NCJ Number
87520
Date Published
1981
Length
11 pages
Annotation
Data indicate that independent pretrial services agencies, with the sole responsibility for delivering pretrial release services, perform better than probation agencies, which have pretrial services as just one of their multiple roles.
Abstract
A standard of the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) provides that pretrial services agencies (PSA's) should structure their functions to meet the needs of their own jurisdictions as well as needs of other jurisdictions. The commentary on this standard indicates the PSA's should be structured to ensure independence, whether they are part of a defender office, a prosecutor office, a probation office, etc. The data, however, show significant differences between the performance of PSA's associated with probation offices and those that operate under independent boards. 'Board' agencies have more prebail interviews. Further, 'probation' agencies have made little improvement in this area, while the 'board' agencies have made continued progress in interviewing an ever-increasing percentage of the eligible cases. Another measure of program effectiveness under NAPSA standards is the percentage of recommendations made per investigation by a PSA. Measured against this standard, the 'board' agencies provide recommendations in 20 percent more cases than do 'probation' agencies; moreover, the percentage of recommendations made by 'probation' agencies has remained about constant at close to 60 percent, while 'board' agencies have made sustained improvement to the point where recommendations are currently made in 80 percent of the cases. Further, the nonfinancial release rates in jurisdictions served by 'board' agencies are not only higher but have increased at a faster rate over the life of the experiment.