If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. /' . " i U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections ., ! National Criminal Justice Reference Service n s' Classif'ication ':, 0 - ,Instruments ,./ Ij') \! This microfiche was produced from documents received for for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of th~ documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on Criminal Justice 2) this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. " . ." Decisions, ·.·.•• =·~:··-~l I 1.0 :: "III~ ""'2.5 :: II"I~ 2.2 Iiiw ~~~ :: I~ ... U 'I/21 IJ,II:''',I. ""'1.4 111111.6 ""I~ Pretrial o ~ MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART /~ NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963_A /1 Release (( I /... _-_ ........ ~.~~~==== .. --.=:~). ,,~-" ..- Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply witn the standards set forth in 41 CFR 101-11.504. •• t· ~ •. I ~ /. - Points of view or opinions stated in this do(;ument are thosla 'of the author(s) and do not represent\th~ official position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. I . '-:-i-'~~ " " .' •• ~~ '~<'~" ~. .~~- ',-- ---''''-'.,-•• ,-".~. ..~ } Sl . Natio!lal I!lstitllt,?,~tJustice " :"",,;:..1 ..~~~. '- ~ ... United States Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20531 r\ ""-~---".---~----- ~ I \ r -/PRETRIAL RELEASE SOURCEBOOK prepared by the AMERICAN JUSTICE INSTITUTE with the NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY CLASSIFICATION INSTRUMENT DISSEMINATION PROJECT '1007 - 7th Street, Ste. 414 Sacramento, Ca. 95814 ~... ~" .... ,,~~~ ...... : '":,,,;;:·>!'o~..n • .,.,Uf ,,~ Marvin Bohnstedt, Project Director ,,. ~ 'NCJRS- f Saul Geiser, NCeD Staff Director i " ~t 1z I .''" I t . " June 1, 1979 i f I I f ~CQUI$ITIONS Prepared under Grant No. AT-2 from the National Institute of Corrections. o Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or pol ici~s L of the National Institute of Corrections or the U.S. Department of Justice. '" " ....... .: . -------~~ --- 'PRETRIAL RELEASE TABLE;f OF CONTENTS TELE~HONE INTERVIEW SUMMARIES . (ContJinued) ':;SOURCEBOOK . -/1 . I Co1oraqo, Golden TABLE OF CONTENTS Adult Diversion Program ~ .... .' 119 E.~ District of Columbia r. INTRODUCTION . ........ ,. .. .. 1 Pretrial Services Agency. II. STATE-OF-THE-ART . .'- . 122 . " . " . 6 Hawaii, Oahu I I I. SITE VISIT REPORTS \~~ \ Intake ~erviceiCenter (Pr,tria1 Release) ..... A. California, Santa Clara County 125 , , Indiana, Marion Count~· .., .'. Pretrial Release Program • • • • • tI • • 29 " Pretri~1 Services , \ . " . .. .. 129 B. Colorado, Boulder County Ic.,wa, Cedar Rapi ds Community Corrections Diagnostic Unit .• • . 45 Pretrial Release Program. & • • l . 133 (, C. Louisiana, Orleans Parish Iowa., Des Moi nes Diversion and Release on Recognizance Program. 63 PI-etrial Release Program •........ ,. 138 D. New York, New York City eriminal Justice Agency. .. 91 142 IV. TELEPHONE INTERVIEW SUMMARIES A. California, San Francisco i; ., . ~ 145 Pretrial 'Release Program ..• . 105 M. B. California, San Mateo County 150 N. Own Recognizance Project .... • • 0 41 • • 108 C. Colorado, Arapaho County - /j 157 O. Pretrial Release Services ...•. • • 111 D. Colorado, Denver 160 Pretrial Services ...••..... .... 115 I {) i i -,.. ,! -. 4Q ; '~·~~",~,~,.,-~-______,JiI TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TELEPHONE INTERVIEW SUMMARIES (Continued) ., The American Justice Institute, along with the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, has recently .completed a national survey of screening ~ndclassi­ P. New York, Monroe County fication in criminal justice. Sponsored by the National Institute of Corrections, Bar Association Pnetrial Services. ,~ . .'. 163 the year-long survey assessed the current state-of-the-art in the design and utili­ Q. North Carolina, Mecklenpurg County zation of classification tools for de~ision-making. The present volume contains a portton of those findings. Pretrial Release Prdgram ........... ~ 166 In building ,a data base, National Survey 'staff made over· 350 telephone R. Ohio, Cincinnati contac;ts,with classification experts, research organizations, and justice system Police Division (Pret~ia1 Release) ......• 169 agenci.es. These contacts combined with an extensive r.eview of the exis.t~ng litera­ ture reveal a recent trend toward formalizing offender classification, establishing s. Ohio, Greater Cincinnati more explicit criteria for screening decisions, and shifting eihphasis from· subjec­ Bai~ Bond Project (Pretrial Release) 172 tive judgements to reliance on standardized instruments in theC;'lassification and 1. Washington, Seattle decision-making process. For the purpose of this study, "instrUments" are defined as wr'itten forms which contain a fixed set of weighted criteria that are combined Probation Department (Pretrial Release) ..... 