In November, the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) released an updated version of its Standards for Pretrial Release (Standards), a publication that guides the pretrial justice system on best practices. As state and local agencies across the country work to reform their pretrial systems, the new Standards aim to help them make those systems fairer and more effective at preserving community safety, through changes that are based on current research.
“The purpose of the Standards has always been to illustrate what effective practice is, not only for pretrial services agencies but also for a well-functioning pretrial system,” said Spurgeon Kennedy, past president of NAPSA. “What should you do and not do? How should agencies interact with other stakeholders? What do good bail laws and decisions look like? How should detention work?”
A Changing Pretrial Landscape
The 2024 update of the Standards reflects new evidence from the field and the evolving pretrial landscape.
It builds on a significant update that NAPSA made in 2020. That version overhauled the structure of the document and made a raft of additions, including a recommendation to prohibit the use of financial conditions of release—meaning that people charged with crimes should no longer be held in jail due to an inability to pay. It also broadened the document’s focus, outlining not just what a high-functioning pretrial agency should look like but how a fair and effective system should operate as a whole.
Importantly, the 2024 version retains the call to ban financial conditions of release, guidance that has become influential throughout the pretrial field.
The Standards retain previously released detailed guidance on principles for decision making, essential elements of a pretrial justice system, release and detention decisions, and pretrial services agencies.
In addition, they present new material, including:
- Updates to the literature supporting best and promising practices
- Inclusion of changes in bail law since the last update
- Recommendation to employ value-neutral language to describe justice-involved people
- New Standards on alternatives to in-person appearances, behavioral health/social services as part of pretrial supervision, and caseload ratios for critical agency functions
In the 2024 update, NAPSA also incorporated value-neutral language, employing the terms “people” or “individuals” instead of “defendants” to refer to those accused of a crime. “Words do matter,” Kennedy said. “Moving to that neutral language is our attempt to let stakeholders know that you’re dealing with human beings going through the pretrial process, not people who are presumed guilty.”
The updated Standards also address lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, especially about how often people need to report to court and in what cases they can appear virtually or by phone call instead of in person. Additionally, the Standards now make the case that behavioral health services should be offered as a support, but not necessarily as a condition of release.
New case law and empirical evidence from the field—as well as practical examples like Illinois’ Pretrial Fairness Act—strengthen the Standards’ recommendations. “It’s really helpful in the field for a practitioner to understand that there is a reason to do something,” said Elizabeth Simoni, executive director of Maine Pretrial Services and a vice chair of the NAPSA Standards Committee. “It’s not just because it makes us feel good or it’s what we’ve always done.”
The Standards in Practice
NAPSA has been publishing the Standards since 1978, updating them periodically as new evidence emerges and practices evolve.
In 2020, the Standards’ new recommendation to eliminate the use of financial conditions of release represented a serious attempt to root out the dysfunction of the pretrial system. In recent years, that and other guidance has been taken up by states and counties making changes to their pretrial systems. Illinois cited the Standards in its Pretrial Fairness Act, adopted in September 2023, which made it the first state in the country to end the use of financial conditions of release. Federal agencies, including the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the National Institute of Corrections, have also used the Standards as a guide in developing criteria and training for pretrial practice.
“NAPSA is the only organization that has taken a public position, based on research, against financial release conditions,” Simoni said. “That’s critical. States like Illinois and others have been able to stand on that.”
When to Provide New Guidance
In the past, the organization made revisions on a somewhat irregular schedule, Kennedy explained. But in 2020, he and NAPSA’s board committed to reviewing the standards every two to four years, and shifts in the field inspired this year’s update.
“We now have a standing Standards committee whose job it is to revise the document,” Kennedy said. “By 2024, we thought it was time to sit down again and do that review, just to make sure that the Standards stay current with research and practice.”
This review, Simoni explained, will help a field that is hungry for tips on good agency practice, like the best caseload ratio, a good supervision schedule, and whether or not to use a release conditions matrix. These practical details add up to a fairer, more helpful process for people charged with crimes and, ultimately, improved community safety.
“We can use the standards to improve outcomes for people by having a more just and equitable decision-making process,” she said. “That process should honor constitutional safeguards and make decisions case by case instead of doing the same thing with everyone.”
NAPSA is the only organization that has taken a public position, based on research, against financial release conditions.
About the Author
Michael Friedrich is a journalist living in Brooklyn who writes about public policy.
