A Better Path to Court Appearance and Public Safety: Motivational Interviewing in Pretrial Services

Guest Author • June 24, 2026

Share this article

Pretrial supervision serves a clear mandate: ensure individuals appear in court, prevent

new criminal activity, and administer justice equitably for people who are legally presumed

innocent. High functioning pretrial agencies take that mandate seriously — and the evidence

compels us to ask not just what we are trying to achieve, but how we can most effectively

get there.

"I am so excited to highlight Motivational Interviewing in this post and deeply grateful for Stan Antonelli's leadership in advancing this work. Learning and applying Motivational Interviewing was a turning point in my career—it transformed how I connect and communicate with the people we serve, as well as with colleagues and my family. MI is not just a skill, but an essential foundation for effective communication."


Wendy Venvertloh, NAPSA Executive Director

The Problem with "Business as Usual"

Conventional pretrial supervision was built around enforcement: set conditions, monitor compliance, document violations. That model has a structural flaw. It treats noncompliance as defiance when, more often, it is a symptom of unaddressed need.


The individuals under pretrial supervision are not simply awaiting trial. Many are simultaneously navigating substance use disorders, mental health crises, housing instability, family disruption, and employment barriers. When supervision ignores these realities, predictable outcomes follow:


  • Pretrial supervision officers spend more time documenting failures than building capacity.
  • Individuals are sanctioned for circumstances — not for new criminal conduct.
  • Compliance conditions become harder to meet over time, not easier.
  • Court appearance and public safety — the very goals of pretrial supervision — are undermined.


This is not a matter of individual officer failure. It is a structural problem, and it demands a structural solution.

What is Motivational Interviewing?

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a clinically validated, evidence-based communication framework designed to strengthen an individual's own motivation for change — meeting people where they are rather than where we expect them to be. It is not a program. It is not a set of scripts. It is a professional orientation that changes the nature of the supervision relationship itself.


MI does not eliminate accountability. It changes how accountability is achieved — shifting from external enforcement to internally driven commitment. Research consistently demonstrates that individuals who are genuinely invested in their own stability are more likely to appear in court, avoid new criminal

activity, and complete supervision successfully.

The Core Principles (RULE)

  • Resist the righting reflex— refrain from unsolicited correction or directive instruction
  • Understand the client's motivations — identify and engage what is meaningful to the individual
  • Listen empathically — maintain non-judgmental, reflective engagement
  • Empower the client — cultivate confidence, self-efficacy, and autonomous decision-making

The Core Skills (OARS)

  • Open-ended questions — facilitate substantive dialogue rather than binary responses
  • Affrimations — recognize genuine strengths and demonstrated efforts
  • Reflective listening — accurately reflect the client's expressed thoughts and feelings
  • Summaries — consolidate themes, mark transitions, and reinforce progress

What MI Communication Sounds Like: OARS in Action

The shift to MI-informed communication is not just philosophical;  it is heard in every interaction. The examples below illustrate the difference across common pretrial supervision contexts. 

Without MI: Deficit-Focused

"You missed your last two check-ins. This is a problem."



With MI: Reflective & Curious

"It sounds like the last couple of weeks have been rough. Help me understand what got in the way. I want to figure this out with you."


Without MI: Generic/Hollow

"Good job attending your court hearing."






With MI: Specific Affirmation

"You've attended all your court hearings with a genuinely challenging barriers like childcare and transportation. That reflects real commitment and strength on your part."


Without MI: Confrontational

"If you keep this up, you're going to end up back in front of the judge."



With MI: Values-Based Reflection

"You've told me how important it is to be there for your kids. I want to explore with you what today's choices look like in light of that."


Without MI: Directive/Presumptive

"You need to attend every appointment or I'll have to report a violation."



With MI: Open-Ended & Empowering

"What's been getting in the way of making it to your supervision appointments, and what might make it easier?"


Without MI: Closed/Compliance Check

"Are you in compliance with your court

order?"



With MI: Open-Ended Question

"Tell me about how your last court hearing went last week-what came up for you?"



Without MI: Dismissive of Ambivalence

"You agreed to these conditions. You need to follow through."



