Uplifting the Strengths of Rural Pretrial Systems

Rural and urban criminal legal systems can differ widely. They have different needs, resources, and conditions. Yet, most initiatives and reform efforts focus on urban jurisdictions that experience higher volumes of people with criminal legal involvement. 

In 2024, with support from Arnold Ventures, Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research (APPR) convened the inaugural Rural Pretrial Practitioners Fellowship to bring together rural practitioners with national pretrial justice leaders and experienced professionals. 

APPR spoke with Lakisha Fisher, a senior manager at the Center for Effective Public Policy who led the Fellowship, and Jesstina Duncan, a fellowship participant and a court supervisor and pretrial release coordinator with the Grant County Courts in Indiana.

They explained the challenges faced by rural pretrial justice systems and how the experiences and tools developed through the Fellowship equipped them to face those obstacles. 

APPR: Can you start by defining what you mean by “rural jurisdiction?” How are rural pretrial justice systems different from non-rural jurisdictions?

Lakisha Fisher: There are different technical definitions of “rural,” but we consider an area rural if it has low population density—fewer people spread out over a large area. 

Rural and urban areas are like two different worlds, not only because of the obvious population and geographical differences, but also because rural jurisdictions have unique challenges implementing effective pretrial practices. Rural jurisdictions can struggle significantly due to a lack of resources and inadequate system infrastructure. So, rural professionals—judges, prosecutors, pretrial services staff—have to serve multiple roles and wear multiple hats. 

In APPR’s work supporting rural pretrial practitioners, we examine all the ways those characteristics—smaller population, fewer justice system actors, and greater geographic spread—influence how justice is delivered within that jurisdiction. 

Jesstina Duncan: The thing I see most in my jurisdiction is the wearing of multiple hats. We have three officers who are strictly pretrial, but occasionally we have to adapt and go with the flow to do what’s needed for our clients. So, wearing multiple hats and knowing when and how to adapt is essential.  

“We often focus on what rural challenges are, but we have strengths, too. There are probably some areas where larger jurisdictions could learn from us.”

APPR: Can you describe how you and your staff adjust roles to compensate for a lack of resources? 

Duncan: Yes. We lost some regular probation staff due to retirement or new career opportunities. So, if needed, we might jump over and do a pre-sentence investigation report on a client prior to their sentencing. It’s important to have that range of skills to help within our unified department. We’re careful not to overstep certain boundaries, but being available to help benefits people and our system. 

Also, one of our officers recently created a resource guide to help steer people toward getting into specific facilities for mental health and substance abuse. She wrote it as an internal pretrial resource, but it has become popular among the rest of the department, including probation staff. It wasn’t something we paid to have done. She saw a need and took on that challenge herself because she knew it would benefit the clients and the department. 

Fisher: I’d like to add that, in Grant County, where I previously held Jesstina’s position, they understand the important distinctions between the pretrial, probation, and post-incarceration stages, particularly the presumption of innocence at the pretrial stage. It can be a tricky line to walk, but they do it well. 

APPR: Thinking about limited resources in rural jurisdictions, can you talk about what that looks like in practice?

Fisher: A lot of what’s limited in rural places is a lack of staff. Some urban areas have 10 to 15 pretrial services officers, while Grant County has three, which includes Jesstina, the director. She supervises some cases in addition to overseeing day-to-day operations. Her staff get pulled in multiple directions, too, like in the example she gave.

It’s also reflected in a lack of system infrastructure, such as established pretrial processes. For example, in larger jurisdictions, it’s more common to have formalized pretrial programs with policies that guide decisions at each stage, like the use of citation and release by law enforcement and delegated release authority by pretrial staff before first appearance. Rural areas often lack a coordinated system to support or encourage the consistent use of those kinds of policies.  

That means that once a person is booked into jail, a pretrial assessment might be conducted by jail staff instead of a dedicated pretrial services professional. These jurisdictions may have some isolated pretrial practices in place, but they often lack the infrastructure and staffing for a comprehensive pretrial services program.

APPR: Cities often see more serious violent crime, while rural areas may have more drug-related charges. Do you see this in your jurisdiction? If so, how does it impact how you do your work?

Duncan: We are a large county with a lot of rural areas, but Marion, our county seat, is very city-like. We’re blessed with both sides. In town, we see murders, attempted murders, and other serious violent crime, while outside of town, it’s more drug-related offenses. So, access to treatment is important. 

We have some halfway houses and sober living facilities, and we are starting to develop a lot more accessible options within our community. But to get a true inpatient, 30-day-type facility, you have to travel an hour or more. I have some clients right now who are down near the Tennessee border at a facility. It’s getting better every day. We have a lot of people working to get us better resources. But right now, if you need intensive treatment, you have to go to other cities and sometimes other states. 

