Practices of Pretrial Release Programs - Review and Analysis of the Data

• NCJ Number: 82655
• Author(s): D E Pryor
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 113 pages
• Grant Number(s): 79-MU-AX-0033
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice - LEAA
• Corporate Author: Pretrial Services Resource Ctr
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; Pretrial Services Resource Ctr
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Survey data collected from 119 pretrial release programs in 30 States and the District of Columbia indicate a wide range of differences, including degree of compliance with national standards developed by the National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies and the American Bar Association.

Abstract

The survey found that many programs' screening procedures contribute to unneccessary detention. Seventy percent automatically exclude certain defendants from interviews and 8 percent exclude them from eligibility mainly on grounds of the charge. This contradicts national standards calling for use of additional criteria. Further, half of the programs recommend financial bail for some defendants unable to arrange bail money, thus detaining safe risks for economic reasons. Only half of the programs have used research to objectively assess their recommendation schemes. As a result, some programs perpetuate inefficiencies and possibly screening and recommendation errors. Less than 15 percent of the programs have assessed the impact of notification, verification, and supervision activities. Sixty-one percent of the programs have been operating for more than 7 years. Relying on single funding sources, generally local, the programs are cautious in making release decisions. Moreover, program staffing and resources are stretched thinner than in the previous decade, affecting the number of defendants interviewed and influencing availabe time and resources for program planning, analysis, and implementation of changes. All pretrial release programs share a common denominator: the potential for collecting information that cuts across all aspects of pretrial release decisionmaking. The author suggests that these programs analyze their screening approaches and recommendation criteria, question the implications of money bail, assess program goals, institute system changes to improve resource allocation, and more. Numerous tables and footnotes are supplied, and appendixes present the survey questionnaires and the location of participating programs.