Detailed Information on the
District of Columbia: Pretrial Services Agency Assessment

Partner with other Federal and non-Federal entities to conduct independent evaluations of the impact of substance abuse treatment and different models of supervision on rearrest and failure to appear in court outcome measures.

Continue to develop meaningful baseline measures and ambitious targets for PSA??s annual performance measures.

Measure: Reduction of Rearrest Rate - Percentage of all defendants rearrested during the period of pretrial supervision

Explanation:Percentage of all defendants rearrested during the period of pretrial supervision.

Measure: Reduction of Rearrest Rate - Percentage of all defendants rearrested for violent crimes

Explanation:Percentage of all defendants rearrested for violent crimes.

Measure: Reduction of Rearrest Rate - Percentage of all defendants rearrested for drug crimes

Explanation:Percentage of all defendants rearrested for drug crimes.

Measure: Reduction of Rearrest Rate

Explanation:Percentage of drug-using defendants rearrested during the period of pretrial supervision.

Measure: Reduction of Rearrest Rate

Explanation:Percentage of drug-using defendants rearrested for violent crimes.

Measure: Reduction of Rearrest Rate

Explanation:Percentage of drug-using defendants rearrested for drug crimes

Measure: Reduction of Rearrest Rate

Explanation:Percentage of nondrug-using defendants rearrested during the period of pretrial supervision

Measure: Reduction of Rearrest Rate

Explanation:Percentage of nondrug-using defendants rearrested for violent crimes

Measure: Reduction of Rearrest Rate

Explanation:Percentage of nondrug-using defendants rearrested for drug crimes

Measure: Reduction of Failure to Appear Rate - Percentage of all cases in which a defendant failed to appear for at least one court hearing

Explanation:Percentage of all cases in which a defendant failed to appear for at least one court hearing

Measure: Reduction in the Failure to Appear Rate

Explanation:Percentage of cases in which a drug-using defendant failed to appear for at least one court hearing

Measure: Reduction in the Failure to Appear Rate

Explanation:Percentage of cases in which a nondrug-using defendant failed to appear for at least one court hearing

Measure: Risk Assessment

Explanation:Percentage of defendants who are assessed for risk of failure to appear and rearrest

Measure: Initial Release Recommendation

Explanation:Percentage of defendants for whom PSA recommends the least restrictive conditions consistent with public safety and return to court

Measure: Compliance with Release Conditions

Explanation:Percentage of defendants who are in compliance with release conditions at the end of the pretrial period

Measure: Sanctions for Noncompliance

Explanation:Percentage of defendants whose noncompliance with the drug testing condition is addressed by PSA either through the use of an administrative sanction or through a recommendation for judicial action

Measure: Sanctions for Noncompliance

Explanation:Percentage of defendants whose noncompliance with the contact condition is addressed by PSA either through the use of an administrative sanction or through a recommendation for judicial action

Measure: Sanctions for Noncompliance

Explanation:Percentage of defendants whose noncompliance with the sanction-based treatment condition is addressed by PSA either through the use of an administrative sanction or through a recommendation for judicial action

Measure: Sanctions for Noncompliance

Explanation:Percentage of defendants whose noncompliance with the electronic monitoring condition is addressed by PSA either through the use of an administrative sanction or through a recommendation for judicial action

Measure: Substance Abuse Evaluation

Explanation:Percentage of drug-using defendants who are assessed for substance abuse treatment

Measure: Placement in Substance Abuse Treatment - Percentage of assessed eligible defendants placed in substance abuse treatment programs

Explanation:Percentage of eligible defendants placed in in-house substance abuse treatment programs

Measure: Reduction in Drug Use

Explanation:Percentage of defendants who have a reduction in drug usage following placement in a sanction-based treatment program

Measure: Placement in Educational and Employment Services

Explanation:Percentage of defendants who are placed in educational or employment services following assessment by the Social Services and Assessment Center

Measure: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Treatment Partnerships

Explanation:Number of agreements established and maintained with organizations and/or agencies to provide education or employment services or through which defendants can fulfiill community service requirements.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The D.C. Pretrial Services Agency honors the Constitutional presumption of innocence and enhances public safety by recommending release determinations, providing community supervision for defendants (to assure court appearance and community safety), and addressing social issues that contribute to crime.

