< Previous30 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 43, NUMBER 3 POLICY BRIEF: BAIL REFORM, PRETRIAL ASSESSMENT AND SUPERVISION IN CALIFORNIA BY DEYANIRA NEVÁREZ MARTÍNEZ, MATT BARNO, AND KIRK R. WILLIAMS31 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION Problematic issues plague pretrial detention in California, including prohibitively high bail amounts that disproportionately burden people of color and women, detention facility overcrowding, and the criminalization of poverty. In California, 64% of jail beds are currently filled by inmates who have yet to be sentenced (Tafoya et al., 2017). The median bail amount in California is $50,000, more than five times higher than the rest of the country (Tafoya, 2015). In a recent decision, In re Humphrey, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District concluded that lower courts must consider a defendant’s ability to pay when setting bail. This decision has reignited an examination of the need for statewide bail reform. The Humphrey court noted that “[a] defendant may not be imprisoned solely due to poverty” and that “[l]egislation is desperately needed…to correct a deformity in our criminal justice system” (In re Humphrey, 2018, pp. 35, 46). These issues prompted a movement to reform the cash bail system statewide. Senate Bill 10 (S.B. 10), the California Money Bail Reform Act of 2017, was introduced in the State Senate in December of 2016, passed, and was signed into law by Governor Brown on August 28, 2018. However, the implementation of S.B. 10 was placed on hold because the bail bonds industry gathered enough signatures to initiate a public referendum on the matter. The issue will appear on the November 2020 ballot (Ulloa, 2018). The sponsors of this legislation argue that the bill provides equal opportunity for release to all individuals while considering flight risk and impact on public safety (Hertzberg, 2017). Initially, the bill garnered the support of the ACLU, the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, Californians for Safety & Justice, California Public Defenders Association, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and the Western Center on Law & Poverty. However, most withdrew their support after last-minute amendments made mandatory the use of risk assessment tools which they identify as inherently racially biased (Koseff, 2018). In 2016, before the passage of S.B. 10, the Orange County Superior Court commenced a pilot pretrial risk assessment and release supervision (PARS) program. By integrating a validated risk assessment tool into the pretrial decision-making process, the Orange County PARS program serves as a model for the type of program that counties across California will be required to implement if S.B. 10 were to go into effect. Since June 2017, University of California-Irvine researchers in conjunction with the Orange County (OC) Pretrial Services Unit have worked together to gather relevant and available data for evaluating the pretrial release recommendations. Initial evaluations were completed, and the research team is now coordinating with Orange County Superior Court Pretrial Services to develop a uniquely tailored risk assessment instrument for the Orange County defendant population. 32 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 43, NUMBER 3 32 THE PARS STUDY The PARS pilot program was initiated on February 3, 2016, with the stated purpose to assist and inform judicial pretrial release decision-making. This effort included the use of a risk assessment instrument, the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI), by Pretrial Service Officers to assess eligible defendants’ risk of failure to appear for subsequent court proceedings. The VPRAI was chosen primarily because it has been validated by several studies, with the most recent validation completed in 2015 (Kleiman, Ostrom, & Cheesman, 2007; VanNostrand & Rose, 2009; Danner, VanNostrand, & Spruance, 2015). The probation department uses defendants’ VPRAI scores in making recommendations to the court concerning granting or denying PARS participation. The court then uses the VPRAI scores and corresponding probation recommendations to inform its ultimate decision about whether to grant or deny PARS at arraignment. Defendants placed on the PARS program receive pretrial release without having to post a cash bond. However, they are subject to varying levels of pretrial supervision depending on their VPRAI risk scores. The data collection process included obtaining de- identified information on PARS participants and PARS- eligible nonparticipants consisting of their assessment scores, demographic information (race, gender, employment status, military status, and homelessness), and failure to appear. Initial analyses of the data were designed to address three questions: • Are more PARS-eligible defendants being released prior to or at arraignment without having to post cash bond since the PARS program was implemented in February 2016? • What factors are associated with the court’s decision to grant or deny PARS participation after the probation department recommends defendants for this participation? The findings, therefore, suggest that among those recommended for pretrial release by probation, release onto the PARS program appears to be a better option for addressing pretrial failure than setting cash bail.33 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION • Does PARS participation reduce the likelihood of pretrial failure relative to cash bond? STUDY FINDINGS The findings indicate that the PARS program significantly increased the number of felony defendants released without having to post cash bond. When comparing a sample of PARS-eligible defendants from 2015 with a sample of PARS-eligible defendants from 2016 and 2017, after PARS was implemented, the latter sample showed significantly higher rates of own recognizance release and release at arraignment without cash bail. Despite the increase in pretrial releases, only 206 of the 558 defendants recommended to the PARS program by probation were granted PARS release when they appeared before the court at arraignment. The results indicate that the judicial decision to grant PARS after a