Building Support for a Pretrial Services Program: Six Practical Steps

Across the country, jurisdictions are adopting practical, evidence-based approaches to reduce unnecessary pretrial detention, support pretrial court appearance, and maintain community safety. Pretrial services organizations are a core part of this work. They provide critical information to judicial officers and other decision-makers, offer appropriate support to people released before trial, and contribute to the wise use of public resources.

This guide helps local stakeholders work together to define a shared vision for a pretrial services program in their jurisdiction. It supports jurisdictions in building a strong case for funding and moving from initial concept to a clear, actionable proposal. While intended for communities developing a new pretrial services program, the framework in this guide may also be useful for existing programs seeking to enhance, expand, or improve their scope, capacity, or impact.

Each step in this guide is designed to help jurisdictions develop a clear, data-informed proposal that demonstrates need, defines program goals, and links requested funding to demonstrable outcomes. It supports collaboration among partners, promotes transparent decision-making, and ensures that programs, whether new or expanding, are tailored to local needs, aligned with national standards, and positioned for funding consideration.

Six Steps to Building Pretrial Services

1. Demonstrate Need – Use data to show why pretrial services are necessary.
2. Establish a Working Group – Bring together a diverse group of system stakeholders to guide the program’s overall design and budget.
3. Educate and Engage – Build knowledge and support among system stakeholders.
4. Design the Program and Staffing Plan – Create a program structure that reflects local needs and best practices, and calculate the staffing resources needed.
5. Decide Where the Program Will Live – Determine where the program should be housed administratively and physically to maximize impact and efficiency.
6. Make the Ask – Prepare a compelling case and budget to secure approval and resources.

The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) Pretrial Standards explains that the purposes of a pretrial services agency are to “(i) assist judicial officers [to] make prompt, fair, and informed decisions that encourage pretrial release, promote future court appearance, and enhance public safety; and (ii) provide the Court with practical, individualized monitoring, supervision, and support options for persons that require oversight while on pretrial release.”[1]

Pretrial services programs in the United States trace their origins to the early 1960s, most notably the Manhattan Bail Project, launched by the Vera Institute of Justice in 1961. This project demonstrated that many people could be safely released before trial based on verified community ties rather than financial conditions.[2] During the late 1960s and 1970s, federal funding and national reform efforts helped replicate this model in jurisdictions across the country, embedding pretrial services as a core function of local justice systems.[3] The federal Pretrial Services Act of 1982 formally established pretrial services in the federal courts [4] and further legitimized the field. Today, although no formal, up-to-date count exists, pretrial services programs exist in hundreds of localities across the nation.[5]

Over the past several decades, pretrial services programs have evolved, and they now play a broader role that often includes using pretrial assessment tools, sharing with decision-makers objective information about people arrested, monitoring compliance with conditions set by the court, and connecting people to necessary support to help them succeed during the pretrial period. By focusing on each person’s likelihood of pretrial success and their immediate needs, pretrial services help reduce unnecessary pretrial detention, support public safety, and promote court appearances while protecting the presumption of innocence.

The first step in building a case for a pretrial services program is to assess how your current system is functioning and where pretrial services could improve outcomes. For example, could judicial officers make more informed pretrial decisions if pretrial services provided them with additional information? Are there people who are detained but could be safely released with pretrial supervision and monitoring? Could court appearance rates improve if pretrial services offered court reminders and other supportive services?

One effective way to assess potential impact is to collect and analyze jail data along with other relevant pretrial information. This allows you to describe your pretrial population—such as how many people are detained before trial, the charges they face, and how long they remain in custody—and to identify where changes in policy, practice, or support could lead to better outcomes.

Develop a Data Overview

Start by reviewing the Pretrial Data Overview Guide. It outlines the data you can collect and analyze, and it provides examples of how to present the information to help you make a strong case for a pretrial services program. If available, you may involve a data analyst or researcher to help gather and interpret the information, though this isn’t required.

