Presenters: Joel Bishop, Program Manager Joel.Bishop@mesacounty.us 244-3309 Dennis Berry, Director dennis.berry@mesacounty.us 244-3331 Mesa County Criminal Justice Services
Developing a Collaborative Framework Forming an EBDM Pretrial Work Group Writing a System-Wide Pretrial Vision Statement Implementing an Evidence-Based Interview Tool Designing and Implementing the SMART Praxis Developing a New Bond Schedule Violations Response and Incentives Model
Commitment by key Stakeholders to review the research. Utilization of a consultant to identify system weaknesses and potential improvements. Development of goals and timeframes for improvements.
Chief Judge Bottger, (District ) Judge Henderson, (County ) Rich Tuttle, (District Attorney s Office) Bo Zeerip, (District Attorney s Office) Thea Reiff, (Public Defender s Office) Alexander Vitale, (Public Defender s Office) Ed Nugent, (Private Attorney) Patrick Gentzler, (Private Attorney) Dennis Berry, (Criminal Justice Services) Joel Bishop, (Criminal Justice Services) Steve Farlow, (Sheriff s Department) Jennifer Sheetz, (Data Analyst)
Develop a Vision Statement Implement an Evidence-Based Pretrial Tool (CPAT) Develop a Model to apply the Tool (SMART Praxis Supervision Matrix Assessment & Recommendation Tool) Develop a Bond Schedule to replace the existing one Develop a Violation and Incentives Model based on Evidenced-Based Principles Develop an Advanced Data Tracking System to Measure Outcomes with regular statistical updates.
Obtained key values of Pretrial from the group Assigned a point person/group to put these values into writing Presented to the group for modifications and finalization
The Pretrial EBDM Group worked collaboratively to finalized additional questions to be included in the Pretrial report and develop the format of the tool. Training of System Stakeholders. Implementing the CPAT & SMART Praxis on July 1, 2012. Implementation of the new bond schedule and the new violation response guide on April 29, 2013.
How we use the score: Collaboratively developed protocol for when to recommend supervision and when not to supervise. Developed levels of supervision. Developed response to violations. Developed new bond schedule based not only on the criminal charge, but on the empirical risk profile.
Crimes CPAT Categories Felony VRA Crimes (C.R.S. 24-4.1-302) Drug Distribution & Aggravated DARP Domestic Violence DVSI 11 or Greater Domestic Violence DVSI 10 or Less Other Felony Crimes Misd. VRA Crimes (C.R.S. 24-4.1-302) Misd. & Traffic (Does not include DUI) Cat 1 Enhanced Enhanced Basic Cat 2 Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced Basic Cat 3 Intensive Intensive Intensive Enhanced Basic Basic Cat 4 Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Enhanced Enhanced Basic Colored Sections (Supervision Levels) Developed and Assigned by Collaborative Pretrial EBDM Stakeholder Group
MESA COUNTY PRETRIAL VIOLATION RESPONSE GUIDELINES MATRIX Supervision Levels (Based on the SMART Praxis) Basic Enhanced Minor Violation Moderate Violation Severe Violation Low Response Low to Medium Response Low to Medium Response Medium to High Response Medium to High Response High Response Intensive Low, Medium or High Response Medium to High Response High Response Low Response Medium Response High Response DEFINITIONS OF RESPONSE Responses may include one or more of the following actions: Verbal warning; May consult with attorneys; Consult with family members and friends; Behavior Contract; etc. Meet with and counsel client; Increase services or supervision levels (increase UA's, BA's, etc); Referral to treatment; May consult with attorneys; Mandatory contact with attorneys on positive schedule 1 and 2 substance screens; Request an imposed curfew; etc. Meet with and counsel client; Must send Notice paperwork to the D.A. & notify defense council; Contact law enforcement; Request treatment as condition of bond; request Pretrial Work Release; etc.
Based on the SMART Praxis Supervision Levels Three Levels of Violations (Minor, Moderate, Severe) Three Levels of Response (Low, Medium, High) Developed by Pretrial Services and adjusted in collaboration with the Pretrial Stakeholder EBDM Group