probation recommendation was associated with the defendant’s VPRAI assessment score and employment status. Defendants with higher VPRAI scores were significantly less likely to be granted PARS even though probation recommended this placement, while defendants who were employed were significantly more likely to be granted PARS after a probation recommendation. The results also revealed that among all defendants recommended for PARS participation by probation, defendants placed on PARS were significantly less likely to fail to appear compared to those who were denied participation by the court and subsequently released on cash bond. The findings, therefore, suggest that among those recommended for pretrial release by probation, release onto the PARS program appears to be a better option for addressing pretrial failure than setting cash bail. Moreover, when VPRAI scores and PARS participation were controlled in the model, the effect of employment status on failure to appear was statistically insignificant, undermining The results also revealed that among all defendants recommended for PARS participation by probation, defendants placed on PARS were significantly less likely to fail to appear compared to those who were denied participation by the court and subsequently released on cash bond. 34 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 43, NUMBER 3 the notion that employment status should play a determinative role in pretrial release determinations. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS This study assessed the pilot program of a single superior court that chose to use a risk assessment tool to assess pretrial release of felony criminal defendants. The research shows that the Orange County PARS program significantly increased the number of felony defendants released without having to post cash bond. Based on these findings, it is recommended that trial courts engage in education efforts with all court staff. Specifically, judicial buy-in is important in the implementation and success of pretrial risk assessment programs. Additionally, the courts should prepare for a robust data collection effort as part of successful implementation. This will allow the courts and outside researchers to be able to evaluate objectively the outcomes of the program to determine whether objectives have been met. The Pretrial Justice Institute has warned against simply “borrowing a pretrial risk assessment from one jurisdiction and expecting it to work in another” (2009, p. 4). This is reflected in the current study’s finding that the effect of employment status on failure to appear was statistically insignificant. Therefore, it is recommended that a court utilizing a risk assessment tool go through the process of validating it by individually examining the items to ascertain the best predictors of pretrial failure for their populations. Appropriate and robust data collection efforts will play a big role in making such determinations. REFERENCES Barno, M., & Nevárez Martínez, D. (2018). Orange County Superior Court Pretrial Assessment and Release Supervision (PARS) Program Evaluation (pp. 1-28). Irvine, CA: University of California. In re Kenneth Humphrey, on Habeas Corpus, 19 Cal.App.5th 1006 (2018). Kleiman, M., Ostrom, B. J., & Cheesman, F. L. (2007). Using risk assessment to inform sentencing decisions for nonviolent offenders in Virginia. Crime & Delinquency, 53(1), 106-132. Pretrial Justice Institute. (2009). Overview of research findings on pretrial risk assessment and pretrial supervision (pp. 1-9, Report No. 024555). Washington, D.C.: Pretrial Justice Institute. Tafoya, S. (2015). Pretrial detention and jail capacity in California. Public Policy Institute of 35 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION VanNostrand, M., and Rose, K. (2009). Pretrial Risk Assessment in Virginia. Luminosity, Inc. ABOUTH THE AUTHORS at the University of California, Irvine. Her research focuses on the role of the state in the production of informal housing settlements, local governance and enforcement, land use regulation, and urban informality. MATT BARNO, JD, Law School (2015) and a current Ph.D. student in the Department of Criminology, Law & Society at the University of California, Irvine. His research focuses on empirically evaluating criminal justice policies and programs using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. KIRK R. WILLIAMS, Ph.D., Criminology, Law & Society at the University of California at Irvine. He publishes widely on the causes and prevention of violence, particularly involving youth or adult intimate partners. He is the recipient of numerous grants from federal and state funding sources, in addition to financial support from various private foundations, to support his research. He also works extensively with community-based groups, schools, and agencies in violence prevention planning, implementation, and evaluation. 36 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 43, NUMBER 3 PRE-EMPLOYMENT INTEGRITY TESTING: THE MISSING PIECE IN THE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HIRING PROCESS BY ANTHONY W. TATMAN, PH.D.37 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION While topics such as risk assessment, case planning, re-entry, and core correctional practices justifiably receive a considerable amount of attention in academic writing, professional guides, and staff training, far less notice has been given to research and education on best practices for hiring high performing correctional employees—the valuable probation, parole, and prison officers who perform so much front-line work. This gap in both knowledge and literature is unfortunate, given the considerable power, authority, and trust bestowed on such correctional officers. They are expected to be models of character, integrity, and moral fortitude. Those correctional employees who stray from this expectation can cause considerable damage and harm to their organization, the clients they serve, and the community at large. Therefore, this article will briefly summarize recent studies and articles on best practices related to hiring correctional officers. It will also discuss some additional methods that correctional agencies can use to