With MI: Exploring Ambivalence

"it sounds like part of you wants to make these changes and part of you isn't sure it's possible. That's a reasonable place to be. Tell me more about what feels hardest."

Without MI: Summarizing Failure

"You've missed three appointments, had police contact, and haven't contacted your attorney."






With MI: Affirming Summary

"You've shown up consistently over the last month, you reached out proactively when things got hard, and you've started talking about next steps. That momentum matters- let's build on it."




Without MI: Punitive

"Either you pass this drug test or we have

a serious problem."





With MI: Scaling & Empowering

"On a scale of one to five, how would you rate your ability to manage your sobriety right now- and what would it take to move that number up?"




MI in Practice: Pretrial Agencies Can Apply It

Pretrial supervision is a unique setting. Participation is often mandated; clients are court-involved and frequently in acute crisis. MI is adapted here to operate alongside — not in opposition to — the court's requirements.


Clarity About What Is Mandatory and What Is a Choice


Conditions of release are non-negotiable and communicated as such. But the degree to which individuals invest in resources — counseling, peer support, goal-setting, skills development — remains their decision. Staff are trained to be explicit about this distinction.

"Your conditions are set by the court and are not subject to negotiation. What you choose to invest in beyond those requirements is entirely your decision — and that investment will be visible to the court."

Treating Legally Innocent People as Adults with Agency


Even within mandatory supervision, decision-making authority is returned to the individual wherever appropriate. Scaling questions build self-awareness and personal ownership.

"On a scale of one to five, how would you assess your ability to manage your sobriety right now?"

Connecting Compliance to Personal Values


Sustainable compliance is most reliably achieved when individuals understand how meeting their conditions

serves their own goals-not merely the court's. Staff consistently reinforce these connections.

"You have identified reunification with your children as your primary goal. Let's talk about what today's

choices look like in light of that."

Strengths-Based Engagement


Many individuals arrive in supervision having been identified by systems through a deficit lens. MI-informed

affirmations are specific and evidence-based-not generic encouragement. Reorienting that narrative is

both clinically appropriate and practically effective.

"You have maintained employment for three years- the longest period of your adult life. That reflects

genuine character and capability, and it is directly relevant to the trajectory you are building."

Exploring Ambivalence Rather Than Punishing It


Ambivalence about change is clinically normal, not defiance. When resistance appears, staff explore

rather than confront.

"It sounds as though you recognize the value of making changes while also feeling uncertain about

whether that is achievable. That is a reasonable place to be. I would like to understand more about

what feels most difficult."

Addressing Barriers as a Core Supervision Function


Because supervision failures are frequently rooted in unaddressed need, pretrial agencies should actively

connects individuals to counseling, housing, employment support, transportation, peer recovery services, and family stabilization programs. Addressing barriers is not supplemental- it is central to the mission.

MI in Pretrial Supervision: Key Contexts

During Intake and Initial Contact

The first interaction sets the tone for the entire supervision period. MI-informed intake moves beyond data

collection to genuine engagement. Officers explore the individual's life circumstances, immediate barriers,

and personal goals- establishing a collaborative foundation from day one.

  • Use open-ended questions to understand what the person is navigating, not just what they are charged with.
  • Identify intrinsic motivators early: family, employment, housing stability, community connection.
  • Establish explicit clarity about what is court-mandated versus what support resources are voluntary.

"Before we go through the paperwork, I want to understand where things stand for you right now- what's most pressing in your life at this moment?"

During Ongoing Supervision Check-Ins
Routine contacts are the primary vehicle for MI practice. Rather than functioning as compliance audits, check-ins become opportunities to assess progress, reinforce motivation, and identify emerging barriers before they escalate.

  • Open every contact with an open-ended question about the person's experience, not their compliance status.
  • Use reflective listening to signal that you are genuinely hearing what is shared.
  • Summarize progress and name specific strengths observed since the last contact.
  • Address missed appointments or conditions with curiosity first, explore before documenting.

"Walk me through how the last couple of weeks have gone-what went well, and where did things get

hard?"