I also want to say that, although there are many challenges in rural jurisdictions, there is also strength. In smaller jurisdictions, the partnerships and relationships are there because it’s small. Everybody knows everybody. You know, your kids might play on the same baseball team, and you have these really good relationships that you can lean into. That’s true with local community partners as well. 

One of the things we focused on in the fellowship was collaboration with local nonprofits and faith-based partners that can step in and provide support. For example, the resource guide I mentioned—it took relationships in the community to talk to each group and determine what they can offer pretrial clients. 

APPR: Lakisha, what was the model for the Rural Pretrial Practitioners Fellowship?

Fisher: We wanted to build pretrial leaders in rural jurisdictions who could drive change. The U.S. is made up of rural communities, but they can be left behind when it comes to best practices and innovative initiatives. We wanted to elevate these practitioners and ensure they have the tools to implement effective pretrial practices within their jurisdictions. 

One way we approached it was through mentorship. We connected participating fellows with other experienced practitioners to create peer-to-peer support. Then we provided them with training tailored to rural jurisdictions. There are existing training opportunities that are relevant to urban areas like Chicago or L.A., but we focused on helping fellows see how current best practices can fit within their small jurisdictions.

APPR: Justina, you were part of the fellowship’s first cohort. What was your experience? What did you get out of the project?  

Duncan: I wanted to develop my leadership skills, but I didn’t know where to start. There are so many things to do. The mentorship component was great. It gave us the ability to network, which can be a challenge since we’re rural. Networking and working with a higher level of professionals in the field was amazing. I went into it asking, “What does their leadership look like? What can I learn from them?”

We don’t always have the opportunity to attend every in-person training that’s available. The fellowship trainings allowed us to learn about issues like sequential intercept models and jail population reviews at a fast pace. It was a lot to learn in a short time, but the fellowship broke it down into parts, and by the end, I was like, “Okay, I have all these new skills all of a sudden!” 

APPR: Are there changes that you’ve made in your approach or practices since your fellowship experience? 

Duncan: Yes. I realized that my agency was missing a strong stakeholder team. We had a lot of turnover after the pandemic. We had new judges, prosecutors, and public defenders—some of whom were straight out of law school. And our agency also had new staff. So, we needed to get the band back together, so to speak.

After the fellowship concluded, we got the stakeholder team back on a routine schedule, meeting every three to four months. Now, about six months later, we’re seeing the effects of reconvening that group. It’s had a huge positive impact on our agency.

Fisher: Shortly after completing the fellowship, Jesstina was appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court to serve on the Indiana State Pretrial Committee, a role that reflects the leadership skills she built during the fellowship. She and another fellowship participant now serve as co-chairs of the committee’s Pretrial Coordinators Subcommittee, where they help ensure rural issues remain part of statewide discussions. Through that subcommittee, they’re also helping to spread best practices and lessons learned to other pretrial coordinators across Indiana, which is boosting professionalism and strengthening leadership statewide.

“[Jesstina and another fellow are] also helping to spread best practices and lessons learned to other pretrial coordinators across Indiana, which is boosting professionalism and strengthening leadership statewide.”

Duncan: In that committee, we spread what we’ve learned to other pretrial coordinators in the state. It really helps boost professionalism statewide and gets our pretrial leaders pumped up. 

APPR: A second cohort of the Rural Pretrial Fellowship was cancelled due to federal funding cuts in April 2025. How can rural pretrial practitioners and leaders continue learning on their own?

Duncan: There are a few ways. First, get back to the basics of pretrial. Sit down with your policies and assess if they are the best for you right now. Then, regularly review best practices, both locally and nationally, to see how they align with your current approach. 

Second, continually educate yourself and your staff on local resources and collaborate with providers and other agencies. A benefit of small communities is that it’s easy to collaborate and build relationships locally. 

Also, look at your data. Presenting supporting data to a stakeholder team really helps counter any pushback. Of course, you may have to first improve your data collection system so you have data to present. 

Fisher: One of the most important factors in my growth as a leader in this field was mentorship. I was fortunate to have a mentor who was experienced at operating a successful pretrial program. Although she wasn’t based in a rural jurisdiction, she provided valuable guidance, helped me understand best practices, and supported my leadership development. High-level trainings are helpful, of course, but for me, having a real person to serve as a sounding board and help walk through specific challenges made a tremendous difference.

Find peer mentors and connect with pretrial colleagues nationwide on the APPR Community.