further increase their odds at hiring top performers. BRIEF REVIEW Literature on hiring correctional applicants has primarily revolved around two areas of the hiring process: (a) the interview and (b) psychological evaluations conducted subsequent to a conditional offer. In regard to interviewing techniques, Wells, Johnson, and Sundt (2018) provided the field with guidance on, and justification for, basing behavioral interview questions on core competencies. Through their research using focus groups of probation officers, assistant chiefs, and judges, they identified three primary areas of competency (interpersonal, technical, and self-management), with various subfactors related to each of these (e.g., empathetic, organizational skills, and strong ethics), that are deemed essential for successful correctional officers. Anchoring interview questions around such core competencies helps hiring agencies assess the attitudes, behaviors, and values that are key characteristics of a good correctional officer and that have also been found to be predictive of future training performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). In regard to post-conditional offer psychological evaluations (PPEs), Tatman and colleagues have explored and verified the value of using psychological instruments as a component of a comprehensive hiring process for probation and parole officers (Tatman, Kreamer, & Dix, 2014; Tatman, Kreamer, & Reynoldson, 2014). By integrating psychological instruments, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) or NEO Personality Inventory-3, into the hiring, onboarding, and coaching process for correctional officers, Tatman and colleagues were able to significantly reduce turnover, resulting in considerable financial savings. Other extensive research on the use of psychological instruments in the hiring process has found them to be effective 38 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 43, NUMBER 3 in predicting various counterproductive work behaviors (Detrick & Chibnall, 2006; Dilchert, 2018; Garbarino, Chiorri, Magnavita, Piattino, & Cuomo, 2012; Sellbom, Fischler, & Ben-Porath, 2007; Stewart, 2008), again confirming that they can make a substantial contribution to the hiring process for high-risk, high- trust occupations such as corrections. One limitation, however, in using psychological assessments in the hiring process is that the information obtained, albeit valuable and informative, comes relatively late in the hiring process. In cases such as Griffin v. Steeltek, Inc. (1997) and Karraker v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. (2003), courts have ruled that psychological assessments are medical examinations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), placing certain limitations on the circumstances under which they can appropriately administered (Americans With Disabilities Act, 1991). This means that psychological tests must be delayed until after a conditional offer of employment has been given, and thus their potentially useful information only becomes available after completion of the lengthy process of interviews, reference checks, and collateral contacts. PRE-INTERVIEW TESTING – THE MISSING STEP The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) states that “psychological tests that are designed to identify a mental disorder or impairment qualify as medical examinations, but psychological tests that measure personality traits such as honesty, preferences, and habits do not” (Karraker v. Rent-A- Center Inc., 2005). Assessments measuring traits such as honesty, integrity, and personal habits (otherwise referred to as integrity tests) have become widely used during the hiring process in non-correctional work environments to measure behaviors that would negatively impact work performance, such as illegal drug use, stealing from an employer, fighting, problems with authority, or excessive absenteeism outside of the This means that psychological tests must be delayed until after a conditional offer of employment has been given, and thus their potentially useful information only becomes available after completion of the lengthy process of interviews, reference checks, and collateral contacts. 39 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION corrections field. In fact, integrity tests have become the most widely used assessments for predicting problematic behaviors among job applicants and employees (Fine, Horowitz, Weigler, & Basis, 2010). Their popularity stems from the growing empirical evidence supporting the reliability and validity of integrity tests in predicting job performance and counterproductive work behaviors (Berry, Sackett, & Wiemann, 2007; Cunningham & Jones, 2008; Fine, 2013; Fine et al., 2010; Jones, Cunningham, & Dages, 2010; Marcus, Ashton, & Lee, 2013; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Wanek, 1999). Since integrity tests are not considered medical exams, and when used as intended do not violate ADA or EEOC guidelines (ADA Enforcement Guidance, 2000), they are applicable and lawful to use during the pre-conditional offer phase of the hiring process. INTEGRITY TESTS AND THE INTERVIEW Wells, Johnson, and Sundt (2018) provide readers with a valuable foundation for incorporating an examination of core competencies for correctional officers into a structured behavioral interviewing process. Integrity tests are best used in conjunction with, as opposed to serving as a replacement for, a sound behavioral interview (Wells et al., 2018). When used in conjunction with structured interviews, integrity tests can add to the hiring process by identifying areas of possible concern (e.g., poor attitudes toward management, attitudes supportive of theft in the workplace and manipulating others) early in the hiring process. This early identification enables the development of follow-up interview questions that are specific to the candidate and can also highlight areas for further inquiry when checking past employers and references. This early identification enables the development of follow- up interview questions that are specific to the candidate and can also highlight areas for further inquiry when checking past employers and references. Next >