvenile diversion programs.

The system is meant to reduce the number of people not showing up for their court appearances. We will discuss the studies, some courts with systems, and a USA commercial service provider in this article.

Far from what we learned in college or law school—and further still from the topics typically reported in the media—often the most important issues we face will be found in the most common of cases. These failures to appear are costly for the criminal justice system as they can lead to inefficient use of time and resources, and FTA can also be costly for defendants by leading to additional court dates, enhanced penalties, and even collateral consequences such as suddenly missing work while detained on the FTA charge even though the original offense did not result in a detention.

These calendars included delinquency matters as well as petty misdemeanor and CHIPS issues of truancy and runaway cases. During lean economic times, the question becomes; does using personnel to call to remind litigants of their appearances make economic sense? In fact, at different times, this service has been cancelled when staffing has been limited. Police in America arrest millions of people each year, and the likelihood that arrest will lead to jail incarceration has increased steadily.

Ending mass incarceration and repairing its extensive collateral consequences thus must begin by focusing on the front end of the system: police work. This paper examines the effects of pretrial detention on case outcomes in federal criminal cases.

Unlike cash-bail regimes that are prevalent in state courts, federal courts rarely use money bail as a condition of pretrial release.

Nonetheless, this paper documents significant effects of pretrial detention for federal criminal defendants. Smart on Crime encouraged federal prosecutors in appropriate cases involving non-violent offenders to consider alternatives to incarceration such as pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs where appropriate. I find that criminal defendants who are released pending trial earn a roughly 72 percent decrease in sentence length and a 36 percentage-point increase in the probability of receiving a sentence below the recommended federal sentencing Guidelines range.

Conference of State Court Administrators. The focus of this paper is a set of recommendations from COSCA regarding specific policies and practices that courts can adopt to minimize the negative impact of LFOs [legal financial obligations] while ensuring accountability for individuals who violate the law.

Until recently, the dysfunctional bail process has not been at the forefront of the national discussion, even though the most common form of bail — cash bonds or financial release — produces jail overcrowding and fuels mass incarceration. In addition, money-based bail systems cause significant racial and ethnic disparities in pretrial detention and beyond. This paper uses the detention tendencies of quasi-randomly assigned bail judges to estimate the causal effects of pre-trial detention on subsequent defendant outcomes.

Using data from administrative court and tax records, we find that being detained before trial significantly increases the probability of a conviction, primarily through an increase in guilty pleas. The legal rationale for pretrial detention is to ensure court appearances and preserve public safety. Pretrial detention is limited to only those charged with the most serious crimes and other specified circumstances such as violating conditions of, or committing a new crime while on pretrial release.

This study's aim is to "shed more light on what the impact of pretrial detention may be on several non-Criminal Justice related outcomes. If we can gain a better understanding of the effects of pretrial detention, even detention for relatively short periods e. It seems that pretrial detention "leads to varying levels of disruption across several indicators of functionality — specifically employment, financial situation, residential stability, and issues relating to dependent children" p.

But pretrial detention is not simply an either-or proposition; many defendants are held for a number of days before being released at some point before their trial. The release-and-detention decision takes into account a number of different concerns, including protecting the community, the need for defendants to appear in court, and upholding the legal and constitutional rights afforded to accused persons awaiting trial.

It carries enormous consequences not only for the defendant but also for the safety of the community" p. This study examines the relationship between pretrial detention and sentencing. Sections following an executive summary include: introduction; sample description; and findings for eight research questions regarding the relations between pretrial detention and sentencing. Defendants who are detained for the entire pretrial period are three times more likely to be sentenced to jail or prison and to receive longer jail and prison sentences.

It carries enormous consequences not only for the defendant but also for the safety of the community … Using data from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, this research investigates the impact of pretrial detention on 1 pretrial outcomes failure to appear and arrest for new criminal activity ; and 2 post-disposition recidivism" p.

Sections following an executive summary include: introduction; sample description; research objective one—investigate the relationship between length of pretrial detention and pretrial outcome; and research objective two—investigate the relationship between pretrial detention, as well as the length of pretrial detention, and new criminal activity post-disposition NCA-PD.

There appears to a direct link between how long low- and moderate-risk defendants are in pretrial detention and the chances that they will commit new crimes. Legally entitled to be considered innocent and released pending trial, many accused are instead held in pretrial detention, where they are subjected to torture, exposed to life threatening disease, victimized by violence, and pressured for bribes.