When Addressing Noncompliance

MI reframes noncompliance as clinical information rather than moral failure. When a condition is unmet, the MI-informed response is to investigate the barrier, not immediately escalate.

  • Ask what happened before assuming intent.
  • Separate the barrier (transportation, childcare, crisis) from the person's willingness.
  • Explore what support could make compliance achievable going forward.
  • Be transparent about what must be reported and what remains within the officer's discretion.

"You missed your last check-in; I want to understand what got in the way. Help me see what happened so we can figure out what needs to change."

Preparing Court Recommendations

MI-informed practice fundamentally changes the nature of court recommendations. Rather than presenting a binary compliance record, officers are positioned to offer a richer, more accurate account of the individual's trajectory, one that serves the court's genuine interests.

  • Document engagement, not just compliance. Note when a person has proactively identified barriers, sought support, or demonstrated insight, even when formal compliance has been inconsistent.
  • Reflect individual context. A missed appointment means something different for someone managing a mental health crisis than for someone who simply disengaged. The recommendation should reflect that distinction.
  • Connect behavior to motivation. Where possible, describe how the person's stated goals and values have (or have not) aligned with their behavior, giving the court a fuller picture of readiness and risk.
  • Be specific and evidence-based. Reference concrete observations: "Proactively contacted the office when he anticipated a scheduling conflict" carries more weight than "generally cooperative."
  • Frame barriers as context, not excuses. Courts benefit from knowing whether instability drove noncompliance; this is relevant to proportionate, effective judicial decision-making.

Example Conventional Recommendation Language:

"Client missed two scheduled check-ins and failed to provide documentation of employment. Recommend modification of release conditions."


Example MI-Informed Recommendation Language:

"Client missed two check-ins during a period of acute housing instability following eviction. Upon

contact, he proactively disclosed the circumstances, identified transportation as a barrier, and participated

in connecting with a housing resource. He has maintained sobriety and employment throughout. Supervision recommends continued release with support-focused conditions rather than modification, based on demonstrated engagement and a stabilizing trajectory."

Side by Side: Conventional Supervision vs. MI-Informed Practice

The differences between these two approaches are not cosmetic. They represent fundamentally different theories of how court appearance and public safety are best achieved.

Conventional Supervision MI-Informed Pretrial Practice
Directive instruction regarding expected conduct Collaborative exploration of individual motivation and goals
Primary focus on violations and deficits Strengths-based engagement with challenges addressed in context
Compliance as the terminal objective Compliance as one indicator within a broader change process
Sanctioning of unmet needs Identification and remediation of barriers to success
Standardized contact protocols Individualized client-centered case management
Documentation of noncompliance Development of individual capacity and accountability
Enforcement-oriented supervision role Coaching and advocacy-oriented champion role
Treats resistance as defiance Treats resistance as a clinical signal to explore
Ignores underlying drivers of behavior Proactively addresses substance use mental health and housing instability
Short-term behavioral compliance as the measure of success Long-term stability and intrinsic motivation as the measure of success

What This Means for Court Appearance and New Arrests

The evidence is consistent: when individuals feel respected, seen, and supported, they are more likely to engage meaningfully in supervision — and more likely to achieve the outcomes the court requires. MI reduces resistance, increases engagement in treatment and support services, and improves outcomes among justice involved populations. For stakeholders focused on the court's core objectives, the implications are direct.


Court appearance rates improve when individuals have a genuine stake in their own outcomes and are

not managing avoidable crises. Where conventional supervision may issue a sanction for a missed

appointment, MI-informed practice asks why the appointment was missed and addresses the barrier

before it becomes a failure to appear.


New criminal activity decreases when underlying drivers are addressed proactively rather than ignored. Substance use disorders, mental health crises, housing instability, and unresolved trauma are among the most consistent predictors of new arrests. Conventional supervision monitors for new arrests; MI-informed practice works to prevent the conditions that make new arrests more likely.


Equitable justice is better served when individuals who are legally presumed innocent receive support

proportionate to the challenges they face, rather than being penalized for circumstances that predate and

contribute to their court involvement.


