Supporting Staff and Participants Amid Influx: Lessons from New York’s Reforms to Pretrial Services
By Bryn Herrschaft-Eckman, Senior Research Associate
The sweeping changes to New York’s criminal legal system in 2019 involved multiple provisions that touched many facets of the system, but its expansion of pretrial services as an alternative to pretrial detention precipitated significant policy and operational changes for pretrial service providers to meet the legislative requirements. Pulling from a process evaluation of its implementation, here are some recommendations for pretrial service providers to manage the shift.
Even before New York State made sweeping changes to its criminal legal systems in 2020, pretrial service agencies across the state provided crucial services by supporting people awaiting case resolution in the community. This included screening people to see if they needed to be connected with services, providing support to ensure they appeared in court, monitoring compliance of those released with conditions and/or under pretrial supervision, and providing release assessments to judges to inform individual release decisions. The passage of the New York State Criminal Justice Reform Act (Act) in 2019 involved multiple provisions that touched many facets of the system, but its expansion of pretrial services as an alternative to pretrial detention precipitated significant policy and operational changes for pretrial service providers to meet the legislative requirements. By reducing the number of charges eligible for cash bail – resulting in fewer people being held in jail – exponentially more people were now shifted to pretrial services as their cases made their way through the courts as a way to meet the legislation’s goals of safely shifting away from incarceration.
By reducing the number of charges eligible for cash bail . . . exponentially more people were now shifted to pretrial services as their cases made their way through the courts as a way to meet the legislation’s goals of safely shifting away from incarceration.
Reform Requirements Changed Size, Function of Pretrial Services
For the past three years, CUNY ISLG has been studying implementation of the Act, gathering on-the-ground perspectives from the stakeholders who were putting the policy into practice. As detailed in one of the resulting publications, Reform in Action: Expanding Pretrial Services, staff from all levels of pretrial service agencies found themselves faced with considerable implementation challenges:
Disruptions to some of the ways pretrial service staff had previously been able to connect with people and advocate for them to be placed in their services because of changes to case flow;
Increased caseload volume and evolving participant needs, including those with more serious charges and those presenting with higher rates of mental health, substance use, and housing issues; and
Substantial difficulties with staff retention due to staff burnout, inability to accommodate remote work in a post-COVID-era to staff who preferred it, and health and safety concerns
Providers – especially those in New York City, which saw the biggest influx of new participants – had to adapt quickly and efficiently to these challenges by implementing creative solutions and developing strategies in real time to serve people better through more robust services that supported them in attending their court dates and avoiding further legal contact.
Recommendations to Better Support Staff and Participants
The recommendations below draw on specific lessons from the experiences of pretrial service providers in New York grappling with implementation. The recommendations can be used as a guide for local-level practitioners and stakeholders in New York as they continue to address the challenges posed to pretrial services as well as for other jurisdictions across the country tasked with implementing similar expansion to pretrial supervision programs. CUNY ISLG will be releasing a final report later this month that provides additional recommendations for state-level partners drawing on our work over the past three years.
Consider how reforms will impact case flow – and design practices to fill any gaps
Reform legislation often changes the flow and timing of cases through the criminal legal system – for example, in New York, reforms that promoted the use of Appearance Tickets in lieu of custodial arrests was expected to result in more people being released by law enforcement to return to their arraignment hearing in the future (within 20 days) and less individuals at people on the same or next day of their custodial arrest. Pretrial services typically uses the arraignment hearing as an initial point of contact to flag and connect with people in need of critical services such as mental health treatment, housing, and employment support; these changes to case flow and timing, therefore, concerned some providers during initial interviews that it would be more difficult for them to access and provide timely services to this population before they’re released back into the community. Any changes to case flow that occur as the result of reform legislation should be thoughtfully considered – in this instance, pretrial service providers may need to develop new practices to address any gaps created by changes to case flow or shift existing staffing plans to bridge these gaps.
Hire more experienced staff to better reach and serve populations with higher
Participants with more serious levels of need likely require more experienced social workers and other clinicians with more tailored expertise, including clinical and care coordinators, who have the familiarity and proficiency in handling complex cases involving mental health issues, substance use, homelessness, and pending criminal cases. These more experienced staff may also be adept at forging relationships with community providers to which they can provide referrals. In addition to meeting clinical needs, increasing engagement with a larger – and more difficult-to-reach – group of clients may require hiring more specialized community outreach staff, including outreach teams and peer specialists, to meet participants where they are and engage them in services. Credible messengers, or individuals with lived experience and prior contact with the legal system, have been an effective strategy in assisting individuals with involvement in the criminal legal system with accessing vital support services and navigating institutions and challenges.[1]
Increasing engagement with a larger – and more difficult-to-reach – group of clients may require hiring more specialized community outreach staff.
Consider additional therapeutic treatments and services to address more complex needs
The implementation of motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy can lead to better outcomes for people with criminal legal system involvement.[2] Managing people with higher rates of substance use requires training staff and deploying harm reduction efforts to address the potential for an increase in overdoses in the office; staff from a NYC-based provider said this issue had arisen as a result of the increased eligibility for pretrial services. Additionally, with increasing numbers of pretrial services participants presenting with complex needs and history of trauma, trauma-informed training and care modalities are increasingly important.[3]
Aid existing staff with expanded supports to address retention and burnout
Broad system reforms can also impact existing staff, who may now need expanded support to do their jobs efficiently and to accommodate added responsibilities to address new needs. Developing methods to retain staff ensures that agencies are appropriately staffed and trained to successfully implement reforms. To this end, it is essential that agencies seek staff input at all levels when both planning and implementing reforms, and that they consider what additional supports need to be put into place to best address new concerns and burnout. The expansion of services to people with more serious charges and higher needs will significantly impact staff at pretrial service agencies, particularly front-line case managers. Pretrial services agencies must intentionally plan for providing additional supports to address staff burnout and improve morale. This might include additional trainings (e.g., de-escalation training, trauma-informed client care) to provide staff with more tools to better serve participants, on-site security staff and protocols to ensure staff safety, and additional support services to manage work-related stress through employee health and wellness programs.[4]
[1] Martinez, et al., New York City’s Wounded Healers: A Cross-Program, Participatory Action Research Study of Credible Messengers (Washington, DC: Urban Institute), https://www.urban.org/research/publication/new-york-citys-wounded-healers-cross-program-participatory-action-research.
[2] McMurran, M., “Motivational Interviewing with Offenders: A Systematic Review,” Legal and Criminological Psychology 14, 83-100.
[3] Thomas, J., & Sharps, D. , Identifying and Addressing Pretrial Needs (New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2021), https://www.nycja.org/assets/downloads/fact-sheet-9.pdf
[4] Peters, C., Investing in People: Improving Corrections Staff Health and Wellness. (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2018), https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/investing-people-improving-corrections-staff-health-and-wellness
Photo by Timon Studler on Unsplash.