Expanding the Use of Pretrial Services in Washington

Leading practices suggest using pretrial services results in effective outcomes for defendants and community safety. In fact, recent judicial and legislative initiatives in Washington show interest in expanding pretrial services. In 2019, the Washington Pretrial Reform Task Force published a report that provided recommendations for local jurisdictions to expand the use of pretrial services. In the 2023-25 and 2025-27 biennia, the Legislature provided funding to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to pilot a program for expanding pretrial services in local jurisdictions across the state.

The audit’s analysis of data from three Washington courts showed variation in the use of pretrial services and potential disparities in pretrial releases. They released fewer than a third of their defendants through pretrial services in lieu of requiring them to post bail. They also c used overlapping pretrial services, with varying results. All three provided pretrial supervision and court notification services to defendants.

The literature suggests that demographic factors such as race, ethnicity and gender may affect pretrial releases; our analysis showed mixed results. We found that defendants who were identified as Hispanic, for example, may have been less likely to receive pretrial services compared to defendants identified as non-Hispanic. However, differences in pretrial releases based on race were inconsistent.

A defendant’s history with the courts and the perceived severity of the charges may have also been factors in who was offered pretrial services. Defendants accused of more serious crimes were less likely to receive pretrial services. The number of criminal charges and failure to appear in court for these charges also influenced pretrial decisions.

Both individual courts and the state overall will need quality, accessible pretrial services data to assess the effectiveness of services and evaluate pretrial outcomes. Few of the courts we evaluated collect quality pretrial services data in an easily accessible format.

Examples of pretrial services data essential to evaluating outcomes include:

• Defendants’ demographics (for example, race, ethnicity, gender)
• Release and detention decisions (for example, detained in jail, released on bail and bail amount, released with pretrial service, or released on own recognizance)
• Name of pretrial services offered and conditions imposed
• Whether the defendant complied with conditions imposed
• How often defendants fail to appear in court for their hearings
• Whether the defendant commits a crime after being released pretrial
• Potential cost savings

The audit identified several factors that contributed to issues in collecting pretrial services data, including:

• No state requirement for local jurisdictions to do so
• No uniform definition of pretrial services
• No statewide system or process to collect such data

The audit interviewed 14 courts, including municipal, district and superior courts, and learned several of the courts reviewed offered some form of pretrial services. Few, however, provided all the services that leading practices recommend. Those practices include:

• Supervising released persons, for example through check-ins based on risk
• Providing assistance services such as court hearing reminders or bus passes
• Supportive services, including referrals to housing, employment or treatment

Although most of the selected courts would like to expand the use of pretrial services, they said barriers exist to doing so. Three barriers – funding, resources and public safety concerns – affect courts’ ability to use pretrial services.

Research suggests various strategies that could help courts wishing to implement or expand pretrial services. They can help them design, manage and fund pretrial services programs. The report includes these and other examples.

When designing a pretrial services program, courts should:

• Create a clear framework that outlines a vision for the program
• Forma collaborative group to guide program development
• Define roles
• Develop a system to track data

When managing a pretrial services program, courts should:

• Apply risk-based screening of defendants to inform decisions
• Build partnerships to provide referrals for services
• Track performance to demonstrate success

Finally, to secure funding for programming and operations, courts could:

• Establish a budget
• Consider reallocating or requesting funds
• Apply for grants

During the 2023-25 biennium, the Administrative Office of the Courts administered a pilot program to help expand pretrial services across the state, using about half of the $1.4 million allocated by the state Legislature.

AOC used the money to award grants and provide support to local courts. Participating courts planned to use the funds for a variety of pretrial strategies. For example, courts:

• Hired additional staff
• Provided staff training and development
• Purchased materials 
• Tested and validated tools
• Enhanced existing pretrial monitoring
• Improved data collection

AOC is finalizing a review of the initial pilot program and has received more funding to continue it into the 2025-27 biennium.

We identified strategies for local courts that wish to implement or expand the use of pretrial services. We also sent management at the Administrative Office of the Courts a letter with recommendations for specific areas where local courts would benefit from standardized guidance as they work to increase the use of pretrial services.