Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research (APPR) is a national initiative that works to improve pretrial systems in ways that maximize fairness, equity, efficiency, and community well-being and safety. Fundamental to APPR are pretrial policies and practices that honor the legal presumption of release, are research-informed, and recognize that the vast majority of people will return to court and remain law-abiding during the pretrial period.
Pretrial release decisions should not be punitive in nature—rather, they should focus on helping people succeed pretrial. Moving jurisdictions away from their reliance on jail and financial conditions of release is part of this transformation. An actuarial pretrial assessment, such as the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), can play a positive role in advancing pretrial justice when it is part of a comprehensive approach to system change.
The guidance provided here summarizes the key improvements made to the recommended PSA implementation process since the tool’s development. It is consistent with the implementation guides and resources released by Arnold Ventures (AV) in 2018 as well as the training and guidance that APPR has provided to the field since its inception in 2019. It is intended primarily for early adopters of the PSA (pre-2018) that have not yet updated their practices—as well as jurisdictions that modeled implementation on the early sites.
Background
The PSA is a validated pretrial assessment tool that was developed in 2013 by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, which is now managed by AV. It is used to support pretrial release decisions by providing decision makers with research-based information about the likelihood of pretrial success. PSA results, along with other relevant information, can be used to help determine the most appropriate pretrial release conditions.
In the years immediately following its development, the PSA was implemented in a select number of sites. In these early sites, the PSA was accompanied by a Decision Making Framework (DMF) that included a matrix matching each combination of PSA scores and charges to a recommended pretrial decision. The DMF was customized locally by each jurisdiction.
Early implementation allowed scholars and advisors to evaluate PSA performance and identify emerging practices that aligned with rapidly evolving legal principles and research-informed practices. As a result, AV made several changes to the PSA implementation process—including replacing the DMF with a Release Conditions Matrix (RCM)—when it made the tool publicly available in 2018.
This document summarizes the primary implementation improvements made by AV regarding the use of a matrix or decision framework. APPR and AV encourage all jurisdictions that use, or are considering using, the PSA to review this document to ensure their practices are consistent with the guidance provided herein.
Changes to PSA Implementation
1. Replace the outdated DMF with an RCM and eliminate any use of “bump-ups.”
APPR and AV urge those using the PSA to stop using a DMF and, instead, adopt an RCM. The RCM is intended for use once a judicial officer has determined that release is appropriate based on state and federal law. As federal courts have consistently held, the vast majority of people who are arrested are legally entitled to be released while their cases are pending. Moreover, research shows that most people—even those who score high on pretrial assessment tools—succeed on pretrial release. These principles are reflected in the RCM. When developed according to the PSA Implementation Guides, the RCM matches PSA scores to levels of pretrial release and to services and supports that can help a person succeed. The RCM should be developed locally by policymakers and community members, based on their shared values and priorities, as well as the resources available in the jurisdiction.
The RCM should not include automatic “bump-ups” to a stricter release level based on charge severity or any other predetermined criteria. Judicial officers remain free to identify and address—on a case-by-case basis—behaviors that might warrant a different result than what is otherwise recommended on the matrix. One of the inherent values of a well-developed pretrial assessment is that it provides empirically supported information around important pretrial outcomes that are based on historical data. Including automatic “bump-ups” for serious charges can undermine the research basis of the tool. Furthermore, since longstanding legal principles maintain that pretrial decisions should be individualized, it is important that presumptions not be made solely on charge. For these reasons, bump-ups or automatic increases in release levels should not be included in the RCM.
2. Do not include recommendations of detention in any matrix.
As mentioned above, the RCM is intended for use once a judicial officer has determined that the person should be released pretrial. Furthermore, PSA scores should not, on their own, justify or determine whether someone is detained before trial. State and federal courts have articulated a limited universe of situations in which people can be detained pretrial. Notably, detention may be used only when no conditions of release can provide reasonable assurance that the likelihood of flight or of a serious crime will be mitigated. Additionally, because pretrial incarceration is such a significant deprivation of liberty, it may not be imposed unless a person has been provided robust due process protections. As such, a recommendation of detention or no-release has no place in the RCM.
3. Do not include recommendations of financial release conditions in any matrix.
The RCM should be locally developed based on legal and evidence-based principles. The release conditions associated with each presumptive release level included in the matrix should reflect the pretrial resources available in the given jurisdiction. Many sites use a matrix that specifies the use of financial conditions of release (“bond” or “secured bond”). Financial conditions of release are increasingly disfavored for a variety of reasons, among them the fact that the existing evidence shows that they do not improve court appearance or public safety, and that they result in the disproportionate detention of people with few economic means and people of color. For these reasons, financial conditions of release should not be included in the RCM.
4. Avoid using colors such as orange or red in any matrix.
The vast majority of people succeed on pretrial release. Using colors such as orange or red on a matrix to highlight the cases where people are less likely to succeed can needlessly raise concerns among decision makers. For this reason, colors such as orange or red should not be used in any matrix. Decision makers should take time to examine those cases in which people receive the highest PSA scores and carefully consider the supports these people may need to help them succeed while on pretrial release.
Jurisdictions that are newly implementing the PSA are advised to follow the guidance provided in the PSA Implementation Guides, which incorporates these four recommended changes.[1] Jurisdictions that are using the outdated DMF or that are using an RCM that includes any of the discouraged practices are strongly encouraged to revisit them and bring them into alignment with this guidance and with the implementation guides. APPR is available to provide support to sites as they make this important transition.
Download Responsible Use of the Public Safety Assessment (PDF) for more detailed guidance.
APPR Assistance
Informational Webinar
APPR is here to help. We will conduct a webinar series to explain this guidance and answer your questions. If you’re interested, please register your interest by April 30, 2021. Dates will be announced soon after.
APPR Help Desk
Our pretrial experts are available to answer your questions through the APPR Help Desk. Contact us any time.
Sign Up with APPR
Although the legal system has been making determinations about pretrial release and detention for centuries, research and practice in this area is relatively new. As with all matters of scientific study and public policy, we can expect understanding of these issues to progress. Policies and practices must advance too. We are committed to keeping the field abreast of the latest developments. Sign up with APPR to stay up to date on pretrial research and practices.