175. scor~e intoah overall offender. summary. score. Consideration of this in the classi- '\ fication process assists justice system practitioners "in making more consistent " \ . \I and uniform classification deciSions. Familiar examples of instrumen,ts include: 1. Vera Scale: uSed to classify the eligibility of pretrial det~endants for release on own recognizance; o 2. Base Expectancy Tables: used to screen offenders for ris.k of recidivi.sm; ," Fedet'a 1 Parol e Gui de 1i nes: used to reduce di spari ty in paro le-rel ease decistons. Though these examp1es.,emphasize different criteria and were created for differ­ ent purposes, they all serve to structure the classification process so that result­ ing decisions become more objecti"ve, uniform, and potentiallY.replicable. Among the sur'vey1s :350+ primary contacts, project staff identified 105 sites whe,re instr~~- ments, as defined, appeared to be used. Excluded from consideration were sites I '.1. II not using instruments, sites using' instruments mainly for program placement (since Ii the survey1s research charter explicitly excluded diagnostic classification), and ;1 .. (I !: iv -1- " Ii' ----~----~-------- ••. t",' , ',.' -':0'-'1I i sites using instruments duplicated elsewhere. Thus, the 105 'identified sites The state-of-the-art summaries, site visits. and telephone interview sum­ are those we believed to be using unique classification instruments and related maries'have been written by different, authors. Consequently. the individual procedures. components of the Sourcebooks may di,ffer somewhat sty1.istically •.We chose to National survey staff made considerable effort to ensure that: the study, emphasize accuracy or content, rather than consistency of style; the various research staff who colle,cted the information and ,best understood the on-site systematically sampled different geographical regions and different levels of • • • A jurisdiction. However, the suryey does not claim to be statistically represent­ operations were assigned the task of writing the summaries and reports. ative of the overall population of classification programs in the U.S., nor even The Sourcebooks are di vi ded into three main secti ons: (l) State-of-the:-Art of the more restricted population of programs that use instruments. Although Summary, (2) Site Reports, and (3) Telephone Interview Summaries. The last two staff contacted a broad distribution of agenciei using claSSification tools, sections include descriptions of instrument usage in specific agencies, and limited resources made it impossible to reach all such programs. Moreover, since copies of the instrument(s) used by that agency. The State-of-the-Art Summitry the total population of classification programs is at present unknown, standard describes current classification instl'uments and practices that are employed at research methods such as l"andom or quoti;l sampling were not used. Nevertheless, . the decision point assessed by each Sourcebook. The Summary is essentially a the purpose of the survey was to describe the current variety (some would say synthesis and evaluation of the findings generated by the site visits, telephone similarity) of approaches and techniques in the field of crimi,nal justice classi­ interviews, and literature review. It '-\lso inclUdes recomm1andations about devel­ fication, and this we believe has been achieved. opment'and impl~mentation of classification instruments at the respective deci­ The national survey also selected agencies that represent different decision sion points. points in the criminal justice system. A "decision point" is defined for the Section II of the Sourcebook, the Site Visit Reports, provides th~ reader purpose of this study as a juncture in the criminal justice system where decisions with an in-depth look at currently used instruments, and how they operate in are made which affect the path of an individual through, or out of the system. specific agencies; On the basis of the 105 ,telephone interviews, survey staff These points include pretrial release and diversion, sentencing, institutional ,selected 22 locations that employed 25 distinct instruments for more intensive I custody 1evel~ paro.le release, and parole/probation,supervision leve1. study through on-site observations and inte.rviews. National survey staff, usuany 1\ The results of our study have been organized with the practitioner specifi­ working in pairs, spent from two to four days at each site. During these vis'its, Ii u cally in mind. Accordingly, findings are categorized by decision point; material an effort was m~de