Long-term recidivism declines through the development of intrinsic motivation and durable life skills-

outcomes that short-term behavioral compliance cannot produce on its own.


Judicial objectives are directly supported. Individuals who are actively engaged in their own stabilization present differently to the court — because they are genuinely invested in a different outcome.

"I appreciate the resources you provide. For the first time, I felt like someone was actually in my corner, cared and wanted me succeed."



- Former Pretrial Release Participant

The Bottom Line for Stakeholders

Motivational Interviewing is not a departure from accountability — it is a more rigorous, evidence-

informed, and humane operationalization of it. Where conventional supervision asks, "Did this

person comply?", MI-informed pretrial practice asks, "Did this person grow — and are they better

positioned to appear in court, stay out of trouble, and succeed?" Those are not competing questions. In the right framework, they have the same answer.

About the Author:

Stan Antonelli III, PhD, LCSW, is a Licensed and Academy Certified Psychotherapist and Clinical Addiction Specialist. He specializes in the treatment of co-occurring disorders, anxiety, depression, complicated grief, and substance use disorders. With advanced training in CBT, TF-CBT, Adoption-Competent Therapy, and CISM, Stan brings extensive expertise to his practice. He combines his law enforcement background with his clinical skills as a former Special Deputy with the Cass County, Indiana Sheriff's Department. Stan holds degrees from Indiana University and Andrews University in psychology, sociology, and clinical social work. In November 2024, he partnered with Cass County Court & Pretrial Services to launch a new Therapeutic Services Division aimed at promoting equal access to voluntary supportive services and treatment in the pretrial field. This division is led by Mr. Antonelli as Treatment Director, along with the clinicians of Psychotherapy Associates of Kokomo, his private clinical practice. He regularly accompanies the Cass Court Services Director at national conferences, where he shares best practices in trauma-informed care and person-centered supervision strategies within the criminal justice system. His presentations focus on the application of evidence-based, trauma-responsive approaches to community supervision, with a particular emphasis on pretrial services. Through training and consultation, he helps justice professionals develop practices that enhance engagement, accountability, and positive outcomes for individuals involved in the criminal legal system.

This piece was developed and is informed by evidence-based Motivational Interviewing (MI) principles, including the work of William R. Miller and Stephen Rollnick and widely used MI tools such as RULE and OARS. It also reflects broader research and best practices related to pretrial supervision, behavior change, and strengths-based engagement with justice-involved individuals. The examples and applications included here were adapted specifically for the work in the pretrial services field.

