Monterey County, California Pretrial Justice System Assessment. Crime and Justice Institute

Transcription

1 Monterey County, California Crime and Justice Institute June 16, 2014

2 2 P a g e Table of Contents Background... 3 Citation Release and Summons... 3 Bond Schedules... 4 Conditions of Bond... 4 Early Screening... 5 Defense for Indigent Defendants... 6 Release Authority... 6 Release Information and Options Available... 7 Target Population... 8 Ongoing Review... 9 Information Collected... 9 Risk Assessment Release Recommendations Supervision Responses to Violations Court Reminders Data / Quality Assurance Leadership System Collaboration Organizational Development Resources and Budget Training Policy and Procedure... 17

3 3 P a g e Background Monterey County implemented a pretrial services program within its Probation Department in October In early 2014, County stakeholders commissioned an assessment of their pretrial system in order to determine how well their system is functioning and to identify opportunities for improvement. The Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice (CJI) conducted this assessment in May of 2014, approximately eighteen months after Monterey County s pretrial services program was launched. During a site visit on May 19-20, 2014, CJI conducted interviews with a number of County stakeholders, including staff and leadership from the Probation Department, Sheriff s Office, District Attorney s Office, Public Defender s Office, County Administrator s Office, Salinas Police Department and the criminal bench. CJI also engaged in a group discussion during a public meeting of the County s Community Corrections Partnership (CCP). This meeting was attended by members of the public, representatives of criminal justice agencies, and representatives of county social services and behavioral health agencies. In addition to on-site interviews, CJI s pretrial justice system assessment included a review of policies, procedures, statutes and other guiding documents, and a review of pretrial data collected by the Probation Department. The assessment addresses key aspects of operation at both the program and system level, noting the extent to which Monterey County s system conforms to national standards and evidence-based practices for pretrial services. Sources for the assessment include the American Bar Association (ABA) and National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) standards for pretrial release, and several noted publications on assessing the performance of pretrial services and implementing evidence-based practices which are listed under References. The assessment is structured so that each domain is accompanied by a brief statement describing full implementation of the standard or evidence-based practice and is meant to provide an ideal that jurisdictions may work toward. The findings and recommendations contained in this report should provide guidance on areas for improvement. I should be noted, however, that these recommendations do not take into consideration the practical aspects of implementation in this jurisdiction. This would require a more in-depth engagement and is beyond the scope of this assessment. Following the initial assessment, stakeholders are encouraged to prioritize the findings which are actionable, identify clear and measurable implementation goals and develop a plan for working toward these goals and for measuring progress. A technical assistance provider can facilitate and guide this process, but system stakeholders must develop the roadmap for system improvement. Citation Release and Summons Standard for Citation Release: In the jurisdiction, custodial arrests are not used for minor cases (most non-violent misdemeanors and some low level felony cases). Summary of Findings: The municipal law enforcement representative was very receptive to the idea of an assessment tool to appropriately determine which arrestees need to be brought to the jail and which can be given a citation/summons, and expressed support for determining pretrial release based on assessed risk versus the current offense. He reported that the law enforcement community has been having conversations with the District Attorney s office about expanding their citation and release policy. One suggestion being discussed is that police agencies adopt the jail s full own recognizance (O.R.) release policy allowing officers to cite and release defendants before spending resources arresting and transporting individuals who will be released immediately by

4 4 P a g e the Sheriff s Office. This is already in place for DUIs, but it may be possible to expand this authority with judicial approval. Conclusion: Allowing municipal police agencies to issue citations based on the Sheriff s O.R. release policy could results in greater efficiency and better use of resources by both agencies. Using an actuarial risk screening tool in the field could help police officers better target individuals for whom citation may be appropriate. Recommendations: Municipal law enforcement agencies should consider adopting the jail s full O.R. release policy as a guideline for citation and release and explore implementation of an evidence-based screening tool in the field. Bond Schedules Standard for Bond Schedules: Bond schedules are not used. Summary of Findings: The jurisdiction relies heavily on its charge-based bail schedule, which is required by California statute. Except in cases where pretrial services recommends supervised release, it appears that judges typically defer to the bail schedule in setting financial release conditions. Based on data collected by the Probation Department, 24% of defendants booked into the jail are released prior to arraignment based on the bail schedule or in accordance with the Sheriff s O.R. policy. 1 For many defendants, the first opportunity to request a departure from the bail schedule comes at the bail hearing, which is scheduled at least two days and often up to a week after arraignment. It is not clear why motions to deviate from the bail schedule are not typically entertained at arraignment; however, judges indicated that they do not have sufficient information to make release decisions in the absence of a pretrial report and recommendation. However, judges are, in effect, making release decisions by allowing, as statutorily required, defendants to pay an amount of money to be released from jail when even less information about the defendant is known than can be known during a first appearance hearing. Currently, it cannot be determined how often judges depart from the bail schedule for those defendants that have a bail hearing scheduled, and what impact this delay has on the jail population; however, this could be examined with data on hearing outcomes, jail length of stay and bond amounts. Conclusion: The jurisdiction relies heavily on its bail schedule. Except for defendants assessed by pretrial services (discussed in more detail below), bail is not typically set on an individual basis. Recommendations: The county should consider adopting a bail schedule that is not solely charge-based, but that also integrates assessed risk and relies less on money, to the extent allowable by California statute. This will allow risk-based decision making at every release point. The court and pretrial services should identify ways to maximize the number of cases in which judges and attorneys have sufficient information to make an individualized bail determination at arraignment, and to ensure that bail hearings are scheduled in a timely manner when they are necessary. Conditions of Bond Standard for Financial Bail: Only the least restrictive conditions to provide reasonable assurance the defendant will appear for court proceedings and to protect the safety of the community, victims, and witnesses pending trial are used. 1 Probation department Total Program Statistic through summary report, obtained May 12, 2014.