Numbers matter, but they don’t tell the whole story. To really understand how your pretrial system is working, you need to hear directly from people who have experienced it. Talking with those who were detained or released pretrial can shed light on barriers to release, challenges with court appearances, or gaps in support that don’t appear in the data alone.

After reviewing the data and drawing on firsthand perspectives where available, consider what it all suggests about the need for pretrial services in your jurisdiction. You might answer questions like:

• How many people would the program likely serve?
• What percentage of people in custody might be safely released through pretrial services?
• How many people might be released on the condition of pretrial services instead of a secured financial bond?
• How many jail beds could be freed up, and what costs could be avoided as a result?
• How might a pretrial services program improve outcomes such as court appearance or new arrest rate?
• What do firsthand experiences reveal about barriers in the current system and opportunities for pretrial services to improve outcomes?

Signs of Success

By the end of this activity, you will have a complete overview of your locality’s pretrial data ready to share with others. The overview should include:

• Clear visuals (e.g., charts, graphs, or illustrations) that highlight key data points
• Short narratives that explain trends, areas of interest, or notable findings—framed to clearly demonstrate the need for a pretrial services program
• Insights from firsthand perspectives, if gathered, to add context and illustrate how the data reflects real experiences
• Notes on data limitations (e.g., the data may capture only a snapshot of the pretrial detention population and may not reflect broader trends over time)
• References for all data sources used

The next step in starting a pretrial services program is to form a small, multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to develop the program’s overall design and budget for approval. (Note that you can begin forming your group while working through Step 1.) The working group will make key programmatic decisions, such as whether the new program will conduct pretrial assessments, the level of support and monitoring it will provide, and the estimated costs and staffing requirements. This group will also play a central role in overseeing the program’s eventual implementation.

By creating and convening a working group, you provide a space for shared learning, collaboration, and informed decision-making about the program’s core elements. In the process, you also help to build support for the program among key stakeholders. Involving them early in the development phase ensures the program’s framework reflects shared priorities, putting it in a strong position for approval and funding.

Form Your Team

Start by considering whose voices need to be at the table. Because pretrial services affect many stakeholders and agencies, the working group should include representatives from across the pretrial system. Members typically include the presiding judge (or the judge who oversees first appearance hearings), the chief prosecutor (or their appointees), the chief public defender (or their appointees), court administrators, law enforcement and detention officials, and possibly others who bring relevant insight or influence. After the program is approved and when policymaking begins, you may include others, such as additional judges, victim advocates, and people with lived expertise or experience.

Before convening the group, meet with each person to gauge their support and see if they are willing to participate. During these conversations, you could ask questions such as, “What do you know about pretrial services programs?” “How do you feel about our jurisdiction starting one?” “What would you want the program to accomplish?” “Do you foresee any challenges or concerns?” “Are you interested in joining a working group to help design the program?”

Aim for a group of 6 to 8 members—large enough to bring key perspectives but small enough to stay focused and engaged. Expect to meet regularly: about 90 minutes once a month is usually sufficient to maintain momentum, though the schedule should be set collaboratively.

Convene Your Team

Bring your working group together for an initial meeting to align around the purpose of exploring a pretrial services program. Use this time to share information, establish expectations for how the group will work together, and review the data collected in Step 1 to discuss how pretrial services could benefit your jurisdiction.

Refer to the Sample Agenda to structure your first meeting. It outlines the foundational topics a working group might cover at its first meeting and is designed for a single 1.5-hour session. If your group prefers shorter meetings, consider spreading the content across multiple sessions.

Future meetings should focus on completing the remaining steps outlined in this guide, including building a shared understanding of pretrial services, defining the program’s core functions, determining staffing and other resource needs, deciding where to house the program, and developing a proposal.

Signs of Success

A well-established working group will have:

• A finalized roster with names, roles, affiliations, contact information, and decision-making authority (e.g., a voting or non-voting member)
• A first meeting agenda and materials to launch the group’s work
• A document describing the group’s purpose, goals, expected timeline, membership, and agreed-upon norms for collaboration
• A shared repository for documents and resources
• A regular meeting schedule

Members of your working group will likely bring different levels of familiarity with pretrial services. Take time early on to build a shared understanding of what effective, legally sound pretrial practices look like. Investing in this foundation helps the group make informed decisions and often raises internal champions who can help move the effort forward.

But don’t stop with the working group. Keep constituencies informed about the group’s progress and what you’re learning. Sharing updates and insights along the way builds trust, strengthens partnerships, and reduces surprises later in the process.

When people feel informed and included, they are more likely to support the effort. This kind of alignment and shared ownership lays the groundwork for designing a practical, sustainable program—one that is positioned not just for approval and funding but for long-term success.

Learn Together

Build time into each working group meeting to review your state’s pretrial laws alongside national guidance on effective pretrial practices. Together, these form the legal and practice framework that should guide your program design in the next step.

Understanding this framework will help the group determine where a pretrial services program can fit within your jurisdiction, what it can provide, and how it can strengthen fair, research-informed judicial decision-making and help people succeed pretrial. Grounding your discussions in both governing law and nationally recognized standards helps ensure the program you design is legally sound and aligned with best practices.

Groups can approach this in different ways. For example, the group leader can prepare and share materials, members can take turns presenting different topics, or you can bring in an outside expert. Choose the approach that best fits your group’s capacity and learning style.

Engage and Build Broad Support

Inform stakeholders that your jurisdiction is developing and seeking approval for a pretrial services program, and that a working group is guiding the effort. Provide periodic updates to keep stakeholders informed as the work progresses.

The most effective approach is for working group members to communicate with their respective colleagues. Meeting directly with stakeholders and sending brief communications, such as emails or updates, can also be beneficial. Engagement should focus on explaining what pretrial services are, surfacing stakeholders’ early suggestions or concerns, and ensuring they’re aware of what will be proposed. Regardless of the approach, the goal is to build a shared understanding of pretrial services and keep stakeholders informed so they feel involved and support the program.

Signs of Success

To demonstrate progress in learning together, groups might develop work products like these:

• A reference guide summarizing the law and evidence-based pretrial practices, with a glossary of terms
• An agreed-upon list of core pretrial practices to guide program design and future policies
• A set of guiding principles to anchor the program’s design
• Meeting agendas
• Meeting notes or statements documenting points of agreement

To demonstrate progress in engaging stakeholders, groups might develop work products like these:

• An outreach plan for engaging different stakeholders or stakeholder groups
• Regular updates summarizing key milestones and decisions
• Informational materials, such as one-pagers, FAQs, or other publications
• Feedback summaries compiling stakeholder questions, concerns, and suggestions
• A list of stakeholders expressing support for the program

In this step, the working group begins making practical decisions about what the pretrial services program will do, how it will operate, and the staffing resources needed to get started.

Articulating the program’s operational needs—grounded in national standards, local data, and applicable laws—will help develop a clear narrative and budget to support funding requests, strengthen stakeholder support, and lay the groundwork for effective implementation.

Decide What the Program Will Do

Define what the program will do in practice. The working group can organize this discussion around two core areas of responsibility: how the program will support the court and how it will support people released to the community in ways that promote public safety and help people get to court.[6] The questions below are meant to guide discussion and help the group make clear, high-level decisions.

1  Supporting the Court
Decide how the program will provide timely, objective, and consistent information to the court to support pretrial decision-making. This includes establishing workflows that reduce unnecessary detention and promote transparency, consistent decision-making, and evidence-informed practices. As a group, consider:

• • Which validated pretrial assessment tool will the program use?
  • What criminal history records and other required information are needed to complete assessments accurately and on time?
  • How will the assessment be scored: on paper or through an automated process (e.g., integrated with an existing data system or a new case management system)?
  • Will staff complete reports to share assessment results and recommendations with the court?
  • Should staff participate in court hearings and provide updates to the court as part of the program’s overall approach?
  • Will staff participate in detention reviews or similar proceedings to inform decisions about who may be released from jail?

Note: The chart in Appendix C, Common Actuarial Pretrial Assessment Tools, provides a snapshot of commonly used pretrial assessment tools and can help teams consider which option is the best fit for their jurisdiction.

2  Supporting People
Decide how the program will support safe release and success in the community, consistent with NAPSA Standards. This includes defining program responsibilities that support court appearance and promote public safety through least-restrictive, needs-responsive approaches.[7] As a group, consider:

• • What supportive services will the program make available (e.g., court date reminders, check-ins, transportation assistance, referrals to community-based services, connections to peer support)?
  • What overall approach will the program take to supervision levels and the types of services or supports associated with them, with an emphasis on avoiding oversupervision?
  • Which release conditions, including those currently used and any additional conditions the court may want available, should the program account for operationally?[8]
  • What overall approach should guide the program’s response to people’s behavior on pretrial release and related communication with the court?

Across both areas of responsibility, the working group should also consider:

• What big-picture training and professional development expectations should be built into the program design (e.g., in-house or external startup training, peer learning through site visits with nearby jurisdictions that operate pretrial services programs, annual attendance at local or national conferences)?

Create a Staffing Plan

Once the working group has identified what the pretrial services program will do, the next step is to estimate the staffing resources required to do that work.

Use the Pretrial Services Staffing Guide to walk through this process step by step. The guide provides a straightforward, data-informed approach to estimating workload, staffing, and related costs that support program design, budgeting, and funding requests.

Signs of Success

By the end of this step, the working group will have a clear, shared picture of how the pretrial services program will operate and what it will take to support it. Specifically, the group will have:

• A written description of the program’s core functions and high-level operating approach, including how the program will support the court and people released to the community, aligned with national standards and local requirements
• A completed staffing plan that translates those decisions into reasonable estimates of time and staffing needed to launch the program

One of the most important decisions the working group will make in preparing a funding proposal is where the pretrial services program will live—both administratively (the agency that will formally house and support the program) and physically (where services will be delivered).

These decisions affect far more than office space. They shape how the program operates day to day, how clearly its role is defined, how independent it is in carrying out its responsibilities, and how it’s perceived by the court, justice partners, and the community. These decisions also show funders that the program has been thoughtfully planned and positioned within the local system.

Review Workload

Start with a practical question: What work will the program do, when will it be done, where will the staff do the work, and how often?

Workload is about more than how many staff you hire. It influences how the work moves each day, how the program is organized and supported, and what kind of space is needed to do the job well. Decisions about where the program will live should come after there is a clear understanding of those daily realities. 

As a group, use the staffing plan completed in Step 4 to review:

• How many people the program is expected to serve, including at peak times (certain days, times, or stages of the process)
• What responsibilities staff will have, such as intake, completing assessments, preparing court reports, supervising individuals, or attending hearings
• When and where this work occurs in the pretrial process, for example, at booking in jail, shortly after release in the community, in court, or throughout supervision
• How often staff will interact with individuals, and whether those contacts will be in person, by phone, or remote
• How many staff will be needed to carry out daily operations

Find a Home

Once operational needs are clear, the working group can evaluate where the program should be housed administratively and physically.

NAPSA calls for a pretrial services agency to be a standalone, independent entity.[9] Independence supports neutrality and reinforces the program’s role as an objective resource for the court—not an arm of law enforcement, prosecution, defense, or post-sentence supervision. A standalone organization also provides greater flexibility in designing space and services, such as private, trauma-informed meeting rooms; lockers for people experiencing homelessness; naloxone distribution boxes; or clothing and hygiene closets. Just as importantly, clients are not required to enter a prosecutor’s office or probation department to access services, which can strengthen trust and engagement.

In some jurisdictions, creating a fully independent agency may not be realistic. In those cases, pretrial services may be housed within a larger “parent” organization, such as the court, public defender, probation department, or a nonprofit, but it should operate as a separate division of that organization. The “parent” may provide administrative support, such as human resources, payroll, IT, data management systems, security, and clerical services, but the pretrial program should retain:

• Its own vision, mission, and values
• Clear authority over budget, strategic planning, staffing, policy, program decisions, and performance measures
• Staff roles that are separate from the parent agency’s other functions and dedicated specifically to working with individuals pending adjudication[10]

Consider This…

The working group may evaluate the program’s administrative and physical housing options using the following criteria:

• Organizational structure and authority: Does the model preserve the program’s independence in practice, including clear authority over budget, staffing, policy, and performance measures?
• Workflow: Where do different tasks occur, when do they happen in the process, and how often? Interviews, assessments, court report preparation, court appearances, client check-ins, referrals, and administrative work should be organized to support efficiency, especially for daily activities.
• Space and technology: Does the location support confidential client meetings, staff workstations, and secure access to needed systems, including court and jail databases, reliable internet, and case management software?
• Coordination: How does the administrative and physical placement support regular interaction with courts, jails, and community partners?
• Client access: Is the location accessible for clients, including transportation options, ADA compliance, and hours of operation?
• Staff safety: Does the space support staff safety during daily operations, including layout, visibility, and appropriate security features?
• Cost and feasibility: What administrative infrastructure, space, equipment, or technology already exists, and what would need to be added or upgraded?

Signs of Success

A strong location decision may be reflected in:

• Written documentation explaining where the program will be housed administratively and physically, and why those decisions make sense given workload, daily operations, and coordination needs
• A detailed list of any new space, equipment, technology, and related costs, ready to incorporate into a funding request

The final step is to secure the approval and funding needed to bring the program to life. This means turning the working group’s decisions—design, workload, staffing, and housing—into a formal request that decision-makers can easily understand and support.

A clear, well-prepared proposal helps decision-makers understand what the program will do, what it will cost, and why those investments matter. It also builds confidence that the program is realistic, accountable, and positioned to achieve its goals over time.

Prepare the Request

Consolidate the working group’s decisions into a clear report or memo that explains the program and the resources needed to launch it. It should describe the program’s core functions; explain how they align with legal standards, research, and local data; and include a transparent, itemized budget.

A strong proposal doesn’t just list dollar amounts; it explains how those costs support daily work and help achieve goals such as effectiveness, efficiency, and fairness. The request should clearly show how the program’s design and its budget work together, including:

• Population and Services: Who the program will serve and what it will do
• Workload, Staffing, and Compensation: How staff will spend their time to support the program’s core functions, how many positions are needed based on the expected workload, what leadership roles will guide the program, and the associated personnel costs
• Program Location: Where the program will be housed administratively and physically, and how those decisions support accessibility, coordination, and successful operations
• Equipment and Tools: What new or additional equipment, technology, or systems are needed to support efficient, secure daily operations
• Impact and Outcomes: What the savings, efficiency, and community impact will be, such as how the program may lower jail costs, reduce missed court appearances, and prevent the harmful consequences of unnecessary detention

As you write, keep your audience in mind and address anticipated questions in the proposal. For example, stakeholders may focus on issues related to costs, accountability, efficiency, fairness, equity, transparency, and public safety. The working group may also find it helpful to develop a short set of talking points that address expected concerns or questions not fully addressed in the written proposal, to use when presenting the request.

Signs of Success

By the end of this step, the working group should have:

• A written proposal that clearly describes the program, how it will operate, and why resources are needed
• An itemized budget tied directly to workload, staffing, and daily operations
• Any presentation materials with key messages and priorities tailored to decision-makers

A pretrial services program helps the courts make informed decisions, uses resources wisely, and supports people in showing up and succeeding as their cases move forward. When you ground the effort in local data, clear goals, and national standards, you give the program a strong and credible foundation.

There will likely be bumps along the way. People may have different opinions. Data may be difficult to access or raise hard questions. Budget discussions may take longer than expected. These challenges are common and part of building something thoughtful, realistic, and sustainable.

Keep the focus on what the program is designed to do each day. Be clear about how workload connects to staffing and cost. Communicate often and plainly about the purpose and expected impact. Small, steady steps matter.

With collaboration, patience, and a shared commitment to fair and effective pretrial practices, your jurisdiction can create a program that improves decision-making, reduces unnecessary detention, and, over time, strengthens trust in the system.