Recent Posts

By Hilary Hartoin August 5, 2026
The decisions judges make during the pretrial phase are among the most significant in the criminal justice system. Every release or detention decision requires balancing constitutional rights, public safety, court appearance, victim considerations, and the unique circumstances of each individual before the court. As pretrial practices continue to evolve through research, legislation, and emerging technologies, judicial education has never been more important. Recognizing this need, the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) established the Judicial Education Workgroup to ensure judges have access to high-quality, evidence-based education developed specifically for the unique challenges of pretrial decision-making. Through collaboration with judicial leaders from across the country, the workgroup is helping strengthen courts by providing practical, relevant, and peer-driven educational opportunities. Why Judicial Education Matters Judges today face increasingly complex pretrial decisions in an environment of changing laws, evolving case law, heightened public attention, behavioral health challenges, and expanding pretrial services. While every jurisdiction is different, judges across the nation share many of the same questions: How can courts balance public safety with the presumption of innocence? What role should validated pretrial assessments play in judicial decision-making? How should courts respond to individuals experiencing behavioral health or substance use disorders? How can judges navigate public scrutiny while remaining impartial and grounded in evidence-based practices? These challenges require education that goes beyond statutes and case law. Judges benefit from opportunities to learn from one another, discuss emerging issues, and explore practical strategies that improve courtroom decision-making while maintaining judicial independence. A Workgroup Built by Judges, for Judges NAPSA's Judicial Education Workgroup was created to provide exactly that. Comprised of experienced judges and pretrial professionals from diverse jurisdictions, the workgroup brings together a wide range of perspectives to identify educational needs, develop relevant programming, and ensure judicial education reflects both current research and the realities of today's courtrooms. The group's mission is simple but significant: support judges with education that strengthens informed, fair, and evidence-based pretrial decision-making. As Judge Mark Spitzer of the Grant County Circuit Court in Indiana notes: "Despite being a critical stage of criminal procedure, our judicial education programs often neglect the pretrial phase. Pretrial impacts jail populations, recidivism, and criminal justice outcomes. Judges who have a criminal docket, and their communities, can greatly benefit from robust education on the evolving law and evidence-based practices that inform modern pretrial practice." By combining legal expertise with operational knowledge of pretrial systems, the workgroup helps bridge the gap between policy, research, and courtroom practice. Building the Judicial Track One of the Judicial Education Workgroup's most visible accomplishments has been the development of NAPSA's Judicial Track at the Annual Conference. Rather than adapting general conference sessions for judges, the workgroup designed an educational experience specifically for judicial officers. Every session is carefully developed to address issues judges encounter daily while providing practical tools that can be applied immediately upon returning to their courts. Topics are selected based on current legal developments, emerging research, judicial feedback, and real-world challenges facing courts across the country. Sessions are designed to encourage thoughtful discussion while respecting the unique role and responsibilities of the judiciary. This "judges teaching judges" model creates an environment where participants can openly discuss complex issues, exchange ideas, and learn from colleagues who understand the realities of presiding over pretrial proceedings. Addressing the Issues That Matter Most The Judicial Track explores many of today's most pressing issues in pretrial justice, including: Judicial leadership in pretrial release and detention decisions The appropriate use of validated pretrial assessments Behavioral health and substance use considerations Evidence-based pretrial supervision practices Balancing public safety, court appearance, and individual rights Each session emphasizes practical application while remaining grounded in constitutional principles and current research. Learning Through Judicial Collaboration One of the greatest strengths of the Judicial Education Workgroup is its emphasis on peer-to-peer learning. Judges often work independently within their jurisdictions, yet many confront remarkably similar challenges. The Judicial Track creates opportunities for meaningful conversations among judicial officers from across the country, allowing participants to share experiences, discuss successful approaches, and consider new perspectives. These conversations often continue long after conference sessions conclude, building professional relationships that strengthen courts well beyond the annual meeting. Judge Bo Zeerip of the Delta County Court in Colorado captures the importance of this shared commitment: "Judges are unique in the criminal justice system because we have the authority and duty to decide whether to release or detain presumptively innocent accused persons who come before us daily. It is an awesome power to be in a position to take away a person’s liberty prior to a guilty plea or verdict." He adds that judges are "duty bound to honor and protect the constitutional rights of both accused persons and victims, while also promoting community safety and efficient