5 5 P a g e Summary of Findings: California statute allows for nearly all defendants to be released on O.R. (Penal Code 1270 and 1319); however, as described above, release conditions for many defendants are based on the county s money-based bail schedule and not on individual defendant circumstances. No data on overall use of release on O.R. versus financial and other conditions are available. Data are available on defendants assessed by pretrial services. Of the 347 defendants assessed between January and December 2013, approximately 61% were detained on financial bail and 39% were released on O.R. with supervision. While supervised O.R. was recommended in 43% of cases, straight O.R. was recommended only once. Of defendants assessed low risk in CY 2013, supervision was recommended for 73%, denial of release was recommended for 25% and straight O.R. was recommended for 2%. Of defendants released to supervision since October 2012 and who have completed supervision, the success rate is 88%. 2 Conclusion: Determining the least restrictive conditions necessary to provide reasonable assurance defendants will appear in court and not commit a new crime during their pretrial period requires an individualized determination of risk which is not applied to most Monterey County defendants. Financial bail, a highly restrictive condition of release which results in detention or delayed release for many defendants, is far more common. Among defendants subject to assessment and individualized recommendations by pretrial services, recommendation for O.R. was very rare. Even among those assessed low risk, a high proportion were recommended for supervision or denial of O.R. This is an indication that release conditions may generally be overused, particularly considering that defendants of similar risk levels who leave jail by posting their bond are typically not supervised at all. A closer examination of supervision conditions may help to reveal whether they are overly-restrictive given assessed risk and the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors that may affect likelihood of appearance or threat to public safety. Recommendations: The County should work to determine the pretrial risk posed by each defendant and ensure that the least restrictive conditions are set to mitigate that risk, starting with a presumption of release on recognizance for most defendants. The County should identify defendants being detained on financial bond and determine if those defendants need to be in custody pending trial or if there are other conditions which can reduce the risk of pretrial misconduct, are less restrictive on the defendant s liberty, and result in a more cost effective use of county jail resources. For defendants released on financial bond, the County should conduct an analysis to determine how long it took to post bond and determine if those defendants could have been released sooner with less restrictive conditions while providing reasonable assurance to address their risk of pretrial misconduct. Early Screening Standard for Early Screening: A seasoned prosecutor reviews each case before the initial appearance in court and decides whether to move forward and on what charges, and appears in court at the bail setting hearing, advocating for the least restrictive conditions reasonably calculated to assure the appearance of the defendant and the safety of the community. Summary of Findings: The District Attorney s office reported that 80-90% of cases are screened and changes are filed within the county s established 48-hour timeframe. This is consistent with summary statistics provided by the Probation Department. Prosecutors are present at arraignment and bail hearings; it is not clear the extent to 2 Pre-Trial Court Appearance data obtained from the Probation Department in June 2014.

6 6 P a g e which prosecutors argue for the least restrictive non-financial conditions necessary to assure the appearance of the defendant and safety of the community. Defense for Indigent Defendants Standard for Indigent Defense: Defense attorney is present at the initial bond-setting hearing for each defendant and has had time before the hearing to meet with the defendant and gather information to make representations in court regarding release. Summary of Findings: Defense counsel for indigent felony defendants in Monterey County is appointed at arraignment. An attorney from the Public Defender s Office is present in court to represent all felony defendants for whom counsel is appointed; however, attorneys typically do not have an opportunity to review cases and make informed requests for adjustment to release type and conditions at arraignment. Probation reports that copies of the court report for those defendants that are assessed are sent to the Public Defender s Office at the time that reports are sent to the court clerk and District Attorney s Office prior to arraignment; however, this could not be confirmed with the Public Defender s Office. According to the Public Defender representative, pretrial reports, police reports and access to the defendant are provided to defense counsel at the time of appointment during arraignment proceedings. Defense counsel very rarely requests that bail be addressed during arraignment due to the insufficient time to prepare a defense, and rarely will judges address bail when requested by the defense counsel. Bail is typically addressed in a subsequent bail hearing, to be held no sooner than two days after arraignment. Conclusion: The current appointment process and timing does not provide time for counsel to prepare a defense for indigent defendants at the time of arraignment. This is one factor contributing to delayed consideration of adjustment to release type and conditions, and it may contribute to unnecessary use of detention. Recommendations: The county stakeholders should attempt to address bail at the arraignment, if possible, by adjusting arraignment proceedings so that Public Defender staff have access to information and sufficient time to review and consult with clients briefly during or prior to the hearing. Additional days in jail awaiting a bail hearing may be avoidable for defendants who can be safely released to the community. Additional data from the Sheriff s Office or the court could be used to identify the impact of detaining defendants additional days for a bail hearing. Release Authority Standard for Release Authority: Officials with authority to release have clear criteria to make the decision and training in applying those criteria. Summary of Findings: Pretrial release authority in Monterey lies primarily with the Sheriff s Office and with criminal court judges. Based on a policy approved by county judges in April 2012 to reduce the jail population, the Sheriff s Office has a list of non-violent felony offenses and misdemeanor offenses for which arrestees booked into the jail are automatically released on their own recognizance. This release mechanism, referred to as O.R. release, was designed to allow release within a few hours, though the processing speed varies based on the jail staffing level and number of arrests that must be processed. According to information gathered by the Probation department, approximately 14% of defendants between October 2012 and May 2014 were released from the jail on O.R. prior to arraignment. An additional 10% posted their financial bail amount prior to screening by pretrial services. 3 The criteria guiding judges release decisions are less clear. While the assessed risk, charge, and bail 3 Probation department Total Program Statistic through summary report, obtained May 12, 2014.

