1. Fernando Giraldo Chief Probation Officer May 2017
Probation Department Pretrial Services
Fernando Giraldo
Chief Probation Officer
May 2017

2. Pretrial Services Mission:
The Santa Cruz County Probation Department maintains its commitment to public safety, researched-based practices, stewardship, and reserving costly and limited jail space for higher risk offenders through alternatives to custody programs.

3. Pretrial Services Probation Implemented Pretrial Services in 2006
Response to Jail Overcrowding
Increase Public Safety
Historical commitment to avoid unnecessary pretrial detention for juveniles and adults
Many individuals in pretrial detention do not present a substantial public safety or flight risk
Jail beds are costly $$

4. What are we doing? We we doing? We are… How
Applying actuarial risk tools to predict the likelihood of risk of flight and danger to the community;
PSA-Court Assessment –
Initial Validation complete, full validation by year two.
Providing the least restrictive supervision necessary to effectively monitor compliance of release conditions;
Decision Making Matrix –
Began on the more conservative end, modifications made during the last quarter of 2015 to be more in line with national trends.
Reminding defendants of their court appearances;
Policy
Keeping accountability by reporting violations of release conditions which indicate an increased risk of pretrial failure to the court with a recommendation for modifications to mitigate risk;
Violation Response Grid
Using evidence-based techniques to gain compliance and increase defendant engagement and motivation.
Training for staff :
Motivational Interviewing and EPICS (skill building); training on Pretrial and Probation EBP
Using fidelity measures, data, and evaluation to ensure quality and effectiveness of services and guide decision-making.
Multiple Outcomes Measures; staff boosters / re-training.

5. Why it Matters …
… pretrial decisions may impact whether or not a defendant gets sentenced to jail or prison, and for how long;
… an increased length of pretrial detention for low and moderate risk defendants is associated with an increased likelihood that they will reoffend both during the pretrial period and two years after the conclusion of their case;
… [pretrial] supervision may reduce failure to appear rates and, when done for 180 days or more, new criminal activity.
Laura and John Arnold Foundation
Pretrial Criminal Justice Research
November 2013

6. Pretrial Supervision
The level of supervision and conditions of supervision should be based on the defendant’s risk level as assessed by the risk assessment and the seriousness of the alleged offense.
Blanket conditions should not be applied across all supervised defendants.
A formal process for professional overrides which allows for the supervision level to be increased or decreased rather than what is recommended based on the defendant’s assessed risk level should be developed and implemented into policy and training.
Court reminders should be provided to defendants on pretrial supervision and data should be tracked when the court reminder is provided and if it was received.

7. Being Right-Sized To be right-sized, Pretrial Services added two
additional staff in FY14/15.
Pretrial Services currently consists of four (4) Deputy Probation Officers, two (2) Probation Aides and one (1) Supervisor.
Increased staffing - being right-sized - ensures adequate coverage 7 days a week and fulfillment of our mission to:

8. Public Safety Assessment – Court Implemented July 1, 2014
“The PSA-Court is a tool that reliably predicts the risk a given defendant will reoffend, commit violent acts, or fail to come back to court with just nine readily available data points. What this means is that there are no time-consuming interviews, no extra staff, and very minimal expense. And it can be applied to every defendant in every case.”
Laura and John Arnold Foundation
November 2013

9. PSA-Court Goals Assure public safety and court appearance.
Risk assessments should be used at the earliest point in the process to determine a defendant’s risk of pretrial failure.
Separately predict failure to appear and new criminal activity .
For the first time, predict new violent criminal activity.
Identify common non‐interview dependent factors that equally predict risk across diverse jurisdictions.
Optimize use of existing human and financial resources needed to administer risk assessments.
Improve overall predictive accuracy.
Incorporate the latest pretrial research.
Simplify the risk assessment process.  

10. Decision Making Framework Goals
Provide a framework to guide release & detention recommendations.
Identify a proposed release/detention recommendation designed to manage risk identified by the PSA – Court in the most effective manner while considering the seriousness of the charge.
Promote consistent application of release conditions.
Minimize dual system errors (releasing high risk and detaining low risk defendants).

11. Decision Making Framework Guidelines
Guides recommendations intended to:
Detain, when allowable, highest risk defendants;
Release moderate risk defendants with interventions and services targeted to mitigate risk.
Why: Moderate and higher risk defendants who were required to participate in supervised pretrial pending trial were more likely to succeed pending trial.
Release low risk defendants with minimal or no conditions. Why: Lower risk defendants who were required to participate in supervised pretrial pending trial were more likely to fail pending trial.

