PublicationsPretrial Assessments - Bias & Disparities?: Staying Grounded in Research The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) has been carefully following claims about disparities and bias related to actuarial pretrial assessments. As the debate continues, NAPSA has noted the dust settling around a large body of research, providing clarity to this polarizing topic. We have always been advocates of pretrial research and have encouraged the exploration of pretrial outcomes for decades. NAPSA continues to promote and encourage research on pretrial assessment validity and potential disparities and bias. We believe that the evidence itself should lead this debate and must be controlled by rational, objective analyses. Click here to download the full pdf of the publication. Freedom Denied: How the Culture of Detention Created a Federal Jailing Crisis Needs CHICAGO (December 7, 2022) The Federal Criminal Justice Clinic (FCJC) at the University of Chicago Law School today announced the release of the first national investigation of federal pretrial detention, Freedom Denied: How the Culture of Detention Created a Federal Jailing Crisis. The report identifies a “federal jailing crisis” that disproportionately impacts poor people of color. Freedom Denied is authored and researched by Professor Alison Siegler, former Federal Defender and current Founding Director of the Federal Criminal Justice Clinic and Clinical Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. "This work is about bringing to light a ‘culture of detention’ that exists in the federal legal system and helping judges to realign their practices so that justice-involved individuals do not face illegal and inequitable detention.” Click here to view complete document. Factsheet: Identifying and Addressing Pretrial Needs Through the investigation of four critical questions, this fact sheet summarizes the existing research regarding the needs of people going through the pretrial process, including their commonly identified needs, how their needs differ across subgroups, and the role of the pretrial system in addressing these needs. In addition, this fact sheet identifies salient gaps in knowledge and outlines new directions for the pretrial field. Click here to download the full pdf of the factsheet or visit https://www.nycja.org/publications/factsheet-identifying-and-addressing-pretrial-needs.
As state and local jurisdictions were dealing with the onset of the pandemic, NAPSA created a survey to learn what responses to COVID-19 were being taken by pretrial service agencies across the United States. We wanted to learn how various agencies had been impacted and understand in greater details how practices may have changed as a result of COVID-19. In sharing this information broadly, we can learn from one another and start a conversation for how we can be better prepared for the future. Understanding how practices have been modified pre-and-post- COVID-19, will help us assess whether the beneficial policies and practices being implemented have potential for expansion and to understand what future reforms are possible. To access the survey results, please click here. To view an article written by The Crime Report about the survey findings, please click here.
NAPSA Standards on Pretrial Release, 2024 Edition The NAPSA has published its revised 2024 Edition of the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies’ (NAPSA) Standards on Pretrial Release continues the mandate of previous Editions—to describe the components of an effective, legal, and evidence-based bail system. It also updates the Standards with the developing body of knowledge about best and promising practices in the pretrial field and changes to the legal definition of and the requirements for fair and reasonable bail decision-making. Revisions from past editions include: strengthening NAPSA’s support of independent pretrial services agencies, the use of validated pretrial outcome assessments, supervision conditions individualized to specific and identifiable risk factors, and the abolition of financial conditions of bail. You can find the new articles here. New Diversion Resources Diversion 101, is a series of articles that offers a new framework for understanding diversion. Developed by the Center for Effective Public Policy in partnership with the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, Diversion 101 advances the foundational work done in the field of diversion to date and offers a roadmap for planning, implementing, and sustaining research-based diversionary options. Funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the series examines pre-conviction diversion options, provides clarity around their purposes, proposes guiding principals, and explores their public safety and other benefits. You can find the new articles here.
Using Front End Interventions to Achieve Public Safety and Healthy Communities 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. Publication now available here.
Federal Probation - September 2018 issue now online This special issue deals with the subject of "Pretrial Services: Front-End Justice" and is available online.
Pretrial Release and Probation: What is the Same and What is Different? By: Timothy R. Schnacke (August, 2018) Pretrial release and Probation are outwardly similar, and jurisdictions across the country have routinely turned to probation entities to house pretrial services functions, which are beginning to be seen as essential ingredients of criminal justice systems lawfully and effectively administering pretrial release and detention. Despite these similarities, however, the significant differences between pretrial release and probation, including differences in histories, purposes, legal foundations, and research, mean that we must act with caution when adding or consolidating functions. This paper, written by Timothy R. Schnacke, is designed to be a part of the helpful literature that jurisdictions can use to develop lawful and effective pretrial systems, especially when those systems will be operating within probation entities or combined with probation functions. You can download the document here.