7 7 P a g e schedule all factor in, decisions are based upon professional judgment. There are no written guidelines for how judges should use the information provided by pretrial services, nor has there been any formal judicial training on the topic. Conclusion: In most cases where defendants are assessed by pretrial services, judges have sufficient information for making release decisions; however, they may not have clear and consistent guidance on how to use the information provided Recommendation: The Probation Department and bench should work to develop judicial training and resources on evidencebased pretrial release decision making for Probation staff, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys. The Sheriff s Office should consider developing an O.R. release policy based on assessed risk, rather than charge. This could be accomplished by using a pretrial risk assessment or a proxy risk screening tool at booking. Release Information and Options Available Standard for Release Information and Options: All the information needed to make an informed decision, including evidence-based risk assessments, and a wide range of options to address the range of risks posed by defendants, is available to the releasing authority. Summary of Findings: The jail staff has access to the bail schedule guidelines and the state s criminal history database when exercising their release authority for straight O.R. and financial release conditions. Risk assessments and recommendations for release conditions are provided to the judge at arraignment. As described in the next section, these are completed on very few defendants. The judge has the ability to release a defendant with a range of options including straight O.R. with no supervision, financial release conditions, and supervised O.R. with varying levels of intensity. The Probation Department has developed robust resources and easy access to services such as housing and behavioral health for post-adjudicated offenders on probation and post-release supervision. The department is also working with Community Oriented Correctional Health Services (COCHS) on facilitating access to healthcare through the Affordable Care Act. While pretrial services staff provide service referrals for defendants placed on pretrial supervision, both Probation and Social Services leaders expressed interest in a more proactive approach referring pretrial defendants for services in the community. Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys also expressed support for greater access to treatment and stabilization programs for pretrial defendants. Judges do not typically add release conditions beyond those recommended by the Probation Department, so they would likely rely heavily on pretrial services to identify specific needs and appropriate providers. Conclusion: County stakeholders have a range of pretrial release options available, but could better make use of resources by developing an infrastructure for providing information and referrals related to defendant s social service needs. Recommendation: The Probation Department and its social services partner agencies should develop protocols for identifying and referring defendants with social service needs which, if addressed, may mitigate individuals pretrial risk. This should include safeguards for ensuring that conditions recommended and ordered are the least restrictive necessary to mitigate an individual s pretrial risk.