Evidence: National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33), PSA mission statement, D.C. code Title 23 chapter 13 subchapter I, and PSA Strategic Plan FY 2005 ' FY 2010.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: PSA performs two critical tasks that contribute to the effective administration of justice and the enhancement of public safety: gathering and presenting objective risk information about newly arrested defendants and supervising defendants released from custody during the pretrial period.

Evidence: In FY 2003 PSA prepared over 18,600 bail reports for defendants charged with felonies and misdemeanors and at any given time supervised approximately 7,000 defendants (FY 2005 CSOSA Congressional Budget Justification). In FY 2003, 47 percent of defendants tested positive for drugs at the time of arrest. The PSA Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory conducted over 2 million drug tests from over 450,000 specimens (offenders and defendants). PSA made 1,197 defendant drug treatment placements in FY 2003.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: PSA is the sole entity responsible for the supervision of Dictrict of Coumbia defendants on pretrial release. PSA has the statutory responsibility to secure and provide pertinent reports containing verified information concerning any individual with respect to whom a bail or citation determination is to be made to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and to the Metropolitan Police Department.

Evidence: National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33), D.C. Code § 23-1301, D.C. Code §24-133.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: PSA's assessment and supervision programs are rooted in an extensive body of research that documents the linkage between drugs and crime, demonstrates the efficacy of routine drug testing and treatment, provides best practices for close supervision, establishes accountability in the defendant population, and uses sanctions and incentives to modify behavior.

Evidence: Numerous studies including: Harrell, A., Cavanagh, S., and John Roman, 'Evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Programs,' Research in Brief, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 2000. Office of Applied Studies. Services Research Outcome Study (SROS). DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 98-3177. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, 1998.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: PSA conducts a risk and needs assessment on each defendant to determine the probability of the risk of flight and the potential for criminal behavior, as well as the defendant's needs in the areas of drug treatment, employment services, education, housing and other social services. The needs assessment is an essential component of case planning and management as well as an effective resource management tool.

Evidence: PSA Sanctions and Incentives, Supervision Plan Management instructions, and budget chart allocation.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The PSA's two long-term outcome measures speak directly to the PSA's mission: reduction in rearrest (Outcome 1) during the period of pretrial supervision and reduction in the failure to appear in court (Outcome 2).

Evidence: PSA Performance Plan and Report, FY 2005; PSA Strategic Plan, FY 2005 ' FY 2010.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: PSA has baseline data on two long-term outcome measures ' reducing the rearrest rate and reducing the failure to appear (FTA) rate - for FY 2001, FY 2002 and FY 2003. Targets have been established for the following three years (through FY 2006), a time period covered by the FY 2005 ' FY 2010 Strategic Plan.

Evidence: District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency's Performance Plan and Report, FY 2005; http://mpdc.dc.gov/info/districts/city/crstats_citywide_annual.shtm.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: PSA has eleven performance measures that span the major functions and operations of the Agency and support the achievement of the two key outcomes. The performance measures selected by PSA address the most important activities conducted for each goal.

Evidence: PSA Performance Plan and Report, FY 2005

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: PSA submitted its first GPRA-related Performance Plan in FY 2000. In the four years since that first submission, PSA has refined its measures, adding additional measures to reflect significant programmatic changes, and has established baselines and targets. Target levels for five measures have been raised for the FY 2006 Performance Plan submission.

Evidence: DOJ, Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2000.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: PSA's partners include all the members of the PSA Executive Committee: the Chief Judges of the federal and local trial and appellate courts, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Public Defender Service, and CSOSA. Through a review process, the Executive Committe participates in developing and reviewing PSA's mission, financial condition, and performance. PSA's partners also include contract treatment service providers, who are subject to periodic reviews to ensure that their services are provided in accordance with PSA's contract requirements and national standards for treatment.