12. DMF One Pager
(front)
Changes have been made to expand the ISOR recommendations to more cases (no longer requiring an underride), leaving “Detain” as for only the perimeter cases levels of the DMF (this is supported by LJAF and is in line with national trends)

13. DMF One Pager
(back)
Reference the possible modifications at the end with results / lessons learned

14. Release Types Own Recognizance (OR) Release with Conditions
OR with Conditions (including Alcohol Detection Monitoring Only)
Supervised OR (SOR)
Intensive Supervised OR (ISOR) – includes electronic monitoring and/or alcohol detection monitoring.
Staff now trained in the use of GPS, in addition to traditional home detention
Release Not Recommended (Detain)
Reference the new tools added which will be discussed later

15. DMF Supervision Categories & Standards
LOW
OR &
OR with Conditions
MODERATE
SUPERVISED OWN RECOGNIZANCE
HIGH
INTENSIVE
SUPERVISED OR
Supervision
Standards
Report by telephone 1x/week
Report in person after each court appearance
Office contact every month
Home visit as needed
Remain at residence unless going to approved activities (EM Only).
Report by telephone 3x/week
Home visit every 30 days
Remain at residence unless going to approved activities (EM Only)
***Staff now trained to use GPS for those who may not qualify for traditional EM or need a higher level of EM.***
Reference the new tools added which will be discussed later

16. Pretrial Reports Pretrial 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Change From Prior Year
Pretrial Assessment Reports Completed
175
(1st ½ only)
524
1,946
2,457
2,668
+ 9%

17. Adult Probation Division – Pretrial and Custody Alternatives

18. Adult Probation Division – Pretrial Outcome Measures
2016 Pretrial Reports and Supervision
Monthly Average
Annual Total
Bed Days Saved
Change From Prior Year
Pretrial Reports Completed
222
2,668
+ 8%
Average Monthly Caseload (ADP) * 62
355
22,832
+ 64%
Pre-arraignment Releases ** 64
- 31%
WRAP (warrants averted) *** 3 38
1,520
+ 58%
*ADP during the year: Q1 = 63, Q2 = 57, Q3 = 57, Q4 = 72
**Pre-arraignment releases typically save a minimum of two to five days of jail
***A study conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice in Santa Cruz showed that, on average, probationers who were arrested on bench warrants issued for failing to maintain probation contact spent an average of 40 days in jail.

19. Adult Probation Division – Pretrial Outcome Measures
2016 Pretrial Reports and Supervision
Monthly Average
Annual Total
Bed Days Saved
Change From Prior Year
Pretrial Reports Completed
222
2,668
+ 8%
Average Monthly Caseload (ADP) * 62
355
22,832
+ 64%
Pre-arraignment Releases ** 64
- 31%
WRAP (warrants averted) *** 3 38
1,520
+ 58%
*ADP during the year: Q1 = 63, Q2 = 57, Q3 = 57, Q4 = 72
**Pre-arraignment releases typically save a minimum of two to five days of jail
***A study conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice in Santa Cruz showed that, on average, probationers who were arrested on bench warrants issued for failing to maintain probation contact spent an average of 40 days in jail.

20. Adult Probation Division – Pretrial Outcome Measures
Appearance Rate
The percentage of supervised defendants who make all scheduled court appearances
Supervised Pretrial
2012
2013
1st Half 2014
(VPRAI)
2nd Half 2014 (PSA-Court)
2015
2016
92.0%
90.3%
94.2%
91.8%
88.8%
88.2%
Goal
85%

21. Adult Probation Division – Pretrial Outcome Measures
Safety Rate
The percentage of supervised defendants who were not charged with a new offense during their period of pretrial supervision
Supervised Pretrial
2012
2013
1st Half 2014
(VPRAI)
2nd Half 2014 (PSA-Court)
2015
2016
92.5%
90.7%
93.4%
91.0%
95.9%
93.0%
Goal
95%

22. Adult Probation Division – Pretrial Outcome Measures
Concurrence (Effectiveness) Rate
Ratio of court released and detained defendants compared to pretrial’ s submitted recommendations for release and detention
2016
Released
Detained
Recommendation Followed
Change from Prior Year
Recommended for Release
342
368
48%
+ 2.4%
Recommended for Detention
168
710
81%
- 4%
Recommendation Followed (Total)
66%
- 2%
GOAL
75%