8 Target Population 8 P a g e Standard for Target Population: All defendants for whom a release decision can be made are targeted (e.g., anyone taken into custody except those excluded by statute). Summary of Findings: In California, only defendants charged with a capital offense, when the proof of guilt is evident or presumption great, cannot be admitted to bail (Penal Code ). All others have a right to bail (Penal Code 1271), which can be understood as a right to release. However, the local justice system s strategy for pretrial assessment is not to assess all or even most defendants, but to target a felony population that has been identified based on the booking charges as the most likely to be released pretrial. A number of justice partners expressed support for the current strategy on the basis that it is the best use of limited resources. Several asserted that most candidates who are suitable for release have already been released prior to being assessed by pretrial, based on their charges. The Probation Department has an extensive list of offenses which make defendants ineligible for assessment and release consideration. Of the approximately 23,000 arrestees screened since the program s inception in October 2012, 21% were booked on misdemeanor charges; 10% were released on bond prior to being screened by pretrial staff; 14% were released on O.R. pursuant to the Sheriff s O.R. release policy; and 37% were designated hold, remand or warrant status. 13% of all defendants booked were deemed ineligible for consideration for pretrial release based on the charge criteria established by the Probation Department. Once defendants who are charged with misdemeanors, released on bond or O.R., and those being detained on a remand, warrant or mandatory hold are taken into account, over 80% of detained felony defendants are ineligible for consideration based on Probation s policy. 4 Given the high number of statutorily bailable defendants deemed ineligible for consideration based on internal policy and practice, it appears that the number of defendants assessed could be increased significantly. Some defendants assessed by pretrial services are able to secure their release prior to arraignment. Interviews not resulting in a report and recommendation are not captured Probation Department data; however, based on the number of court reports submitted in recent months, the pretrial unit has the capacity to assess additional defendants. Probation does not assess misdemeanor defendants detained at the jail. Originally, misdemeanor defendants were arraigned in Early Disposition Misdemeanor Arraignment Court that was held at 8:30am, and pretrial did not have sufficient time to prepare reports with the current staffing configuration. The expedited misdemeanor court is now held at 2pm. There has been some discussion within the Probation Department about exploring with judges the utility of pretrial supervision for misdemeanor defendants whose matters are not resolved at this hearing. It is not clear how many defendants fall into this category. Conclusion: The County s assessment strategy is intended to make the best use of pretrial resources by targeting those most likely to be released; however, this strategy is subjective and results in an assessment and recommendation process which is primarily charge-based and therefore inconsistent with evidence-based practice. It results in the detention of a potentially large population of defendants whose pretrial risk may be safely managed in the community, but whose risk is unknown. In addition, this process, in conjunction with the use of a charge-only based bail schedule, results in the release of defendants whose risk of pretrial failure may be high and cannot be reasonably managed in the community. Judges will eventually make a release decision for nearly every pretrial detainee that is not assessed by pretrial services; for these defendants, however, judges will 4 Ibid.

9 not have the benefit of information regarding pretrial risk. 9 P a g e Recommendations: The County should change the targeting strategy so that the goal is to asses all defendants, including those charged with misdemeanors. Recognizing the reality of limited resources, stakeholders should develop prioritization criteria to assess those defendants that have the highest likelihood of having a straight or supervised O.R. decision by the judge, as highest priority, but including all defendants that are statutorily eligible for pretrial release (everyone except for those charged with an offense punishable with death when the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption great) given the resources available. The Probation Department should revise its workload measures to include all defendants interviewed and assessed (even if no report was submitted), the reason defendants are deemed ineligible, and the reason no report was submitted. These measures may be useful in making policy and operational adjustments. Ongoing Review Standard for Ongoing Review: The pretrial services agency regularly reviews the status of detained defendants to determine if there are any changes that would enable release. Summary of Findings: There is no system for regular review of defendants detained pretrial. The Probation Department has expressed interest in obtaining information from the Sheriff s Office on defendants housed at the jail; however, Probation has not had access to this information. Pretrial services prepares reports for bail hearings upon request from the court. No data is available on the frequency with which this occurs. Statute requires that a bail review be held within 5 days of the original bail setting for those detained in custody on a criminal charge because they are unable to post their bail amount (Penal Code ). As noted earlier, bail is not always reviewed within this timeline. Conclusion: Probation and the courts do not have sufficient access to information or procedures in place to systematically review the status of detained defendants for release eligibility due to changes in circumstance. Recommendations: The court should ensure that a bail review hearing for all detained defendants occurs within five days. The Sheriff s Office should provide pretrial services with a roster of detainees to assess for possible release, based on criteria identified by Probation and the courts. This may require that partners develop a process for scheduling an additional bail review hearing or other means of judicial review. Pretrial may also review bail hearing dockets, and ideally would assess all defendants prior to bail review if they had not been initially assessed before arraignment. Information Collected Standard for Information Collected: The information collected is relevant to the risk assessment and to provide supervision and follow up if the defendant is released. Summary of Findings: In addition to information necessary to complete the risk assessment, information collected includes information on community ties (family, student and employment status), veteran status, residential stability, defendant contact information, victim contact information (for domestic violence cases) and contact information for verification of residence. Employment status may or may not be verified and verification does not have a bearing on the recommendation. Very little information is collected that is not relevant to pretrial risk assessment and recommended supervision conditions. Information not necessary for these purposes appears to be used for case management and service referrals.