court procedures," emphasizing that continued education helps courts maximize safe pretrial release, court appearance, and public safety. Strengthening Courts and Communities Judicial education extends far beyond professional development. When judges understand evidence-based pretrial practices, local resources, behavioral health considerations, and effective supervision strategies, courts are better positioned to make informed decisions that promote fairness, enhance public safety, and improve court appearance rates. Strong judicial leadership also fosters collaboration among courts, pretrial agencies, prosecutors, defense counsel, behavioral health providers, and community partners. These relationships help create more effective and responsive local justice systems while maintaining public confidence in the courts. Advancing NAPSA's Mission The work of the Judicial Education Workgroup directly supports NAPSA's mission to advance fair, effective, and evidence-based pretrial justice. By developing specialized education for judicial officers, the workgroup strengthens collaboration between courts and pretrial professionals while encouraging consistent application of research-informed practices. The result is a stronger national network of judicial leaders committed to improving pretrial systems and serving their communities. Looking Ahead As pretrial justice continues to evolve, so too will judicial education. Emerging technologies, advances in artificial intelligence, changing legislation, behavioral health initiatives, and increasing public expectations will continue shaping the future of court operations. The Judicial Education Workgroup remains committed to preparing judges to navigate these developments with confidence while preserving the integrity and independence of judicial decision-making. Future educational opportunities will continue to expand as NAPSA explores additional ways to support judges throughout the year. Join the Conversation  Whether you are new to the bench or have decades of judicial experience, the NAPSA Judicial Track offers an opportunity to learn from respected judicial colleagues, engage in meaningful discussions, and return home with practical strategies that can strengthen your court. The challenges facing pretrial justice are complex, but they are not faced alone. Through collaboration, education, and shared experience, judges across the country are helping shape the future of pretrial practice—one informed decision at a time. The response to NAPSA's Judicial Track has been tremendous. Due to strong interest from judges across the country, this year's Judicial Track has reached capacity. If you are interested in participating, we encourage you to reach out to the NAPSA team. While attendance for this year's program is currently full, we would be happy to discuss opportunities, answer questions, and add interested judges to our contact list should additional space become available or as we plan future educational offerings. The continued enthusiasm for the Judicial Track reflects the growing recognition that specialized judicial education plays a critical role in strengthening pretrial decision-making and supporting courts nationwide. Although the Judicial Track is currently at capacity for this year's conference, we encourage interested judges to reach out to the NAPSA team. We'd love to connect with you, discuss future opportunities, and keep you informed as the Judicial Education Workgroup continues to expand educational programming throughout the year. We invite you to join us at future NAPSA educational events and experience the Judicial Track firsthand. Together, we can continue building stronger courts, advancing evidence-based practices, and supporting judicial leadership in pretrial justice.
By Guest Author July 29, 2026
Tina Turner and the Courage to Say Yes to Love I gave a keynote at NAPSA last year — Leading from the Emerging Future of Pretrial — so I felt both honored and challenged when the program committee asked me to build on it with another plenary this year. My new title — Leadership, Love, and Implementation Science in Pretrial — picks up where we left off, but it adds two notions that seem, on their face, paradoxical, unrelated, or even contradictory: Love and Implementation Science . When I think about a life of courage, love, and getting things done, Tina Turner comes to mind. Her gutsy comeback at the age of 44, after surviving abuse, arrived with her hit What’s Love Got to Do with It. Her voice resonates within us, ‘isn’t love just a secondhand emotion, and who needs a heart when a heart can be broken?’ Yet in the song she lets herself be drawn into the scary undertow of life, the tug of love she experiences that is pulling her forward. Loving and living fully are fearful, yet she says yes to life anyway. What Does Love Have to Do with Pretrial? You may be asking what love has to do with leadership and maximizing pretrial release, court appearance, and public safety. It’s a fair question. Some skepticism is well earned in a field that deals directly with the horrible consequences of crime, seeks justice, and runs on law, evidence, risk, and data. We work hard to be rigorous, fair, and effective. In contrast, love can sound soft, sentimental, and out of place — a nice feeling but secondary to the real work, precisely the kind of thing you keep out of serious professional decisions. But what is love? Perhaps it’s best to start with our own concrete experience — recall and allow yourself to re-experience when you ‘fell in love’ for the first time, the birth of your child, or the love you have for a parent, a friend, nature, or a country. These are not fleeting feelings, they are enduring states of being and indicators of value that create a context, and give us the motivation and strength to face life’s challenges. We Are Loved Into Being When our daughter