U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Operations of the Pretrial Services Agencies - Hearings Before the House Subcommittee on Crime on HR 7084, February 13 and March 11, 1980

NCJ Number
87514
Date Published
1981
Length
644 pages
Annotation
On the basis of the performance of 10 demonstration pretrial services agencies (PSA's) in 10 Federal judicial districts, testimony generally supports the expansion of PSA's into all judicial districts.
Abstract
The hearings review the record of the PSA's established by Title II of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, and particular attention is given to HR 7084, which authorizes the expansion of PSA's into all Federal judicial districts. Under Title II, the primary functions of PSA's are to (1) collect, verify, and report to the judicial officer information related to the pretrial release of charged persons and recommend appropriate release conditions; (2) review and modify the report and recommendation; (3) supervise and provide supportive services to releasees; and (4) inform the court of violations of conditions of release. Some testimony notes that the demonstration PSA's have helped to increase the number of defendants released on bail and reduce detention time and crimes while on bail. Other testimony notes, however, that evaluation data does not permit the conclusion that differences observed after the implementation of PSA's are attributable to them. This testimony still favors the expansion of PSA's to all Federal districts because data do support that judicial officers make more informed and equitable decisions when aided by PSA's. While all the testimony generally supports the value of PSA's and their establishment in all Federal judicial districts, testimony on the proper structure for these PSA's differs. Some support the establishment of PSA's under independent boards while others want them established as units of probation departments. Proponents of each position argue that their structure is more cost-effective. For individual entries, see NCJ 87515-23.

Downloads

No download available