This story is the first in a two-part series on nonprofit models for delivering pretrial services. Read part 2.
“My case manager treated me like a person and was very supportive during a tough time for me. I haven’t always had that experience with other agencies. I was able to be honest with her, and she helped point me in the right direction. I’ve been clean for seven years now, and I’m the executive director of Journey House Recovery, a nonprofit organization that operates four low-barrier recovery residences across Maine.”
Pretrial services agencies provide a wide range of functions, including screening and interviewing people who are arrested and booked into jail, verifying background and criminal history, assessing each person’s likelihood of returning to court and remaining arrest-free, reporting this assessment to the court, and supervising people who are released with the condition of reporting to pretrial services.
Most such agencies operate in the public sector as independent departments or within courts, jails, or probation divisions. However, some jurisdictions—the exact number is unknown—choose to contract with nonprofit organizations to operate pretrial services rather than create an internal agency or department.
Leaders of the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project (SF Pretrial), JusticePoint (operating in Wisconsin and Minnesota), and Maine Pretrial Services explain how operating as nonprofits facilitates their shared mission of delivering supportive services to clients during the pretrial phase.
Emphasizing Support and Success
Supportive pretrial services are becoming more common in the pretrial services field, complementing or replacing the traditional, compliance-focused approach. The nonprofit leaders described their organizations’ work as supportive, addressing the circumstances and needs of each client to help them succeed during the pretrial phase, and in their life generally.
Supportive pretrial services may include connecting people to treatment and housing services, providing transportation or daycare vouchers, and reminding people of upcoming court dates.
More than a collection of programs or interventions, supportive services are emblematic of the lens with which each organization views its role.
“The Department of Labor says that one out of three people in the workforce has had criminal justice contact. It could be any one of us. And people ultimately want to be successful. For us, this is an opportunity to provide people with support at a really vulnerable point in their lives, and to make sure that it’s consistent with what they need,” said David Mauroff, CEO of SF Pretrial.
Victor, a former client of SF Pretrial, described how the supportive approach helped him succeed.
“I was distrustful and in a pretty desperate place in my addiction. They [SF Pretrial] addressed the root of my problems. They treated me with respect—gave me a safe space to go check in and helped me get services like job training and supportive housing. Now I’m in school full-time, working on my bachelor’s degree in urban planning.”
Elizabeth Simoni, executive director of Maine Pretrial Services, says, “We don’t come from a position of authority, but from a position of partnership. We make plans and linkages for people, we present those plans to the court, and the court releases people to us. And we know that addressing things like treatment, housing, and shelter makes a difference in people’s lives and their system outcomes.”
…we know that addressing things like treatment, housing, and shelter makes a difference in people’s lives and their system outcomes.
Flexibility
The structure and independent status of these nonprofits allows them to define what they do, how they do it, and—importantly—why they do it. Some of the leaders also use this independence to take principled stances in defining practices in which they are not willing to engage.
“…because we’re equal parties to county government in the contracting process, we can say ‘no.’ We draw a line at several practices that don’t align with evidence-based pretrial services. Things like blanket drug-testing conditions, screening without a validated assessment tool, and charging fees for any pretrial service or condition,” says Nick Sayner, CEO of JusticePoint. “We’ve lost contracts because of that, but those things just don’t fit with our mission and vision.”
Mauroff described the limits SF Pretrial puts on its role. “Our approach is client-centered. We present the courts with a customized treatment plan for each individual that addresses what they need to be successful. Any unnecessary or overly burdensome conditions of release can lead our clients, who are presumed innocent, deeper into the criminal legal system. That’s what we don’t want.”
Sayner mentioned an additional benefit: “As CEO of a nonprofit, I have a lot of flexibility to go out and preach the ‘gospel’ of pretrial justice to the field, and it’s a part of my job I find really valuable. Counties regularly call on me to talk with them about our work. I will say, ‘listen, here’s what best practices are, here’s what I think you need to put in place. Do it or don’t do it, but I wish you luck and you’ve got my number.’”
Outcomes
Our approach is client-centered. We present the courts with a customized treatment plan for each individual that addresses what they need to be successful.
Legally, the only two goals courts can consider when deciding to release individuals, release them with conditions, or detain them, are to maximize the person’s court appearances and minimize their likelihood of a new arrest. The standard measures systems use to evaluate pretrial success—court appearance rates and pretrial rearrest rates—are directly related to those goals. Each of the three nonprofits regularly reports outcomes that are in line with national averages in these areas.
“We have to pitch to county commissioners almost every year in every county for funding—which is fine—and we get what we request. That tells us we’re doing something right and they trust us,” Simoni says. “Personally, the outcomes I’m most proud of are our rates for new criminal charges. They are between four and seven percent annually, which is really, really low. And we typically have 98–99 percent appearance rates.”
In San Francisco, a city with large numbers of people who are unhoused and experiencing substance use disorders, pretrial rearrest rates are 10 percent for the “Own Recognizance” program and nine percent for the more intensive “Assertive Case Management” program.
Mauroff explained, “The work in the pretrial phase is the most public work in the criminal legal system. You can look up someone’s calendar and court information and observe adult proceedings in the courtroom. We’re held accountable in a very public and transparent sense—we’re regularly evaluated by a third party, and judges can see whether or not someone comes back to court and whether or not we’re delivering services.
“Our outcomes are really good, considering our population and challenges,” says Mauroff. “And we provide those services for less money, which is important. We had an independent assessment that found that comparable government or law enforcement services cost about 30 to 35 percent more than we do.”
Sayner says, “We’ve got programs in nine different counties, and all our outcomes are at or above national standards; appearance rates are above 90 percent and for new criminal charges it’s below 10 percent. But we really measure success more on the individual outcomes for our clients, and feedback from the courts that they are happy with our work.”
It’s Your Lens, Not Your Status
Regardless of their nonprofit or public sector status, all pretrial services agencies can employ supportive pretrial services, says JusticePoint’s Sayner.
“There’s nothing we do that a public sector agency couldn’t do. In fact, I know many public agencies that do it this way. It’s not incumbent upon you being a nonprofit—it’s on what lens you have for the work. Do you feel like you’re in the processing business, moving people through the system? Or are you in the people business, and the people just happen to be involved in the system?”
Do you feel like you’re in the processing business, moving people through the system? Or are you in the people business, and the people just happen to be involved in the system?