NAPSA President Penny Stinson's message on U.S. v. Salerno Friday, May 26 marks the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of U.S. v. Salerno. Please read NAPSA President Penny Stinson's remarks on this important day in pretrial justice history.
Myths & Facts, Series II: "Using Risk and Need Assessments to Enhance Outcomes and Reduce Disparities in the Criminal Justice System" This "Myths & Facts" package includes a one-page list of myths and facts along with a research-based supporting document to help dispel three specific myths regarding the use of risk and need assessments within the criminal justice system. A description and relevant research to dispel each myth is provided. Our network believes that risk and need assessments currently provide the most accurate, objective prediction of the risk to recidivate. While risk and need assessments do not predict with perfect accuracy, they guide practitioners in the field towards the most accurate and equitable decisions available for safely managing justice-involved individuals. To read the report, click here.
"A Framework for Pretrial Justice: Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial System and Agency" This publication is a guide for jurisdictions interested in improving current elements of their pretrial systems or creating needed procedures and practices. It will also serve as a resource for practitioners and policy makers to compare current pretrial release and diversion practices to recognized evidence-based and best practices and national standards. NAPSA is proud to partner with NIC to help deliver this critical document to the pretrial field. To read the report, click here.
"Model" Bail Laws: Re-Drawing the Line Between Pretrial Release and Detention This paper is likely useful to all persons seeking answers to questions surrounding pretrial justice today. But it should be especially useful to those persons who are taking pen to paper to re-write their laws to determine whom to release and whom to potentially detain pretrial – essentially, to re-draw the line between purposeful release and detention. To read the report, click here.
NIC Pretrial Justice Broadcast Recording If you missed the live broadcast, view the streamed version of NIC's Pretrial Justice: How to Maximize Public Safety, Court Appearance and Release online.
Washington Post: When it Comes to Pretrial Release, Few Other Jurisdictions do it D.C.’s Way Read the article here.
NIC Court Appearance and New Case Filings: Redefining Pretrial Misconduct The past two decades have enhanced our understanding of pretrial risk. We now know that most individuals with pending criminal cases make scheduled court appearances and remain arrest-free as they await trial. When missed court dates occur, they often are not intentional abscondence but rather the result of unintentional or unavoidable circumstances. Further, most new cases filed against pretrial defendants involve misdemeanors and lower level felony charges, not violent crimes. The past two decades have enhanced our understanding of pretrial risk. We now know that most individuals with pending criminal cases make scheduled court appearances and remain arrest-free as they await trial. When missed court dates occur, they often are not intentional abscondence but rather the result of unintentional or unavoidable circumstances. Further, most new cases filed against pretrial defendants involve misdemeanors and lower level felony charges, not violent crimes. You can download the document here. NIC Incorporating Services and Support into Pretrial Supervision: Is There a Best Model? Behavioral health and social service needs are common in most arrest populations. For most individuals, these needs will not interfere with making court appearances and remaining arrest-free before trial. However, need can escalate into a heightened risk of pretrial misconduct for some people. This publication discusses the complexity of managing substance use disorder—a prevalent need in most arrest populations—and suggests a “pretrial intervention services” model that outlines when pretrial agencies should consider services, when services should be integrated into supervision support, and what treatment service strategies are best at the pretrial stage. You can download the document here. NIC Promoting Pretrial Success: A New Model for Pretrial Supervision Pretrial supervision is a critical function of most pretrial services agencies. Unfortunately, most pretrial supervision strategies and conditions are not supported by research. Pretrial services agencies often recommend—and courts order—conditions that are inconsistent with the goals of promoting court appearance and arrest-free behavior. This can expose individuals who would otherwise comply with these goals to bail revocations due to technical violations. This publication describes the elements of a "success-based" pretrial supervision protocol that emphasizes successful outcomes as a goal, encourages individualized conditions of supervision, and includes interventions to deal with court nonappearance. It also gives practical examples of how pretrial agencies can implement these elements. You can download the document here. |