was born, it was love at first sight. Then came the fears, the tensions, the hard work, and the need for help from others. Leaving the hospital carrying her in the baby carrier was joyful — and terrifying. Can we do this? How can we do this? Who can help us? Twenty-five years later, new challenges keep emerging, but these only strengthen and deepen our love. As best they can, parents create a context in which their children can grow and flourish. As newborns we have no language or understanding of what the world is, and no ability to function in it. What babies and young children can do, with incredible capacity, is receive and instantly respond to the love of their parents and wider family. We are, quite literally, loved into being. Love Creates the Conditions for Flourishing A loving context creates a sense of safety which unleashes our inner unrestricted and infinite desire to question, understand, know, value, choose, act, love in return, and flourish. Love is not self-protective. It is self-giving, risky, tremendously difficult to achieve and even harder to sustain. Of course, none of us are loved perfectly and we live in a deeply imperfect world. The absence of love is always wounding — it introduces elements of illegitimate coercion and leaves us anxious, constricted, fearful, self-protective, and insecure. The mixture of loving and the non-loving is real; it gives rise to our potential for good but also to many of the problems which pretrial justice agencies seek to address. Love as Leadership, Creating a Context Where Everyone Can Flourish To be present to love we must transcend ourselves in response to that terrifying tug in our lives. It is not about us; it is about responding to something of value and importance greater than us. To the extent that we intentionally act in this way, we constitute ourselves and reality, making a unique contribution to the flow of history and the arc of justice. Leaders, both formal and informal, have an important role. Their job is to create a context in which their agency and fellow staff — and the systems and institutions of justice — can flourish and meet their true ends. A loving context preserves, carries forward, and goes beyond what is fair or required, allowing this fully human flourishing to take place. The discipline of doing all the hard work to remain loving while building that context, despite the fears, challenges, and forces that constantly threaten to take us off course into what is non-loving, is what it means to be in love with our work. The Leaders Who Love and Inspire Us To me, the luminaries in our field have fallen and stayed in love with pretrial, grounding their extraordinarily intelligent, diligent, painstaking, and value driven work. I think of Chief Justice Rehnquist who asserted, “In our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception,” ( U.S. v. Salerno ), and so many colleagues like Lori Eville, Spurgeon Kennedy, Tim Schnacke, Barb Hankey ... So, What's Science Got to Do with It? Everything — and, again, not in the way you think. Our field has done a remarkable job of naming what legal and evidence-based pretrial practices should look like. The National Institute of Corrections (NIC), the American Bar Association, and NAPSA have painstakingly traced the history of pretrial jurisprudence and practice, to discern and hand us the essential elements, the outcomes, and the shared standards of excellence we hold ourselves to. We know, in broad strokes, what to do. What most jurisdictions have not yet solved is how to get all the way there, and how to stay there when the training grant ends, the champion retires, or the first hard case hits the news. Implementation science gives us a reliable, repeatable method for exactly that. Its six active implementation frameworks help us foster the competency, organization, and leadership drivers that make change stick and evolve. This includes installing usable practices through defined stages and ongoing coaching rather than one-time trainings as well as running short improvement cycles to self-correct and keep on course. The scientific method is demanding — it must be applied rigorously and systematically, and it requires new learning — but if leaders establish a loving context within an organization, it becomes possible to collectively implement and sustain these implementation frameworks. Context conditions our consciousness and the actions we take. It turns out that love and science walk hand in hand. An Invitation to Reno to Put Love and Science into Practice I’ve spent more than a decade helping agencies use both love and science, as part of the NIC pretrial faculty and, most recently, as an implementation coach to New Mexico’s remarkable Administrative Office of the Court’s statewide pretrial team that has helped all thirteen judicial districts and thirty-three counties of the state to successfully implement legal and evidence-based pretrial justice programs and outcomes. As you prepare for Reno, ask yourself: What’s love — and implementation science — got to do with it, with you and your work in pretrial? Come to the keynote for the fuller story, followed by a two-hour workshop where we will apply these ideas directly to your team, your jurisdiction, and the place you’re most stuck or challenged right now. Bring your hardest case, the place of discord you would rather not face — that is the point. It is the place where you will meet the tension and the scary tug that is calling you to transcend where you are now and get to where you want to be.  About the Author:
By Wendy Venvertloh July 20, 2026
During Pretrial, Probation, and Parole Supervision Week
By Hilary Hartoin July 16, 2026
Meet the NAPSA Board: Q&A Spotlight
By Hilary Hartoin July 1, 2026
