NCJ Number
89704
Date Published
1982
Length
120 pages
Annotation
Following the presentation of a general model of central intake for pretrial decisions, alternative approaches to central intake are examined for six jurisdictions, and conclusions and recommendations are offered from the analysis.
Abstract
The six jurisdictions selected for detailed analyses met the initial criteria of a central intake system: immediate postarrest processing, limited exclusion categories, release of both misdemeanants and felons, and the use of a variety of release alternatives. One major conclusion from the study was that when central intake is defined as a centralized administrative organizational structure charged with facilitating interagency cooperation and coordination of intake and release functions, community, defendant, and systems needs in the sampled jurisdictions were met with greater efficiency and effectiveness. The goals of more rapid defendant processing, provision of defendant services, reliance on nonmonetary forms of release, and increased use of alternatives to incarceration were facilitated by management information systems which assisted in the tracking of defendants and the flow of information on their cases. The second major finding was that of the six jurisdictions, all had followed a similar development sequence. The systems began as either release-on-own-recognizance programs or as release programs designed to reduce jail overcrowding. The third principal finding was that the central intake systems were not a panacea for the problems plaguing the jurisdictions; e.g., three of the sites' use of alternatives to incarceration before and after trial did not preclude the construction of new jail facilities. For jurisdictions wishing to institute a central intake system, recommendations are offered in tabular form. Sixty-six references are listed. The appendix provides a workbook for diagnosing and improving intake and release decision systems.