The APPR Roadmap for Pretrial Advancement provides a comprehensive roadmap and approach to improving pretrial policies and practices. The Roadmap has two parts. The Policy Roadmap describes 11 policies and practices that apply to different parts of the pretrial system—“what” your system should be doing if striving toward true pretrial justice. The Implementation Roadmap includes four practices that apply to “how” to implement these policies and practices.
These 11 policies describe the policies and practices that a system should adopt to deliver true pretrial justice–for instance, using citations in appropriate circumstances; diverting people pre- and post-charge; holding meaningful first appearances; and providing supportive pretrial services.
Spending any time in jail—even just a few hours or days—can have lasting impacts on someone’s life. It can result in the loss of a job, housing, or even custody of one’s children. People who are detained in jail are more likely to be convicted and sentenced to incarceration than similar people who are released quickly. They are also more likely to be arrested in the future.
Diversion offers many benefits, such as:
In many circumstances, diversion contributes to a reduction in future criminal behavior.
Diversion should not be used in situations where charges would otherwise be dropped, but instead in cases where a person would otherwise be arrested and charged. For instance, if the prosecutor does not believe they can prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt, diversion programs should not be used. The person should simply be released.
Just a few hours in jail exacts a toll. It can cost a person their job, housing, or family relationships. Research shows that people detained in jail are more likely to suffer these consequences than similar people who are released quickly. They are also more likely to be convicted and sentenced to incarceration and to recidivate.
Keeping a person in pretrial custody also taxes the system. It contributes to jail crowding and keeps jail personnel away from other essential duties.
The “first appearance” in a criminal proceeding is often a person’s first chance to be seen by a judicial officer. Decisions at this hearing typically determine if a person is released before trial and under what, if any, conditions. In jurisdictions that use financial conditions of release, a monetary bond can be the same as ordering pretrial detention. Many release conditions, like electronic monitoring, house arrest, or in-person reporting, are significant restrictions on a person’s physical freedom. In short, the first appearance hearing is a substantive proceeding that will significantly impact both the person’s liberty and the course of the case.
At a pretrial hearing, judicial officers should make explicit and purposeful decisions whether to release or detain people before trial. The law has a strong presumption in favor of release before trial. The Supreme Court has held that the U.S. Constitution requires that release be the “norm” and pretrial detention the “carefully limited exception.”
Most people who are released pretrial will appear in court and be law-abiding. Some will need assistance to succeed. Pretrial assessment tools can help identify the people who are most likely to benefit from assistance.
Most people who are released pretrial will appear in court and be law-abiding, even if released solely on a promise to appear. But some will need assistance to succeed. Pretrial assessment tools can help identify the people who are most likely to benefit from assistance. Release conditions—if any are considered necessary—should be the least restrictive that reasonably assure court appearance and community safety. Judicial officers should avoid blanket conditions based solely on the charge. Instead, they must look at the person before them and decide whether conditions of release are necessary and, if so, what those conditions are.
Today, many pretrial services agencies are moving away from solely monitoring compliance toward providing assistance and support to those most likely to benefit. These services focus on helping people succeed while on pretrial release.
Around the nation, the criminal legal system is changing the services and interventions it provides to people on pretrial release. In the past, services focused primarily on monitoring and enforcing compliance with court-ordered release conditions. Today, many agencies are moving toward offering help and support.
Implementing a clear, consistent, and equitable policy for responding to behavior while on pretrial release can prevent unnecessary pretrial detention and empower pretrial services to make service referrals.
People released pretrial are expected to return to court for their pretrial hearings and remain law-abiding. But many people on pretrial release are subject to other court-ordered requirements. These include respecting no contact orders, maintaining or seeking employment, abiding by a curfew or travel restrictions, and complying with drug testing or alcohol monitoring.
Not complying with court-ordered release conditions may result in:
Responding to violations is often discretionary. So this is a decision point where racial disparities and inconsistent treatment of people are of particular concern.
Whether a person is detained or remains in the community, lengthy case processing is harmful to them and prejudicial to the just and fair disposition of a case.
The longer the pretrial period, the more likely a person will have trouble appearing at court hearings and complying with onerous release conditions. And a lengthy pretrial period can cause problems in securing witnesses, supporting victims, and maintaining adequate counsel.
Cases should be processed as swiftly as possible. This is consistent with administering justice and the constitutional due process rights of the person accused.
Pretrial jail population review teams examine who remains in jail pretrial and identify people who can be safely released.
After the release or detention decision, it is important to evaluate who remains in jail before trial. This is sometimes called “sequential bail review.” The process might involve determining why a person remains in jail and whether pretrial release conditions should be modified to allow for appropriate release.
There are many reasons the court might want to change the initial detention decision:
Often there is no standardized method of identifying these instances and reviewing a case.
A pretrial improvement process begins by convening an inclusive policy team. The team should include community and system stakeholders, and start by defining the team’s vision, goals, and purposes of the pretrial system.
Improving the pretrial system requires stakeholders to question policies, practices, and decision-making processes followed for decades. Ongoing education is the foundation for rethinking the system. It helps everyone envision a fairer and more just future.
Communicating with community members and the media can build understanding, increase support, and create a more effective, equitable, and transparent pretrial system. Take time to identify ways you can communicate to the public.
Pretrial systems are complicated. Regular communication can inform, persuade, generate interest, and raise awareness. It can also counter the public’s potential lack of trust when they view institutions as opaque and difficult to understand.
It is important to explain core pretrial principles, help local media and the public understand people’s rights during the pretrial phase, and describe the responsibilities of the different agencies in your pretrial system.
It is critical that jurisdictions monitor their performance and continually improve policies and practices. This ensures that the changes implemented produce the desired results. The monitoring process should begin before changes are made. The policy team can use the results to establish a baseline against which to measure the effects of the changes once implemented.
The policy team should identify what outcomes they aim to achieve. The next step is to define the metrics that will be used to determine success. Performance measures help evaluate new practices, track changes over time, and facilitate communications with others. A reporting template or dashboard can also be helpful to ensure the metrics reported are accurate, actionable, and easy to understand.
With data-based knowledge, people are better positioned to periodically revise local policies and practices. This process institutionalizes a culture of continuous improvement.
It is important that the policy team regularly review outcome data to determine what is working and what could be improved. Policy advancements always require iteration and modification if they are to achieve and maintain maximum success. Policy team members will need to remain open to adjusting their decisions based on the data they receive. Community groups and the public—who have a strong interest in seeing the results of reform efforts—should participate in the ongoing assessment of the pretrial improvements and the development of effective responses or adjustments.
When you sign up with APPR, you’ll get access to the APPR Community. It’s the largest online resource for people working to advance pretrial justice. Connect, share, and learn in this national forum of pretrial professionals, researchers, and experts.
Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research (APPR) is a national, multi-year project to improve pretrial systems through:
