Jurisdictions nationwide process approximately 10 million jail admissions each year at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $14 billion. Seeking to create fair, just, and effective pretrial systems—using innovative policy solutions such as the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), diversion programs, and robust pretrial services—policymakers throughout the nation are establishing collaborative, purposeful, comprehensive pretrial justice improvements.
APPR spoke with Mecklenburg County Public Defender Kevin Tully about the moment he realized the way his jurisdiction was using jail was not making people safer. He shared with us the challenges he faced and how the PSA and other system advancements helped his county achieve pretrial justice.
APPR: What led to Mecklenburg County’s decision to examine and improve the pretrial system? What concerns did officials hope to address?
Tully: Jail crowding led our jurisdiction to review our pretrial practices. Many years ago, the county was sued in federal court due to crowding and had been operating under a consent order. We had built new jails and by 2009, there were three jails operating. Each was full. The county drew up plans to build a fourth facility; the cost was over $500M in construction alone. This led county officials to look at who was in our jails, and why. As far as my own expectations, I was hoping that we would recognize that there were a lot of people who were in jail who posed no meaningful risk to [community] safety.
APPR: This local analysis of the jail population led to several changes, including implementation of the PSA. How did using the PSA support your system goals?
Tully: The PSA helped us move from a charge-based system to a risk-based system. Before, we knew that decisions would be made based on what our client’s charge was, and that release would always involve financial conditions. In our use of the PSA, decisions involve more discussion and are based, at least in part, on how much risk is involved. Judges have moved away from a money-based system to a more thoughtful process that leads to better outcomes for people who come in contact with the criminal justice system.
APPR: As a Public Defender, how did the PSA factor into your pretrial decision-making process?
Tully: The PSA allows me to advocate for my client in a way that didn’t exist before. It’s helpful in a general sense because it brings more thought into the process. The conversation is not immediately about what the dollar amount will be. Even when the PSA scores are higher, use of the PSA prompts us to find out what’s behind the score. As well, we can argue things that are not part of the PSA score, such as if your client has a job, or community ties; if they have dependent family members. If your client has FTAs (Failure to Appear), you have an opportunity to explain why. This is how the PSA has helped to bring more dialogue and advocacy into the process, which leads to better outcomes for my clients.
APPR: What are some of the other pretrial improvements Mecklenburg County made, in addition to implementing the PSA.
Tully: In addition to introducing the PSA, the county developed a more robust pretrial services agency. My office also began to have a lawyer present at the first appearance for clients in jail, typically the day after arrest. We also worked to improve opportunities for bail review to happen more quickly. And most recently, the county issued a new bail policy.
APPR: What changed in Mecklenburg County as a result of the pretrial improvements you made?
Tully: As a result of the changes, the county did not build the $500 million additional jail. As a matter of fact, the county was able to close one of the three existing jails. A study spanning several years revealed the average daily jail population dropped from about 2,000 to 1,400. Also, new criminal activity and failure to appear rates didn’t go up or down. The only measure that increased with any significance was case dismissals. [1]
APPR: Did your jurisdiction monitor data to evaluate how your system is performing? Tell us how data was used.
Tully: In addition to data on the daily jail population, people held pretrial, and outcome data, we collect in both the aggregate and on individual judges and magistrates as far as the people appearing in front of them and the percentages of bail types (secured bond, written promise, custody release, etc.) they set.
APPR: How did your system think about and address racial disparities in your criminal justice system?
Tully: Here I wish we were more successful. Our goals were to move away from a money-based system and to reduce racial disparities. While the PSA didn’t make racial disparities worse, it didn’t make them better, either. So now we are looking at other evidence-based strategies to do that. There is a great local program on implicit bias that most of the agencies are asking employees to attend. With funding from the MacArthur Foundation, e-learning modules on racial implicit bias are being developed. We are also collecting and reviewing data regularly on disparities, and hope to make better progress in this area.