10 10 P a g e Conclusion: Information collected and provided to judges is relevant to the risk assessment, recommended conditions and the provision of supervision should the defendant be released. Risk Assessment Standard for Risk Assessment: The risk assessment is evidence-based and recently validated on the population. Summary of Findings: The pretrial staff administers the Ohio Risk Assessment System Pretrial Assessment Tool (ORAS-PAT) to the target group of defendants and reports the risk score on their court reports. The Probation Department uses materials provided by the ORAS-PAT developers at the University of Cincinnati and they have been trained in the full Ohio Risk Assessment System. While pretrial assessment tools are simple in design, it is essential that all staff are accurately interpreting the items in a manner that is consistent with their colleagues and with the intent of the scoring item. The adult division has quality assurance measures in place for other ORAS modules, but has not yet developed anything specific to pretrial services. The ORAS-PAT has not been validated locally for Monterey s pretrial population, and there are currently no plans to validate the tool. Conclusion: Monterey s pretrial population may be slightly skewed toward high risk, but this is not unusual in California jurisdictions where most misdemeanor arrestees and many low-level felony defendants are not detained due to jail crowding. It is possible the defendant population in Ohio on which the ORAS-PAT was developed is meaningfully different from the defendant population in Monterey County, making this particular risk assessment not as useful as it could be for predicting the likelihood of returning to court or committing new crimes during the pretrial period. Recommendations: The ORAS-PAT should be validated locally to ensure that it accurately predicts pretrial risk for the Monterey County defendant population. A number of researcher and technical assistance providers are experienced in the validation of pretrial risk assessment instruments. Data collection could take from several months to several years, depending on the rate at which defendants are assessed. The County may also consider the forthcoming Public Safety Assessment-Court (PSA-Court) tool developed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. This universal pretrial risk tool is based on data from multiple state and local jurisdictions nationwide. The tool will be in the public domain and will not require local validation. It is currently being pilot tested and may be available in the coming months. While the ORAS-PAT scoring items are not subjective, variation in the interpretation of some items may result in inconsistency in scoring. The Probation Department should consider developing quality assurance procedures for pretrial risk assessment. Release Recommendations Standard for Release Recommendations: The release recommendations correspond with the assessed risks (i.e., low risk defendants are recommended for release with no special conditions), and those with release authority follow the recommendations in the majority of cases. Summary of Findings: Assessed risk is one of several factors used to determine release recommendations. The Probation Department does not have a policy which explicitly identifies a default release recommendation based on assessed risk, nor does it have a detailed policy outlining a process for overriding the default recommendation. Generally, release recommendations are not closely aligned with assessed risk. Of defendants assessed low risk in CY 2013, supervision was recommended for 73%, denial was recommended for 25% and straight O.R. was

11 11 P a g e recommended for 2%. Of those assessed moderate risk, supervision was recommended for 55% and denial was recommended for 45%. Of those assessed high risk, 9% were recommended for supervised release, 91% for denial of release. Based on information provided by Probation, judges followed their recommendation for release 68 percent of the time in 2013 (resulting in the release of 75 defendants). 5 According to pretrial staff and management, recommendations for release are individualized and subjective. The defendant s assessed risk is one of several factors considered in making a recommendation. The factor that appears to have the most bearing on release recommendations is residential stability. Defendants must have a verified stable address. Whether a residential address is sufficiently stable and safe is left to the pretrial officer s professional judgment. Other factors that may be considered when determining if release is appropriate and what conditions may be recommended are history of failures to appear, previous behavior on community supervision, substance abuse issues and other obstacles to court appearance. The court-based partners, including prosecutors, public defenders and judges, all express a great deal of confidence in actuarial risk assessment and in Probation s recommendations. All expressed support for a riskbased decision-making system, and based on their comments may overestimate the extent to which assessed risk is driving Probation s release recommendations. No one expressed skepticism about actuarial risk assessment, and all seem knowledgeable about the value and proper use of risk assessment. Conclusion: Release recommendations are not consistent with assessed risk. Professional judgment and experience are indispensable and should not be undervalued; however, subjective decision-making may lead to inconsistent results and runs counter to the County s efforts to implement an evidence-based system. Ideally, a risk-based system of release will allow enough flexibility and provide sufficient information to make adjustments for any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Given the frequency of recommendations to deny release, it should also be noted that in the absence of a preventive detention statute, the court is limited to setting a high bond amount for defendants that are viewed as a public safety risk. This is an unreliable risk management strategy, since some defendants will post bond and be released without any supervision. Recommendation: The Probation department should revise its policies to include explicit guidelines which tie each level of assessed risk to a default release recommendation, but that allow for overrides based on professional judgment under special circumstances. While policies guiding release recommendations should allow flexibility, the department should have procedures in place for review, approval and monitoring of occasional overrides, and should aim for a high rate of compliance with established guidelines, resulting in a pretrial population where release is the norm and detention is the carefully limited exception. 6 Supervision Standard for Supervision: Supervision resources are prioritized for higher risk defendants. Summary of Findings: Of the defendants recommended for supervision in 2013, 29% were low risk, 62% were moderate risk, and 8% were high risk, according to the ORAS. It is not clear why such a large proportion of low-risk defendants--38 out of 52 assessed--were recommended for supervision. Thirty-three of these were released to supervision. Data is not available on the conditions recommended for defendants, so the nature of release conditions is unclear. Data on contacts with defendants is collected in Smart Probation, but this data is not readily available in the aggregate. Anecdotally, pretrial officers report they have contact with defendants either by 5 Probation Department 2013 pretrial screening data obtained on May 21, United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739 (1987)