It is literally worse than being convicted: pretrial detainees routinely experience worse conditions than sentenced prisoners. The suicide rate among pretrial detainees is three times higher than among convicted prisoners, and ten times that of the outside community. Pretrial detention harms individuals, families, and communities; wastes state resources and human potential; and undermines the rule of law … Presumption of Risk examines the full consequences of the global overuse of pretrial detention.

Combining statistical analysis, first-person accounts, graphics, and case studies of successful reforms, the report is the first to comprehensively document this widespread but frequently ignored form of human rights abuse.

The report highlights trends in the number of defendants released and detained pretrial and examines the changing composition of defendants with federal pretrial dispositions, including the increase in defendants charged with immigration violations and the growth of defendants with serious criminal backgrounds. It examines the relationships between pretrial detention and the type of charge and the criminal history of the defendant.

Developed with funding support from the U. The brief was also prompted, and guided, through work with Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program grantees. The Toolkit Reflects Careful consideration of all relevant clinical and health service research, review of top national program practices and replicable approaches that support best practice implementation. The symposium highlighted promising law enforcement, prosecutorial, and judicial interventions at the pretrial stage and promoted dialogue among justice practitioners on how front-end interventions could fit within an evidence-based, harm reduction-focused criminal justice framework.

As illustrated above, participants at the symposium learned about and considered various alternative approaches to increasing public safety and addressing health issues facing their communities. They also shared their experiences with—and perspectives on—implementing front-end interventions in their own jurisdictions. For nonviolent and low-risk criminals, jail diversion programs and other forms of alternative sentencing could be a worthy solution. After the start of the fiscal year Oct.

Willis, 52, qualified for a big break: a program called pretrial intervention, also known as diversion. If she took 12 weeks of classes, performed 24 hours of community service and stayed out of trouble, her case would be dismissed and her arrest could be expunged, leaving her record clean.

The last several decades have seen dramatic shifts in the management of criminal justice populations across the country, especially with regard to drug policy. With the release of A Framework for Pretrial Justice: Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial System and Agency, NIC and its Pretrial Executive Network helps inform the discussion on bail reform and pretrial justice by presenting and defining the fundamentals of an effective pretrial system and the essential elements of a high functioning pretrial services agency.

This publication presents and describes these essential elements—as well as the components of an evidence-based framework for improving pretrial outcomes nationwide. Bail determination is one of the most important decisions in criminal justice. A Framework for Pretrial Justice: Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial System and Agency should serve as a guide for jurisdictions interested in improving their current pretrial systems.

These elements encourage data collection not only to help individual communities, but also for future researchers who are dedicated to these important questions. The opportunity for diverting offenders with mental illness and substance abuse disorders from the criminal justice system when they have their first appearance in a municipal court is explained. Sections of this publication include: introduction; Sequential Intercept Model SIM ; municipal courts—definition and caseloads; municipal courts as a venue for diversion of people with mental and substance use disorders; challenges to the use of municipal courts for diversion—case volume, time constraints and lack of leverage, and the mature of municipal courts; what the essential elements for effective diversion are—identification and screening, court-based clinician as the boundary spanner-linkage component, recovery-based engagement strategies, and proportional response; a municipal court achieving effective diversion—Seattle Municipal Mental Health Court; a municipal court achieving effective diversion—Midtown Community Court in New York City; a municipal court achieving effective diversion—Misdemeanor Arraignment Diversion Project in New York City; and summary.

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. 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.

The Journal for Advancing Justice provides justice and public health professionals, policymakers and other thought leaders, academics, scholars, and researchers a forum to share evidence-based and promising practices at the intersection of the justice and public health systems. The journal strives to bridge the gap between what has proven effective and what is often considered business as usual.

Although the Journal for Advancing Justice emphasizes scholarship and scientific research, it also provides practitioner-level solutions to many of the issues facing the justice system. PTS uses the Praxis , a pretrial risk assessment tool, which scores factors that research has shown to be predictive of pretrial misconduct; either failure to appear or re-arrest.

The risk score is used to develop a bail recommendation aimed at mitigating the risk of fail to appear or rearrest. It is the goal of the unit to maximize the number of defendants that can be safely released into the community while detaining those who pose a risk to public safety. In addition to an interview with the defendant, prior to their initial court appearance, computerized record checks including District and Circuit Court records, Probate records, Secretary of State, and LEIN are accessed to determine prior convictions and FTAs.

Information obtained during the interview is verified when possible for accuracy.