Evidence: CSOSA/ Public Defender Service (PDS) shared cost reimbursable agreement, Memorandi of Understanding and Letters Of Agreement with D.C. agencies and non-profits, and contract documents with drug treatment providers.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: A few independent studies have been conducted to evaluate certain aspects of PSA's programs such as sanctions, substance abuse treatment and drug testing. Additional studies are needed to examine the programs and services associated with other agency functions and to further explore the impact of treatment and models of supervision. The need for these independent evaluations is underscored in the Agency's Strategic Plan, and resources are being directed to support future evaluations.

Evidence: PSA Strategic Plan, FY 2005 ' FY 2010; Evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Programs by A. Harrell, S., Cavanaugh and J. Roman, funded by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice; Understanding Supervision in the District of Columbia: The Baseline Study by F. Taxman; CSOSA Policy Statement 1201.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: PSA's budget presents resource needs organized by general goals or critical success factors. PSA is working towards having a fully integrated performance budget in FY 2007.

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Additional performance measures have been added to PSA's Performance Plan as new programs and services have been identified and implemented. For example, measures 3.4 (Mental Health Referral) and 3.5 (Placement in Mental Health Services) were added to the Performance Plan in response to the development of the Specialized Supervision Unit, a unit funded in FY 2003 to target the needs of dually diagnosed defendants.

Evidence: PSA Performance Plan and Report, FY 2005

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: PSA uses a variety of methods to collect performance measurement data. Data is available through PSA's automated Pretrial Realtime Information Systems Manager (PRISM) system, which provides information on the two key outcomes. Manual data is collected on a weekly or monthly basis from each of the supervision and treatment units. Also, PSA regularly accesses the databases of other law enforcement agencies for rearrest data and the D.C. Superior Court and the U.S. District Court for failure to appear data.

Evidence: 3rd Quarter information provided to treatment and supervision branches and executive leadership; draft of the Sanctions and Incentives Management Instruction; General Supervision Unit Agent Notification Report procedure; Compliance Assessment Management Instructions; General Supervision Unit Detailed Court Appearance procedure

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: PSA managers are evaluated according to performance contracts with performance standards designed to increase compliance with key output measures/outcomes such as timely completion of bail reports or correctness of release recommendations. PSA treatment contractors are subject to regular reviews to assure that they are meeting their contract performance standards.

Evidence: Treatment contracts, PSA Substance Abuse Treatment Service - Contract Officers Technical Representative (COTR) Surveillance Guide, Manager's Performance Contract.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: PSA obligates funds for all goods and services for the current year no later than September 30 of the current year within the quarterly apportionment guidance defined by OMB. PSA actively compares actual expenditures against intended use (Enacted Budget/Operating Plans to status of Funds reports).

Evidence: PSA's audited Statement of Budgetary Resources and year-end Status of Funds reports.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Efficiency has been enhanced by an automated case management system that allows PSA supervision officers to quickly review the results of drug tests, attendance at substance abuse treatment, as well as compliance with other conditions of release. PSA has also developed an automated system for financial management, Payroll Estimation Tool (PET), for tracking personnel positions, salaries, and benefits requirements. PSA also strives to ensure efficiency and cost effectiveness by aggressively pursuing a policy of competitive sourcing wherever possible.

Evidence: PRISM, PET, and Obligating Document Number (ODN) Log user manuals and reports, vendor contracts and PSA monitoring reports.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: PSA works closely with many agencies. PSA worked with the Metropolitan Police Department to reinstate the citation release program. If requested by the Department of Corrections, defendants are asessed by the PSA Specialized Supervision Unit for mental health problems and when required, referred to the Department of Mental Health for treatment. Cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's office and defense counsel at a defendant's initial court hearing, PSA provides an objective assessment of a defendant's liklihood of flight and rearrest, and reccomends the least restrictive conditions necessary for each defendant.

Evidence: 2005 Performance Plan and Report

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Since 2000, CSOSA has issued a combined Statement of Budgetary Resources for the Pretrial Services Agency and Community Supervision Program. In FY 2004 and FY 2005, PSA, along with CSOSA, will be working to fully implement the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-289), which requires executive agencies to submit comprehensive annual financial statements to Congresss and OMB. To maintain financial integrity and improve funds control processes, PSA is continuing with efforts to develop and implement a financial management system framework, based on the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program framework ' financial management business architecture, data and information, application and services, and technology.

Evidence: Annual Audit Reports

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Since 2001, PSA has sought to correct any management deficiencies through long and short-term projects aimed at enhancing work quality and performance. These include: refining staff position descriptions and individual performance plans; re-defining the supervised defendant populations; analyzing caseload ratios for supervision officers; restructuring Supervision and Treatment Branch units and adding the Community Justice Resources Branch; developing quality assurance and control policies and instructions; tying staff work to strategic targets; streamlining PRISM data entry; and improving the performance of managers in the Operations units.

Evidence: Developing a Curriculum (DACUM) job analysis model, GAP analysis

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: PSA has two long-term goals: 1) a decrease in the percentage of defendants rearrested during the period of their pretrial supervision; and 2) a decrease in the percentage of cases in which a defendant failed to appear for at least one court hearing. PSA has shown good progress on both these measures.

Evidence: FY 2005 Performance Plan and FY 2003 Performance Report; The rearrest rate for all defendants was 14% in FY 2004, one percent above the target of 13%. However, the rearrest rate for violent crimes decreased from 1.7% in FY 2001 to 1.0% in FY 2003. The percentage of cases in which a defendant failed to appear for at least one court hearing decreased from 17.7% in FY 2001 to 15.6% in FY 2003 (target was 14%) and to14% in FY 2004 (target was 14%).

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Of PSA's eleven performance measures, performance meets or exceeds FY 2003 target for six of the measures. More ambitious targets for these measures are established in the FY 2006 Performance Plan. Performance targets have not yet been achieved for two measures (compliance with release conditions and sanctions for noncompliance) and still need to be established for three of PSA's measures.

Evidence: FY 2005 PSA Performance Plan and FY 2003 Performance Report

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: PSA has increased both efficiencies and cost effectiveness by implementing new computer-based systems: a computerized case management system (PRISM) ; a payroll estimation tool (PET); and an automated system that allows management to allocate budgetary resources to different program areas and track the rate of obligations and expenditures.

Evidence: PRISM, PET, and ODN Log user manuals and reports.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: PSA has been designated by the Department of Justice (DOJ) as one of seven model Pretrial Services Programs in the nation. PSA staff presents extensively at workshops for the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) and National and Regional Associations of Drug Court Professionals workshops. PSA has hosted staff from jurisdictions from around the nation and abroad who have come to observe PSA's operations. Furthermore, PSA's Superior Court Drug Intervention Program was the recipient of the Justice Potter Stewart Award in 2001 by the Council for Court Excellence. Also, PSA's state-of-the-art automated drug testing management system has long been recognized as setting the standard in the criminal justice drug testing field.

Evidence: DOJ, Enhanced Pretrial Services Delivery Program; 'Pretrial Services Programming at the Start of the 21st Century ' A Survey of Pretrial Services Programs' (2001); ABA Criminal Justice Standards on Pretrial Release; National Institute of Justice Issues and Practices ' Pretrial Services Programs: responsibilities and potential, March 2001, NCJ 181939.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Although PSA has participated in several independent research studies, only the Urban Institute study examining the impact of the Superior Court Drug Intervention Program linked program activities to outcomes. Additional studies with sufficient scientific rigor are needed to determine the extent to which agency functions contribute to a reduction in rearrest and failure to appear.

Evidence: PRISM, PET, and ODN Log user manuals and reports.