12 telephone or face-to-face about once a week on average. 12 P a g e Conclusion: It does not appear that supervision resources are prioritized by risk. This cannot be stated conclusively without data on the specific conditions ordered; however, the high incidence of supervision among low-risk defendants indicates that resources may not be reserved for those who pose the greatest risk for pretrial misconduct. Since release recommendations are individualized, it is possible that supervision conditions for these defendants were designed to address specific needs; however, research generally supports minimal intervention with low-risk defendants and the law supports the least restrictive release conditions necessary to assure appearance. Typically, little or no supervision should be recommended or used for low risk defendants. Recommendations: In addition to augmenting its guidelines for general release recommendation as described above, the Probation Department should articulate in its policies a range of appropriate release conditions based on assessed risk level. The Probation Department should use case management data from Smart Probation to monitor the level of supervision provided, ensuring that supervision is consistent with established guidelines. Responses to Violations Standard for Responses to Violations: Established criteria for responding to violations exist. Summary of Findings: The department has guidelines for appropriate responses to non-compliance. Officers report that new arrest and loss of contact are the most common reasons for requesting a revocation of pretrial release. They also report that revocation is very rare and is used as a last resort. Conclusion: Established criteria for responding to violations exist. Recommendation: The Probation Department should explore the utility of graduated responses to violations, as well as responses to compliance (e.g., reduce frequency of contact, request removal of conditions, send a presentence report to the court describing the defendant s performance on supervised pretrial release). Court Reminders Standard for Court Reminders: Court date reminder notices are provided to defendants regarding their upcoming court dates. Summary of Findings: Each pretrial officer is responsible for reminder calls and notices to defendants on his or her caseload. All three officers report that they typically call the day or two prior to each court date, as well as on the day of court. One sends a letter to each of her defendants. They each determine the method and frequency that works for them and their defendants. Court reminders should be tracked in Smart Probation, but this data cannot yet be accessed in the aggregate; therefore, the department cannot measure how much court date reminders contribute to officers workload, what kind of impact they may have on appearance rates, or which methods are most effective. Conclusion: Research shows that court date reminders are one of the most effective methods for increasing court appearance rates. Reminders are provided to Monterey defendants who are on pretrial supervision, but the type and frequency cannot be established with certainty. Recommendation: The Probation Department should use case management data from Smart Probation to monitor court

13 13 P a g e reminder type, frequency and outcomes. As the pretrial caseloads increase over time, the department may consider a more standardized approach to issuing reminders; evidence of what is most effective may help to inform decisions about the best timing and method for reminders. The Department should institute court date reminders to defendants who are not on supervised release. Research shows that these defendants also appear at a higher rate when reminders are issued. 7 Data / Quality Assurance Standard for Data/Quality Assurance: Data system provides accurate data at management and case levels; reports provide information to guide continuous improvement efforts. Summary of Findings: The Probation Department employs an analyst who is dedicated to data management and quality assurance for the department generally, and oversees the collection and reporting of AB109 data. The pretrial data reported to the CCP is collected manually by pretrial staff using case tracking and summary spreadsheets. Select data points are included in the CCP quarterly reports. Quality assurance and analysis of pretrial data has not been a priority for the department, which has committed significant resources to ensuring the quality of data collected across the department s AB109 initiatives, developing automated reports and special initiatives such as the implementation of a web-based referral management system. The department will increase its data analysis staff in the coming months, which should create capacity to better manage collection, storage and analysis of pretrial data. The Probation Department reports pretrial statistics to the CCP as part of its quarterly reporting on realignmentrelated initiatives. The pretrial data include the number of bookings reviewed for pretrial eligibility, number of inmates assessed, number of court reports written and number of defendants released. Based on feedback from CCP members, discussions of pretrial services during meetings are not driven by numbers and results. The group appears open to a more data-driven approach to decision making, based upon greater access to data and more meaningful analysis. The judges are not part of the CCP, so are not present for discussions of performance data. There is some informal discussion with judges, but no regular forum for providing feedback and sharing data on outcomes. A number of stakeholders expressed the desire to see the composition of the jail population. The CCP report includes data on the percentage of inmates that are pretrial status, but no information on detainee length of stay, release type, whether they are held on bond, risk levels or other information that would help them to understand their population drivers and determine if they are detaining the right defendants. The Sheriff s Office does not regularly share data on its pretrial inmate population by charge type, bond type, financial conditions, risk level when known, release type, and days in custody. The Sheriff s CJIS likely houses data on pretrial detainees and releases on financial bond, O.R. and supervision; however, it is not clear whether the department has the capacity to extract this data from their system. Conclusion: The Probation Department is collecting data on a number of useful workload and outcome measures, and has developed robust reporting and data quality protocols for some AB109 initiatives; but the Department does not regularly share pretrial data to engage stakeholders and drive performance improvement efforts. There 7 VanNostrand, Marie., Kenneth J. Rose and Kimberly Weibrecht. State of the Science of Pretrial Release Recommendation and Supervision (2011). Washington, DC; The Pretrial Justice Institute. Schnake, Timothy R., Michael R. Jones and Dorian M. Wilderman. Increasing Court-Appearance Rates and Other Benefits of Live-Caller Telephone Court-Date Reminders: The Jefferson County, Colorado, FTA Pilot Project and Resulting Court Date Notification Program (2012). Court Review, Volume 48, Issue 3, 86-95