Building Leaders, Sharing Innovation, and Strengthening Pretrial Justice Across New Mexico When people talk about successful pretrial reform, they often focus on legislation, policies, or data. Those elements matter—but lasting change begins with people. It begins with leaders who are willing to learn together, challenge one another, and build a professional community committed to improving justice. That spirit was on full display at the 2026 New Mexico Pretrial Executive Network (NM PEN) Summit, held June 23–24, where pretrial leaders from across New Mexico and around the country gathered for two days of collaboration, leadership development, and innovation. A Network Built on Community The New Mexico Pretrial Executive Network was established in 2020 by Kelly Bradford, Director of the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), with a vision of creating for New Mexico what the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Pretrial Executive Network had long provided nationally—a trusted community where pretrial leaders could connect, learn, solve problems together, and support one another through the complex work of system change. The NIC Pretrial Executive Network, championed for many years by Lori Eville, demonstrated the value of executive-level collaboration. Lori understood that pretrial leadership requires more than technical expertise. It requires navigating adaptive challenges, leading organizational change, and continuously moving systems forward. Just as importantly, she recognized that the work can sometimes feel isolating. For many of us, the NIC PEN became far more than a professional network. It became a place to test ideas, seek advice, celebrate successes, and rely on colleagues who truly understood the unique challenges of pretrial leadership. Nearly all of the national speakers and facilitators who have participated in NM PEN over the years are current or former members of the NIC PEN. They appreciate the importance of maintaining a professional community created by—and for—pretrial practitioners. When New Mexico began implementing statewide pretrial reforms, leaders recognized that lasting success would require more than policy changes. It would require an ongoing investment in the people responsible for implementing those reforms every day. Today, that vision has become reality. NM PEN has grown into a vibrant statewide community representing all 13 Judicial Districts, Administrative Office of the Courts Pretrial Management, and justice system partners who meet monthly to share ideas, address emerging challenges, and strengthen evidence-based practice across New Mexico. Continuing the Work Through the Annual Summit The annual NM PEN Summit extends those monthly conversations by providing dedicated time for strategic planning, leadership development, and peer learning. This year's summit welcomed 27 pretrial executives and justice system partners from New Mexico, Arizona, Indiana, Washington, D.C., and Maine, along with representatives from the Center for Effective Public Policy. The summit also reflected the strong partnership between state and national leadership. Among those participating were NAPSA Board members Domingo Corona, Hillary Hartoin, and Mike Kainu, as well as Tanya Anderson, APPR, Elizabeth Simoni, Kelly Bradford, Gilbert Jaramillo, and pretrial leaders representing every New Mexico judicial district. Justice Vigil also joined the summit to recognize the remarkable progress New Mexico has made over the past several years. Having witnessed many of the state's early conversations surrounding pretrial reform, he reflected on how those once-ambitious ideas have grown into meaningful statewide improvements supported by a dedicated community of practitioners. Leadership Beyond Management Throughout the summit, participants explored topics essential to modern pretrial leadership, including organizational culture, motivational interviewing as a leadership tool, stakeholder engagement, evidence-based decision-making, and using data to improve both supervision practices and system outcomes. Sessions emphasized that effective leadership extends well beyond managing operations. It requires building healthy organizational culture, investing in staff, fostering innovation, and creating environments where evidence-based practices can thrive. Rather than focusing solely on presentations, the summit encouraged discussion among peers facing similar challenges in jurisdictions across the state. Participants shared practical solutions, exchanged experiences, and explored how successful local practices might be adapted elsewhere. Celebrating Innovation Across New Mexico One of the summit's highlights was hearing directly from each judicial district about the accomplishments, innovations, and progress made during the past year. These presentations showcased the creativity and dedication of New Mexico's pretrial professionals while providing opportunities for agencies to learn from one another's successes. Whether implementing new programs, strengthening partnerships, improving data collection, or refining supervision practices, each district demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement. Participants also took part in an interactive leadership exercise in which they developed and presented mock NAPSA conference workshops. The activity encouraged attendees to think beyond their local jurisdictions and consider how their experiences could contribute to the national conversation surrounding pretrial justice. The exercise reinforced an important message: every agency has knowledge worth sharing, and leadership includes helping others grow.
By Hilary Hartoin June 18, 2026
Meet the NAPSA Board: Q&A Spotlight
By Guest Author June 2, 2026
How recognizing trauma improves court appearance, reduces new arrests, and strengthens the justice system legitimacy
By Hilary Hartoin May 28, 2026
Why Communication Matters in Pretrial Justice
By Hilary Hartoin May 20, 2026
Why Standards Matter in Pretrial
Show More