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

Pretrial Issues - Current Research - A Review, Volume 1 - Number 1

NCJ Number
82139
Author(s)
D E Pryor
Date Published
1979
Length
38 pages
Annotation
Current research on pretrial release, pretrial diversion, and dispute resolution which may have a significant impact on the state-of-the-art of pretrial alternatives in the future is reviewed.
Abstract
The research reviewed consists of (1) a study of pretrial release and misconduct in the District of Columbia, conducted by the Institute for Law and Social Research; (2) phase 2 of the National Evaluation of Pretrial Release, conducted by the Lazar Institute; (3) an evaluation of the 1974 Speedy Trial Act, Title II, including both a report of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and a data analysis report from the Federal Judicial Center, each of which addresses the administration and operation of Federal pretrial services agencies established pursuant to Title II; (4) an evaluation of the Court Employment Project (diversion) in New York City, conducted by the Vera Institute; and (5) the National Evaluation of the Neighborhood Justice Center concept, conducted by the Institute for Social Analysis. The format for the review of each research project consists of a brief description of the project and its purpose, significance, and current status; explanation of the methods used; major findings and conclusions; and analysis of the limitations and implications of the study. Overall conclusions from the review are that (1) pretrial programs should remain open to the possibility and process of change; (2) there should be more research on the concept of a continuum of pretrial services available to defendants; (3) more effective feedback is needed by judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys on the impact of decisions made throughout the pretrial process; (4) individual programs should periodically assess their performance and impact; and (5) evaluation research should be carefully controlled to increase the level of confidence in the findings. A total of 28 footnotes are provided.