14 14 P a g e is no data available from the Sheriff s Office or other justice partners that meaningfully informs pretrial efforts. Recommendations: The Probation Department should develop regular reports on a standard set of measures such as those recommended in NIC s Measuring What Matters publication and additional measures of interest to management, staff and stakeholders that will guide improvement efforts. Measures should be tied to the stated program objectives to measure progress toward achieving these objectives. These reports should be discussed among staff, management, CCP members, and with judges on a regular basis. The County should increase its capacity to report to pretrial stakeholders on the pretrial population composition and dynamics, including release methods, bond amounts, lengths of stay, and charged offense. The County should work toward assessing pretrial risk at the earliest possible point in pretrial processing; knowing the risk profile of defendants in the jail as well as of those out of custody will help to ensure that the right people are being detained and the right people are being released. Leadership Ideal for Leadership: Leadership group within the pretrial service agency functions as a cohesive group, is fully committed and able to engage staff and partners in sustainable pretrial justice practices. Summary of Findings: Leadership within the pretrial service agency expressed their interest in and commitment to developing and maintaining sustainable pretrial justice practices. Leadership and staff within the department presented a strong collaborative team environment. As discussed below, the extent of partner engagement and interagency collaboration are less apparent. Conclusion: Leadership within the pretrial service agency functions as a cohesive group; at all levels, personnel appears committed to strengthening and sustaining pretrial justice practices. System Collaboration Ideal for System Collaboration: External stakeholders are actively involved in planning/ implementation and educated on pretrial justice; among the group are champion(s) that are committed to pretrial justice. Summary of Findings: The planning and implementation process for pretrial services was largely internal to the Probation Department. Probation personnel visited established pretrial services programs, talked with colleagues in other jurisdictions and conducted research on pretrial standards and best practices to inform the program development. This was done with the full knowledge and approval of the CCP, but was not a collaborative process involving criminal justice partner agencies or other stakeholders. Communication regarding pretrial policy, practice and performance are limited to brief updates during CCP meetings typically in the context of AB109 initiatives in the county s realignment plan. The Probation Department provides key performance and work flow indicators. It does not appear that there is substantive discussion in which partners and stakeholders ask questions, provide input, or address areas of concern. Criminal justice partners and stakeholders do not appear very knowledgeable about how their pretrial system is functioning or the impact it is having on the jail population; they also do not appear to have well-defined expectations for performance, or a clear vision of what success would look like. Despite a CCP which appears to function well and which has accomplished many of the objectives in the county s realignment plan, there are several barriers to having a productive interagency collaboration around pretrial justice. The judges have made the decision to abstain from CCP and other interagency criminal justice steering bodies based on guidance from the AOC advising that participation in policy-making bodies would constitute

15 15 P a g e holding two offices. The Probation Department has conducted presentations for judges on pretrial and other topics related to realignment and evidence-based practices, and Probation leadership has had meetings with judges to get feedback on policies, procedures and forms in particular on the court report currently in use. Both the bench and Probation appear open to increasing the level of engagement and dialogue specific to pretrial services. In particular, judges we spoke with expressed interest in greater use of community-based treatment programs for pretrial defendants and a more proactive bail review process to identify candidates not suitable for release at the earliest decision point. The public defender s decision to file a class action lawsuit against the county also appears to have had a chilling effect on interagency collaboration and information sharing. While the CCP and Criminal Justice Collaborative have continued to meet, tensions resulting from the pending suit may be a barrier to productive dialogue about pretrial goals and performance. Conclusion: The interagency collaborative is supportive of pretrial justice efforts, but partners are not actively engaged in planning, implementation and system improvement efforts. Recommendations: Addressing the data sharing issues noted above, and providing richer and more meaningful performance indicators and jail population statistics will help to engage stakeholders and promote data-driven decision making. A representative of the court, if not a sitting judge, should be involved in all interagency discussions of pretrial system functioning. The Probation Department should meet regularly with representatives from the criminal bench to review performance measures, provide feedback and address any operational issues that may arise. Organizational Development Ideal for Organizational Development: Agency has conducted organizational assessment(s) and begun addressing gaps through a strategic planning process; specific pretrial justice efforts are included. Summary of Findings: As noted above, initial planning and implementation of pretrial services was managed internally by the Probation Department with support from the CCP. This system assessment is one step toward engaging in a more collaborative strategic planning process. Conclusion: The County has begun the process of identifying and addressing gaps in pretrial system functioning. Recommendations: The Probation Department and its partnering agencies should use system assessment results to identify and prioritize opportunities for improvement, and develop a strategic pretrial justice plan with specific goals and action items. Resources and Budget Ideal for Resources and Budget: The budgeting structure for pretrial aligns with the administration of pretrial justice (e.g., focuses on practices that adhere to national standards). Summary of Findings: The Probation Department has 3 FTE dedicated to pretrial release and supervision services, not including a manager who heads pretrial as well as three other units. The county initially allocated 6 FTE to pretrial services, but the unit has not required this level of staffing with its current program configuration. On the date of CJI s site visit, there were 12 pretrial defendants on supervision. According to pretrial staff, their

16 16 P a g e supervision capacity is in the range of defendants. According to agency management, there are plans to cross-train staff from the pretrial and electronic monitoring units. This will provide flexibility and the potential for coverage across the two units, and may allow for expansion should the pretrial workload increase. The three unfilled FTEs were allocated to drug courts and other functions. Pretrial Officers are based at the Probation office, which is located two miles from the jail. Officers conduct the initial review and screening of arrestees from the Probation office; they then travel to the jail to conduct interviews. Interviewing of newly-booked defendants takes place in the reception area. Interviews with inmates who have been classified and moved to housing units are conducted in an office within the classification area. There is a designated Sheriff s Deputy who assists Probation staff by facilitating access to housed inmates. The process is efficient and well-coordinated. After conducting interviews, Probation staff travel back to the Probation offices to complete reports and transmit them to court. Given the small number of detainees that Probation interviews on any given day, the logistics of the current system are feasible. The sheriff s Office has made space available for use by pretrial services should the need arise. Conclusion: The pretrial services unit within the Probation Department has sufficient resources to carry out its mission. Recommendations: The Probation Department should consider filling the remaining 3 officer positions and dedicate them to conducting assessments and providing information to the court on all pretrial detainees, directing resources toward universal assessment and away from preliminary charge-based screening. As workload increases, the Department may also consider increasing their efficiency by conducting screening, interviews and report-writing at the jail. Training Ideal for Training: Regular pretrial justice training and refresher sessions on actual skills are delivered, and competencies are measured. Summary of Findings: Stakeholders such as judges, attorneys and CCP members have received no formal training on pretrial justice generally, or on pretrial policies and procedures locally. Of the trainings and presentations given by the Probation Department to date, some have addressed pretrial services in the larger context of AB109 and evidence-based practice. While a few local partners are familiar with the ABA standards and with pretrial best practices, partners generally lack familiarity with national standards, the legal and research foundations of pretrial practice, and with recent advances in the field of pretrial justice. Despite a lack of formal training, agency leadership across the criminal justice system appears to support the Probation Department s goals. Dissatisfaction with the current pretrial process pertains to the need to expand the target population and move toward a more risk-based system of release. The level of knowledge and support among the bench as well as line staff within the Public Defender s and District Attorney s offices is unclear. The Probation Department has provided senior management with formal training through a California-specific event based on NIC s orientation for pretrial executives; there has been no formal training specific to pretrial justice for line staff and middle managers. Conclusion: The County does not offer regular training on pretrial justice to staff or stakeholders. Recommendations: Staff at all levels within the Probation Department and partner agencies, as well as other stakeholder groups, should participate in ongoing training specific to pretrial justice issues.

17 17 P a g e Policy and Procedure Ideal for Policy and Procedure: Policy and procedure manual(s) are written and implemented to reflect national standards of pretrial justice; system actors are held accountable for implementation. Summary of Findings: The Probation Department has developed clear and concise policies and procedures which are based on ABA standards. These include a statement of program objectives. It is not clear, however, how much these policies and procedures guide the work of staff on a daily basis. There do not appear to be formal trainings or regular communication of policy and procedure. There are no quality assurance procedures in place to ensure compliance, and there is no performance measurement process in place to identify specifically the department s progress toward achieving its stated objectives. There are several key omissions from the department s policies and procedures: 1) explicit guidelines which tie each level of assessed risk to a default release recommendation, 2) guidelines and approval procedure for overriding the guidelines based on aggravating or mitigating circumstances and 3) guidelines for systematic responses to defendants compliance with release conditions. Ideally, responses will be based on a system of graduated responses to both positive and negative performance while on supervision. The forms used for interview, court reports, and defendant court notification are concise and streamlined. The Department appears to have developed efficient processes that minimize staff time on reporting and result in comprehensible, user-friendly court reports which present key information in a clear and concise manner. Probation and judicial representatives report that there has been and will continue to be discussion with judges about how well reports are meeting their needs. Conclusion: The Probation Department has developed clear and concise policies, most of which are consistent with national standards. Notable exceptions are its do not interview policy which excludes a large number of defendants based on charge, its lack of guidelines for risk-based release and it lack of a policy for responses to defendant conduct. Recommendations: Recommendations related to the policies described above are included in the Target Population, Release Recommendations and Response to Violations sections of this report.

18 18 P a g e References Several key documents were referenced to create the Crime and Justice Institute s Pretrial Justice System Assessment tools, including: American Bar Association (2007). ABA standards for criminal justice: Pretrial release (3 rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Bar Association. Retrieved from eckdam.pdf Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice (2009). Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Community Corrections, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies (2004). Standards on pretrial release (3 rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from VanNostrand, M., & Crime and Justice Institute (2007). Legal and evidence-based practices: Applications of legal principles, laws, and research to the field of pretrial services. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from National Institute of Corrections (2011). Measuring What Matters: Outcome and performance measures for the pretrial services field. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Retrieved from Pretrial Justice Institute (2011). Assessing local pretrial justice functions: A handbook for providing technical assistance. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from Pretrial Justice Institute (2009). Pretrial services program implementation: A starter kit. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance. Retrieved from Clark, J. (2012). Pretrial Justice Mini-Assessment. Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute.