The Standard: Highlighting the People and Practices that Define our Field

Seeing the Whole Person: Trauma-Informed Care in Pretrial Supervision

Tue, 02 Jun 2026 13:10:30 GMT

How recognizing trauma improves court appearance, reduces new arrests, and strengthens the justice system legitimacy

Trauma-informed care is not a trend in pretrial services. It is a framework that recognizes a clear reality: many individuals entering the justice system have experienced significant trauma, instability, addiction, violence, poverty, mental illness, or systemic harm long before they ever enter a courtroom. For pretrial professionals, embracing trauma-informed supervision means balancing accountability with humanity — while still advancing the core mission of pretrial services: maximizing court appearance, maximizing release, and maximizing public safety.

INSTEAD OF ASKING . . .

"What is wrong with this person?"
Trauma-informed care asks:

"What happened to this person?"

That shift changes everything

Why this Question Matters for Pretrial Outcomes

Many justice-involved individuals operate in a constant state of survival. Trauma can affect memory,

emotional regulation, communication, trust, decision-making, and even an individual's ability to comply with expectations. A missed appointment, a defensive reaction, or difficulty engaging may not simply be "noncompliance." Sometimes it is the manifestation of unresolved trauma, fear, shame, or chronic instability.

This does not excuse behavior — but it should inform how we respond.

In pretrial supervision, our interactions either reinforce distrust and fear, or help create pathways

toward stability and engagement. Research consistently shows that people are more likely to comply with court obligations when they feel respected, heard, and treated fairly. Procedural justice and trauma-informed approaches work hand in hand.

Applying Trauma-Informed Principles in Pretrial Services

Safety

Individuals entering pretrial supervision often feel overwhelmed, uncertain, and fearful. Creating emotional and psychological safety starts with simple but meaningful practices:

Explaining the court process clearly and in plain language
Setting expectations without unnecessary intimidation
Maintaining professional consistency across all interactions
Using calm, respectful communication at every contact

Safety extends to physical environments as well. Waiting rooms, reporting spaces, and offices should avoid unnecessarily escalating stress or shame.

Trustworthiness and Transparency

Trust is often difficult for individuals with trauma histories. Pretrial professionals build trust by:

Being honest and consistent
Following through on commitments
Clearly explaining conditions and the reasoning behind decisions
Avoiding punitive responses that appear arbitrary

Transparency promotes buy-in and increases engagement — two factors directly linked to court appearance and compliance.

Peer Support and Human Connection

One of the most powerful tools in trauma-informed supervision is connection. Peer Recovery

Specialists and individuals with lived experience can bridge distrust in ways traditional systems

sometimes cannot. In Cass County, incorporating Peer Recovery Specialists into pretrial services has

strengthened connections to treatment, recovery support, and stabilization services — while

reinforcing accountability.

Programs that integrate peer support consistently see improved engagement because participants feel understood by someone who has navigated similar struggles.

Empowerment, Voice, and Choice

Trauma often involves a loss of power and control. Trauma-informed supervision restores appropriate autonomy wherever possible:

Allowing clients to participate in case planning
Offering options for service referrals
Using motivational interviewing techniques
Building on strengths rather than focusing exclusively on deficits
Recognizing progress, not just violations or instances of noncompliance

Pretrial supervision should not simply monitor risk — it should identify opportunities for success.

Collaboration and Mutuality

Trauma-informed systems understand that outcomes improve when agencies work collaboratively rather than in silos. Effective pretrial agencies partner with behavioral health providers, treatment agencies, peer supports, housing and transportation resources, veterans services, and community organizations.

No single agency can address the complex needs many individuals bring into the system. Collaboration is not optional — it is essential.

Cultural, Historical, and Gender Considerations

Trauma does not occur in a vacuum. Historical inequities, discrimination, poverty, and community violence all influence how individuals experience the justice system. Effective trauma-informed supervision requires awareness of:

Historical distrust of institutions and systems
Gender-responsive needs and responses
Cultural barriers to treatment and communication
The impact of adverse childhood experiences and generational trauma

ADDRESSING A COMMON MISCONCEPTION

Trauma-informed care does not mean "soft on crime." In reality, it can improve accountability — because it increases engagement, communication, and compliance.

Pretrial professionals still assess risk, monitor compliance, report violations, protect public safety, and uphold court orders. The difference is how those responsibilities are carried out. A trauma- informed approach avoids unnecessarily escalating situations and focuses on responses that are effective, proportional, and behavior-focused. Respectful supervision and public safety are not competing goals.

Side by Side: Conventional vs. Trauma-Informed Pretrial Supervision

The distinction between these two approaches is not one of leniency versus strictness — it is one of effectiveness . Both aim at the same goals. Only one is built to reliably reach them.

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.

Court appearance rates improve when supervision builds trust rather than fear. Where conventional supervision may interpret a missed appointment as defiance, trauma-informed practice asks what got in the way — and addresses it before a failure to appear becomes a warrant.

New criminal activity decreases when underlying drivers are addressed 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 those outcomes; trauma-informed supervision works to prevent the conditions that create them.

Engagement in services increases when individuals feel treated as human beings rather than case numbers. That voluntary engagement — in treatment, recovery, housing, transportation and employment — is itself a public safety outcome.

The legitimacy of the justice system is strengthened when individuals who are legally presumed innocent experience consistency, dignity, and fairness. Procedural justice is not separate from pretrial release's effectiveness— it is one of its foundations.

Long-term recidivism declines through the development of stability, connection, and personal agency — outcomes that surveillance and enforcement alone cannot produce.

"People respond better to systems that see them as human beings — not just case numbers. In pretrial services, that humanity matters."

- Stan Antonelli, Cass County Treatment Director, III, PhD, LCSW

The Broader Picture

Pretrial professionals are often the first point of contact individuals have with the courts inside the justice system. That interaction shapes how someone engages — with supervision, with supportive services, and with the court — moving forward.

When individuals feel dehumanized, unheard, or immediately judged, disengagement increases. When they experience consistency, empathy, dignity, and fairness, they are more likely to participate meaningfully in supervision and voluntary services.

As pretrial services continues to evolve nationally, trauma-informed supervision is becoming an essential component of evidence-based practice. It aligns with risk-needs-responsivity principles, procedural justice, and the broader mission of creating safer communities through smarter, more humane interventions.

The Bottom Line for Stakeholders

Trauma-informed supervision is not a departure from the pretrial mission — it is one of the most eﬀective tools for achieving it.

Court appearance improves when people trust the system.
New arrests decrease when underlying needs are addressed.
Public safety is better served when supervision is built on engagement rather than fear.

The question is never whether to hold people accountable. The question is whether the way we hold them accountable actually works.

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.

Telling the Story of Pretrial Justice: The Role of the NAPSA Communications Committee

Thu, 28 May 2026 17:01:41 GMT

Why Communication Matters in Pretrial Justice

Communication is essential in pretrial justice because of the collaborative nature of the criminal justice system. Pretrial professionals work closely with courts, attorneys, law enforcement, treatment providers, community organizations, and defendants themselves to support informed decision-making and successful outcomes from arrest through case disposition.

Effective communication is especially important in the pretrial field because decisions directly impact individual liberty, public safety, and confidence in the justice system. Much of pretrial work happens behind the scenes, making it critical that practitioners clearly explain what they do, why they do it, and how outcomes are measured. Thoughtful communication helps shape public understanding, dispel misconceptions, and build trust through transparency and accessibility.

Consistent messaging grounded in evidence-based practice not only educates stakeholders and the public, but also supports system improvement by aligning partners around shared goals and informed decision-making.

What Is the NAPSA Communications Committee?

The NAPSA Communications Committee serves as a resource for sharing information with NAPSA members, partners, and the broader pretrial community. Its mission is to strengthen how the organization communicates, tell the story of pretrial justice, and promote engagement across the field.

The committee is responsible for developing and maintaining clear, consistent messaging across multiple platforms. This includes:

Member newsletters and email updates
Social media engagement
Blog and website content
Highlighting practitioner accomplishments
Promoting trainings, webinars, and conferences
Supporting outreach and public engagement efforts

The committee also works collaboratively with other NAPSA committees to ensure communications align with organizational priorities and accurately reflect developments in the field.

Committee members bring diverse perspectives from across the country, including practitioners, leaders, and system partners, helping ensure that NAPSA’s communications reflect the evolving needs and expertise of the pretrial profession.

The Work: Expanding Communication and Engagement

Over the past year, the Communications Committee has focused on expanding the ways NAPSA connects with members and stakeholders.

One of the committee’s newer initiatives is The Standard , NAPSA’s blog platform, which highlights developments across the pretrial field. Blog topics include updates to standards, spotlight features on practitioners, innovative local practices, and broader discussions impacting pretrial justice nationally.

In addition to blog content, the committee develops newsletters, social media content, and member-focused updates designed to inform, engage, and support practitioners in their daily work.

The committee also explores communication technologies and tools that strengthen outreach and engagement, helping NAPSA connect more effectively with members, partners, and the public in an increasingly digital environment.

Impact on the Field

NAPSA’s communication efforts directly support practitioners by providing timely and relevant information that can be applied locally—from policy development to program implementation and stakeholder engagement.

Sharing information nationally helps strengthen local pretrial systems by giving jurisdictions access to ideas, strategies, and practices that may not otherwise be within reach. Communication also plays a key role in advancing evidence-based practices and innovation by highlighting research, elevating promising approaches, and creating opportunities for collaboration across the field.

Strong communication helps ensure that successful practices, lessons learned, and emerging ideas are not isolated to a single jurisdiction, but instead contribute to broader system improvement nationwide.

Supporting NAPSA’s Mission

The Communications Committee supports NAPSA’s mission of promoting pretrial justice and public safety through rational, evidence-informed decision-making by ensuring that the organization’s standards, resources, and priorities are communicated clearly and consistently.

Through cohesive branding, thoughtful public engagement, and accessible messaging, the committee helps translate complex research and practices into practical information for members and stakeholders.

The committee also collaborates closely with NAPSA’s Education, Standards, and Accreditation Committees to highlight training opportunities, evidence-based guidance, and resources that help strengthen pretrial systems across the country.

Looking Ahead

The Communications Committee continues to explore new ways to expand engagement and strengthen outreach.

Current and upcoming efforts include:

Enhancing digital content and engagement
Increasing member-driven storytelling
Highlighting innovations and promising practices from the field
Exploring new communication platforms and tools
Improving accessibility and audience reach

As communication needs continue to evolve, the committee remains focused on delivering timely, relevant, and user-friendly content that supports learning, connection, and innovation in pretrial justice.

Resources for Members

NAPSA members can stay connected through a variety of communication platforms and resources, including:

These channels provide updates on trainings, emerging practices, practitioner spotlights, and developments within the field.

Members are also encouraged to share their own work, innovations, and lessons learned to support peer-to-peer learning and elevate promising practices nationally

Member Voice Matters

NAPSA’s communications are strongest when they reflect the experiences and perspectives of practitioners working directly in the field.

The Communications Committee welcomes feedback on topics, trends, and resources members would like to see highlighted. Stories that showcase innovation, collaboration, problem-solving, and local impact are especially valuable in helping advance the conversation around pretrial justice.

Practitioner-driven communication helps ensure that NAPSA’s messaging remains relevant, responsive, and grounded in the realities of the work being done every day across the country.

Get Involved

NAPSA members interested in joining the Communications Committee or contributing content are encouraged to get involved.

Whether you have legislative updates from your jurisdiction, a blog idea, a publication to share, or a story about innovative work happening locally, your voice can help strengthen the field and support peers nationwide.

To contribute ideas or learn more, contact NAPSA at info@ napsa .org .

Setting the Standard: How the NAPSA Standards Committee Shapes Pretrial Justice

Wed, 20 May 2026 13:42:17 GMT

Why Standards Matter in Pretrial

In pretrial services, decisions made in a matter of hours can have lasting consequences. In a system that has historically been marked by inconsistency, subjectivity, and inequity, national standards serve as a critical anchor.

The NAPSA Standards provide that anchor—a framework, or “North Star,” guiding jurisdictions toward practices that are fair, transparent, and effective. Built on legal and evidence-based foundations, they help ensure that pretrial decision-making is rooted not in guesswork, but in principles that prioritize both individual rights and public safety.

By emphasizing individualized decision-making and discouraging outcomes driven by bias or socioeconomic factors, the Standards promote fairness. By encouraging the use of validated assessments, they improve consistency. And by focusing on court appearance and arrest-free behavior, they support public safety in a meaningful, measurable way.

What Is the NAPSA Standards Committee?

Behind these national benchmarks is the NAPSA Standards Committee—a group tasked with ensuring the Standards remain relevant, credible, and grounded in real-world practice.

The committee’s mission is straightforward but essential: to ensure the Standards reflect current research, legal developments, and best practices while helping jurisdictions build effective and equitable pretrial systems.

Its work includes:

Drafting and revising Standards
Monitoring emerging research and legal trends
Incorporating stakeholder and practitioner input
Ensuring alignment with constitutional principles and evidence-based practices

Made up of national leaders—including practitioners, agency directors, and policy experts—the committee brings together diverse perspectives from across jurisdictions. This ensures the Standards are not only aspirational, but practical and achievable.

What the Committee Actually Does

Updating national standards isn’t a quick or simple process—it requires ongoing research, collaboration, and a deep understanding of how policy translates into practice.

The Standards Committee continuously reviews:

New research and evidence
Changes in case law and legislation
Emerging challenges faced by practitioners

Just as importantly, the committee listens—to practitioners working in the field every day. Their feedback helps ensure the Standards reflect real-world conditions, not just theory.

Recent focus areas include:

Behavioral health and social service integration
Virtual court and remote supervision practices
Caseload standards and agency capacity
Equity-focused language and approaches
Performance measurement and data tracking

Updates occur periodically to keep pace with a rapidly evolving field, ensuring the Standards remain both credible and actionable.

Real-World Impact on the Field

The NAPSA Standards are not just theoretical—they are actively shaping pretrial systems across the country.

Agencies rely on them to:

Develop policies and procedures
Guide the creation of new pretrial programs
Support and defend practices in legal and policy settings

In fact, the Standards are widely recognized as the “gold standard” in pretrial justice. They are frequently referenced in litigation, policy reform efforts, and system design—including major reforms such as those seen in New Jersey and the Illinois SAFE-T Act.

For practitioners and courts, the Standards offer both clarity and flexibility:

The Standards (“black letter”) define what should be done
The Commentary explains how and why to implement those practices

This combination makes them both authoritative and practical—bridging the gap between principle and practice.

Advancing NAPSA’s Mission

NAPSA’s mission is to advance pretrial justice and public safety through evidence-based practices—and the Standards Committee is central to that effort.

The committee’s work:

Defines what evidence-based pretrial practice looks like
Provides the foundation for training, certification, and accreditation
Supports system-wide reform through a shared national framework

It also works closely with other NAPSA committees. For example, the Education Committee uses the Standards as the foundation for training content, while feedback from those trainings informs future revisions—creating a continuous loop of improvement.

At its core, this work transforms abstract ideals—like fairness and due process—into actionable, day-to-day guidance for practitioners.

What’s Ahead

The Standards Committee continues to look forward, identifying emerging issues and opportunities for refinement.

Current areas of focus include:

Revisiting caseload ratios and workload guidance
Simplifying language to improve accessibility
Exploring the role of AI in pretrial services
Clarifying positions on supportive services
Examining how to measure and account for non-willful failures to appear

These efforts reflect the committee’s commitment to keeping the Standards relevant in a rapidly changing landscape.

Resources for Members

NAPSA members have direct access to the Standards and a variety of tools to support implementation.

Practitioners can use the Standards to:

Guide policy development
Improve court recommendations
Structure supervision practices
Advocate for meaningful system reform

Additional support is available through webinars, conferences, and ongoing training opportunities designed to help agencies put the Standards into practice.

Get Involved: Shaping the Future of Pretrial

The strength of the NAPSA Standards lies in their connection to real-world practice—and that depends on practitioner engagement.

There are many ways to contribute:

Be a part of the Standards Committee
Participate in webinars
Provide feedback or respond to surveys

Even small contributions help ensure the Standards remain practical, relevant, and impactful.

Final Thought

The NAPSA Standards are more than guidance—they are a roadmap for transforming pretrial justice.

And the Standards Committee is the group helping chart that path—ensuring that as the field evolves, the foundation it stands on remains strong, evidence-based, and grounded in fairness.

From Supervision to Support: Advancing a Coaching Model in Pretrial Services

Fri, 15 May 2026 13:18:19 GMT

What if the biggest opportunity in pretrial services isn't what we do—but how we do it?

Across the country, pretrial agencies are under pressure to do more: protect public safety, uphold due process, and improve outcomes—all within systems built decades ago around monitoring and compliance. We're part of a growing movement reexamining that foundation.

The result is a shift from supervision to support. From surveillance to coaching. And the evidence behind it is compelling.

The Old Model: Built to Catch Failure

For decades, pretrial supervision has operated from a compliance-first playbook:

Monitor behavior
Detect violations
Report outcomes

It's a "referee model"—and while accountability matters, this approach asks only one question: Did you follow the rules?

What it rarely asks is: What got in the way? What can I do to support you to be successful?

This distinction turns out to make all the difference. Accountability matters, but too often the focus becomes perfection instead of understanding what barriers may be impacting success.

What a Coaching Model Actually Means

A coaching model doesn't eliminate accountability. It changes how accountability is delivered.

Instead of acting solely as rule enforcers, pretrial professionals become:

Coaches who support behavior change
Partners in problem-solving
Navigators who connect people to the resources they need

The shift is from " Did you comply? " to " What do you need to succeed? "

This isn't a soft approach. It's a smarter one—and the research backs it up.

What the Data Shows

The most important thing to understand about missed court dates? Most of them aren't about defiance.

Most missed court dates are usually not driven by someone intentionally trying to avoid court. Research consistently shows failures to appear are frequently tied to transportation issues, work conflicts, childcare responsibilities, unstable housing, behavioral health challenges, fear, or confusion about the court process itself.

If we truly want to maximize court appearance, we have to focus on reducing barriers to success—not simply responding after failure occurs. People are more likely to return to court when systems are designed to help them succeed. Court reminders, clear communication, transportation assistance, and respectful engagement all matter.

Research continues to show that unnecessary pretrial detention destabilizes people quickly through job loss, housing disruption, family separation, and worsening mental health. Even short periods of detention can increase the likelihood of future criminal justice involvement, especially among lower-risk individuals. Keeping people stable in the community produces better public safety outcomes than detaining them.

Agencies that have implemented coaching-oriented models are reporting:

FTA reductions of 10–25%
Technical violation reductions of 15–30%
Increased voluntary engagement with services
No significant increase in new criminal activity

The Science Behind It: Why Coaching Works

It Matches How Behavior Actually Changes , but resets how we think about it. We start with responsivity first, not last. Starting with responsivity shifts our perspective from seeing high risk people to people who are struggling who have a higher risk of failure without support.T he Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model —one of the most replicated frameworks in criminal justice research—tells us three things:

Deliver support in a way people can receive it. Collaborative, motivational approaches produce better outcomes than directive or confrontational ones. How you engage matters as much as what you offer.

Match supervision intensity to risk level. Supervising low-risk individuals too intensively doesn't make the community safer. It disrupts employment, housing, and family stability—the very things that prevent reoffending. Research shows that over-supervising low-risk individuals increases recidivism by 10–30% .

Target the right needs. Effective interventions address the specific factors driving someone's risk—things like substance use, lack of stable employment, or antisocial thinking patterns. Generic programming doesn't move the needle.

Fairness Predicts Compliance

Here's something that surprises a lot of people: whether someone shows up to cour t is strongly predicted by whether they feel treated fairly —not by how severe the consequences are.

Legal scholar Tom Tyler spent decades researching what he called procedural justice. His findings are consistent across courts, law enforcement, and supervision settings:

People comply more when they feel heard
People comply more when decisions are made transparently
People comply more when they're treated with respect
People comply more when they believe the system is trying to help them

The practical implication is direct: how a pretrial officer speaks to a client on their first meeting predicts whether that client appears in court. Procedural justice isn't a feel-good concept. It's an evidence-based compliance strategy.

The Cost of the Status Quo

It's worth being honest about what surveillance-only systems actually produce.

Even a few days of pretrial detention triggers a cascade of consequences: job loss, missed rent, family separation, worsening mental health. Every one of those consequences is a direct predictor of future failure to appear and new criminal activity. A system that creates instability and then supervises people through it isn't a public safety strategy—it's a cycle.

The Pretrial Phase: A Window We Can't Afford to Waste

The period between arrest and case resolution is one of the most destabilizing moments in a person's life. People are navigating uncertainty about their case, disruptions to work and housing, behavioral health challenges, and acute fear and stress.

It's also one of the greatest windows of opportunity we have.

When agencies respond to this moment with intentional support—connecting people to services, addressing barriers early, building trust—individuals stabilize faster. And people who are stable are far more likely to appear in court and stay out of trouble.

The pretrial phase isn't just a waiting room. It's where outcomes are shaped.

What This Requires of Us

Shifting to a coaching model isn't just a policy change. It's a culture change.

Even the best practices fail in environments that are control-heavy, deficit-focused, or transactional. Building a coaching culture means:

Leadership modeling coaching behaviors every day
Staff trained and supported in motivational interviewing, trauma-informed engagement, and cognitive-behavioral approaches
Daily interactions —not just written policies—reflecting the values of the model

It also means investing in our people. Pretrial officers in a coaching model are change agents, system navigators, and relationship builders. That requires real skill—and real support.

The Bigger Picture

The coaching model isn't a departure from pretrial principles. It's their evolution.

It reinforces the presumption of release. It supports least restrictive conditions. It honors individualized decision-making. And it reframes the fundamental purpose of pretrial services:

Not just to monitor behavior—but to improve outcomes.

People appear in court when they feel treated fairly. People comply when their barriers are addressed. People stabilize when systems are designed to support stability.

The question for every pretrial agency is the same:

Are we building systems designed to catch failure—or to create success?

If you would like to learn more, please review our resource, First Step Forward , which outlines a support-oriented pretrial framework designed to help courtroom partners reduce barriers to court attendance and more effectively support individuals navigating the pretrial process.

This post draws on research from NAPSA, Arnold Ventures, the Risk-Need-Responsivity framework, Tom Tyler's procedural justice research, and the Coach Referee Model for Change (CRMC).

About the Author:

Dr. Brian Lovins is the President for Justice System Partners (JSP). He earned his PhD in Criminology from the University of Cincinnati. He is currently President-Elect for the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA). Prior to JSP, Dr. Lovins worked for Harris County CSCD as the Assistant Director. He was tasked with developing and implementing agency wide change plans to drive increased successful completion rates. In addition, he has the Associate Director for the University of Cincinnati’s Corrections Institute—the School of Criminal Justice’s training and research department. He has developed a state-wide juvenile risk assessment (Ohio Youth Assessment System: OYAS) and adult risk assessment (Ohio Risk Assessment System: ORAS), as well as validation of a series of pretrial risk assessments. Dr. Lovins has been invited to present to over 200 agencies and routinely trains agencies in the principles of effective intervention, risk assessment, and the delivery of cognitive-behavioral interventions. Dr. Lovins has received the Dr. Simon Dinitz Award for his work and dedication in helping correctional agencies adopt evidence-based programs and the David Dillingham Award, as well as a being recognized as a Distinguished Alumnus from the University of Cincinnati. His publications include articles on risk assessment, sexual offenders, effective interventions, and cognitive-behavioral interventions.

Meet the NAPSA Board: Vice President Domingo Corona

Fri, 15 May 2026 13:18:01 GMT

Meet the NAPSA Board: Q&A Spotlight

Name: Domingo Corona

Board Role/Title: Vice President

Term of Service: 2025- Present

Location (City/State): Tucson, Az

Professional Role/Organization: Director, Pretrial Services, Arizona Superior Court of Pima County

Tell us a little about yourself and your professional background.

I started with Pretrial Services in Pima County in August of 1998, but getting there is important for me to share. My original goal was to attend law school with the desire to become a prosecutor, with the long-term goal of becoming a judge. My goals changed during an internship with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office in the Victim Services division. I realized I had a desire for casework and working one-on-one with individuals. I also was very interested in the leadership persona of our internship coordinator. In fact, she was the person that directed me to Pretrial Services. With Pretrial, I started working at our jail office working a graveyard shift. I was assigned to our initial appearance and pre-booking release team. I loved pretrial work; however, I always wanted to move into a leadership role. In about a year, I was assigned to be a lead. Three years later I was a supervisor. Five years after that I was promoted to what is now an Assistant Director. I have been Director for just about twelve years. In my assignments I have overseen the initial appearance team as well as the supervision team. I now serve as director of the entire agency and have implemented and help manage our diversion program. I am also dedicated to helping with planning an leadership in my court. So, while in the pretrial community I am known for my work, I would like to think I am also making an impact to court work in general. .

What inspired you to get involved with NAPSA?

I must credit former Board President and overall pretrial legend Spurgeon “Kenny” Kennedy for his mentorship and encouragement in directing me to working on national level projects and teams. It was his leadership and friendship, the friendship and guidance of Lori Eville, and a Pretrial 101 class with Judge Bruce Beaudin at the NAPSA Conference in 2004 that really made me feel like national level work was also my calling. The work I do with NAPSA attracts me for two reasons: a sense of personal accomplishment and the amazing cohorts and friends I meet and am privileged to collaborate with. My drive comes from the hope of making an impact in the pretrial field, and the challenging discussions and brainstorming with people I can say are now some of the best friends I have in my life.

What motivated you to serve on the NAPSA Board?

With my increasing involvement in national level work came more interaction with the NAPSA Board, but the thought of serving on the Board was very intimidating early on. I would attend conferences and be in meetings with NAPSA Board members, and it was clear these individuals were polished, knowledgeable, and seemingly fearless public speakers. Naturally, my game plan was to avoid the role. Well, that didn’t last very long. Penny Stinson was the president of NAPSA and she had a need: to temporarily fill the Southwest Region Director role. She reached out to me to discuss temporarily filling the role, and after some encouragement from her and a couple others, including current regional director Joel Bishop, I agreed. If it isn’t obvious by now, it was one of the most impactful career decisions I have made to date. While it started with a sense of duty, it helped with my professional development as much as it helped me contribute to the field in my own way. Oh yeah, I got rid of that pesky crippling fear of public speaking (mostly).

What area of NAPSA’s work are you most passionate about?

What do you see as the biggest opportunity—or challenge—facing pretrial services today?

The first and most fundamental challenge is establishing the pretrial agency and profession as a equal and separate entity in all jurisdictions across the county. I think viewing the credibility and importance of pretrial services as a stand-alone and respected profession is the goal. This will help with program growth, recruitment and retention, and overall system improvements. Secondly, developing policies and practices that are evidence-based, data-informed, and generally well-accepted by the public and system partners is both a challenge and an opportunity. I know, that’s a lot of dashes in one sentence.

How does your background or perspective strengthen the Board?

I don’t agree with everyone, and I shouldn’t agree with everyone. We all, however, have similar goals when it comes to growing the field and ensuring we are following the law and data/evidence. I think my strength is that I can effectively navigate these differences of opinions and contribute with solutions. My background is that I come from an established pretrial agency and an extremely supportive court and set of system partners. I know what a great local team, including outside of pretrial, looks like, and I can share that.

What accomplishment—professionally or personally—are you most proud of?

I am exceptionally proud of the leadership team we have selected and developed in Pima County. I have people that feel comfortable telling me when I’m wrong or slightly off path, but they also support our mission and genuinely care about staff. I would NOT be able to contribute to field like I do without my team, at all. In my personal life, it was hiking the Grand Canyon despite having a crippling fear of heights as a child and teenager. It taught me a lot about confidence and courage.

What advice would you give to someone new to pretrial services or NAPSA?

For those new to pretrial services, I would say consider pretrial justice work as a long-term career option. What pretrial services work looks like and its impact on the justice system is open for new ideas and programs. This is a good time to contribute in a meaningful way. Also, the work we do is incredibly important to both the justice system and the community. Regarding connecting with NAPSA, I think you will find that organization’s focus on standards and training will provide you with valuable resources and guidance for your work. You will also find the organization is always looking for feedback as well, so you will be heard as well.

What do you hope NAPSA members know about the Board’s work?

The Board is extremely knowledgeable, skilled in many areas as a collective group, and, most importantly, has passion for the work and people in the field. Being on the Board is big commitment, and the members on the Board for the right reason: to help you in your work in pretrial justice.

Outside of work, what do you enjoy doing?

Music is life for me. I like having a daily soundtrack for my life, and I find peace in concerts/live music. I stopped going to concerts for a while, and I have found that was a huge missing element to my work-life balance. I also enjoy sports, and I’m a big Arizona Wildcat fan and (gasp) follow the Dallas Cowboys. I am always up for a good meal at a new restaurant, and I definitely want to travel more!

Closing

In closing, I would like to say thank you to all the pretrial professionals out there for the work you do daily. It’s not an easy or popular field; but, let that drive you. Also, I need to state my appreciation for my pretrial staff. I am very proud of the work we do, and I know I have a talented and dedicated staff. It’s reason I love coming to work every day. Unless it’s March Madness…. But that’s what vacation is for!

Building Knowledge, Advancing Practice: The NAPSA Education Committee

Fri, 01 May 2026 14:47:00 GMT

Why Education Matters in Pretrial

The pretrial field sits at one of the most consequential intersections in the justice system—the space between arrest and case resolution, where decisions made in hours or days can have life-altering consequences for individuals, families, and communities.

In this environment, ongoing education is not a luxury; it is a professional and ethical imperative.

As the field continues to evolve—with new research on pretrial assessment, shifting policy landscapes, and growing attention to equity—staying current through education is what separates good practice from great practice.

Strong professional development doesn’t just benefit individual practitioners. It strengthens outcomes across the entire pretrial ecosystem. Well-trained practitioners deliver more consistent and fair outcomes. Agencies operate more effectively and demonstrate accountability. And communities benefit from a system that balances public safety with individual rights

What Is the NAPSA Education Committee?

The NAPSA Education Committee serves as the engine for professional growth within the pretrial field.

At its core, the committee is responsible for developing, promoting, and delivering the NAPSA Fundamentals Training Track —the foundation of education for pretrial services practitioners. It also supports practitioner certification and advances NAPSA’s standards and evidence-based practices through education.

The committee is currently chaired by Aaron Johnson , with support from Board Liaison Janice Radovick-Dean , and includes members from a wide range of agencies across the country. This diversity ensures that training reflects real-world practice across jurisdictions and roles.

What the Committee Does

The Education Committee’s work spans the full continuum of professional development—from foundational learning for new practitioners to advanced training for seasoned leaders.

Through NAPSA’s broader strategies—including the Annual Conference and Training Institute, certification programs, and technical assistance—the committee helps shape and deliver content that is both practical and evidence-based.

Training is delivered in multiple formats, including:

Webinars
Conference sessions
Certification-aligned coursework

Topics are selected based on what matters most in the field—from pretrial assessment tools and supervision practices to legal updates, equity considerations, and emerging research.

Real-World Impact

The impact of the Education Committee’s work shows up in everyday practice.

From frontline officers to agency directors, practitioners who engage in NAPSA training leave with a stronger understanding of both the history of pretrial in the United States and how to apply that knowledge in real-world decision-making.

Education helps practitioners:

Apply validated tools with greater accuracy
Reduce reliance on bias and inconsistency
Communicate recommendations more effectively to judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel

Ultimately, education creates a feedback loop of improvement—supporting innovation while strengthening consistency and accountability across the field.

Advancing NAPSA’s Mission

The Education Committee is one of the most direct ways NAPSA’s mission comes to life. NAPSA is committed to advancing legal and evidence-based standards and education—and the Education Committee leads the charge in delivering on that promise.

Through its work, the committee helps move the field toward a pretrial system that is:

Fair
Effective
Grounded in evidence

One practitioner, one agency, and one training at a time.

What’s Ahead

The Education Committee continues to evolve alongside the field.

With ongoing webinars and annual conference programming in development, the focus remains on staying ahead of emerging trends and ensuring practitioners have access to timely, relevant training.

Resources for Members

NAPSA offers a wide range of educational resources designed to support professional growth, including:

Practitioner certification programs
Webinars and virtual learning
Annual Conference and Training Institute
Publications and technical assistance

Agencies can integrate these resources into their local training plans—whether through staff meetings, certification pathways, or conference participation.

Get Involved

The Education Committee is driven by its members—and its strength comes from practitioner engagement.

There are many ways to contribute:

Join the committee
Present at a webinar or conference
Share subject-matter expertise

Whether your expertise is in assessment, supervision, behavioral health, data analysis, or another area, your experience can help shape the future of pretrial education.

Member Voice: Shaping the Future

The most valuable resource the Education Committee has is the voice of the field itself.

Practitioners on the front lines know where training gaps exist, where guidance is needed, and where innovation is happening.

Members are encouraged to:

Share ideas for future training topics
Provide feedback on existing programming
Get involved in developing and delivering content

The Education Committee exists to serve the field—and the field is made up of you.

Advancing Evidence-Based Pretrial in Indiana: Judicial Spotlight: Judge Mark Spitzer, Grant County , IN

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 10:05:24 GMT

Indiana's Evidence-Based Pretrial Framework: Built Through Collaboration, Data and Judicial Leadership.

Indiana has become a leading example of how multidisciplinary collaboration and evidence-based decision-making can strengthen pretrial systems. In this Judicial Spotlight, Judge Mark Spitzer of Grant Circuit Court reflects on Indiana’s journey, the role of JRAC and EBDM, and the principles that continue to shape pretrial practice across the state.

Indiana’s Pretrial Story

Q: For those unfamiliar, can you briefly share “The Indiana Story” and how EBDM and JRAC have shaped pretrial practices in your state?

"Indiana’s pretrial transformation began with a broader concept: system alignment through collaboration. Drawing from a medical model—where outcomes improved through research, education, and coordinated implementation—criminal justice leaders explored how similar principles could be applied to justice systems.

Grant County became one of seven national pilot sites for the Evidence-Based Decision-Making (EBDM) Initiative, bringing together stakeholders across the system—judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation, community corrections, treatment providers, and local government. The goal was simple but powerful: better collaboration leads to better outcomes.

As the work progressed, Indiana expanded EBDM statewide. Through a multidisciplinary state-level committee, pretrial was identified as a key “change target.” This led to the development of Indiana’s evidence-based pretrial system—not as a top-down mandate, but as a collaborative effort across all justice system partners. Today, that work continues through the Justice Reinvestment Advisory Council (JRAC) and the Indiana Pretrial Release Committee—both grounded in the same collaborative, evidence-driven principles that started in Grant County.

“Indiana’s evidence-based pretrial system was built collaboratively, with stakeholders across the justice system asking: How can we do this the best way?”

Judicial Background and Leadership

Q: Please share a brief overview of your judicial background and your involvement with the Indiana Pretrial Initiative.

"I serve as a Circuit Court Judge with general jurisdiction, including criminal law and high-level felony cases, so pretrial decision-making is a regular part of my work. Over time, I became involved in Indiana’s statewide EBDM efforts, co-chaired pretrial initiatives, and was later appointed by the Chief Justice to chair the Indiana Pretrial Release Committee. I have also served as the Indiana Judges Association’s representative on the Indiana Bail Commission and have had the opportunity to teach judges and other stakeholders about pretrial practices. Those roles have allowed me to engage with pretrial from the bench, at the policy level, and through judicial education."

Why Pretrial Reform Matters

Q: What inspired your commitment to improving pretrial decision-making in Indiana?

Anyone who has worked within a traditional cash bail system has seen its limitations. For Judge Spitzer, evidence-based pretrial offered a better way. Rather than relying on assumptions, it gives judges better information to make more principled decisions about who can be safely released and under what conditions.

"If you’ve spent time on the bench under a traditional cash bail system, you quickly see its limitations. You set bail expecting someone will be released—and they aren’t. Or you set bail expecting detention—and they post it.

Historically, cash bail has not done a good job addressing public safety or ensuring appropriate release decisions. That realization led me to ask: is there a better way.

Evidence-based pretrial provides that better way. It gives judges more information to make informed decisions about who can be safely released and under what conditions. We know most individuals can be safely released pretrial, and most do not engage in misconduct. The key is having a principled, data-informed approach to decision-making."

Why It Matters: Evidence-based pretrial helps judges:

Make more informed release decisions
Better protect public safety
Respect due process and the presumption of innocence
Reduce unnecessary detention

Collaboration as Infrastructure

Q: Indiana has a strong JRAC infrastructure. How does your state’s approach compare to a Court Coordinating Council model?

Judge Spitzer describes them as essentially serving the same purpose: bringing multidisciplinary voices together to identify challenges, align strategy, and improve outcomes across the system. Indiana’s success has come in large part from maintaining that collaborative structure over time.

The Role of Data

Q: Data has been central to Indiana’s pretrial work. How is pretrial data being used to inform judicial decision-making and system improvement?

Data is a core component of evidence-based practice. Judge Spitzer emphasizes that systems should measure what they are doing, examine whether it is effective, and adjust accordingly. Indiana’s use of data has helped demonstrate that evidence-based release practices can improve outcomes without compromising public safety.

"Data is foundational to evidence-based pretrial. One of the core EBDM principles is to measure what you’re doing and respond accordingly. If something isn’t working, you change it. If it is working, you strengthen and expand it.

Data also plays a critical role in addressing misinformation. There are many misconceptions about pretrial release and public safety. By analyzing outcomes over time, we can demonstrate that evidence-based practices enhance—not diminish—public safety.

Equally important is ensuring that data reaches policymakers and decision-makers. That’s how systems evolve and improve."

“If what you’re doing is not effective, you should change it. If it is effective, you should keep doing it—and maybe even broaden it”

Data is not just for reporting. It is for:

Continuous quality improvement
Policy development
Transparency
Public education
Judicial decision support
Community trust

Certification and Professional Practice

Q: Indiana has implemented a pretrial certification framework. What led to that decision?

"Indiana’s certification model grew out of its earlier success with problem-solving courts, including drug courts and veterans treatment courts. In those settings, certification helped ensure that programs were using best practices and achieving stronger outcomes. That same framework translated well to pretrial. Programs receive education, are observed in practice, and are given feedback on how to align more closely with best practices."

For Judge Spitzer, certification has helped professionalize the field and build confidence in the consistency and quality of pretrial services. Review Indiana's Pretrial Services Certification Rules .

The Judicial Perspective

Q: What aspects of pretrial reform are you most passionate about from the judicial perspective?

Judge Spitzer returns often to one central tension: balancing the presumption of innocence and due process with public safety. That is where the judicial role becomes especially important. Evidence-based pretrial gives judges better tools and better information, helping them make decisions that are more principled, more consistent, and more just.

"It comes down to balance—presumption of innocence, due process, and public safety. There is inherent tension in that balance, and getting it right is critical.

The best way to navigate that is by equipping judges with reliable information and education. When judges understand the data, the research, and the available tools, they can make better, more principled decisions. That ultimately benefits both individuals in the system and the broader community."

“We are serving the public best when we make these decisions in the best way that we can.”

Challenges Ahead

Q: What do you see as the greatest opportunity—or challenge—currently facing pretrial systems?

One of Indiana’s biggest emerging questions is how to approach preventative detention if constitutional and statutory changes move forward. Judge Spitzer notes that any such implementation must remain faithful to best practices, due process, and the practical realities of jail overcrowding.

He also points to an ongoing communications challenge: correcting the misconception that public safety is best achieved by detaining everyone. That approach, he notes, carries enormous costs for individuals, families, communities, and local systems.

"In Indiana, a major challenge is the potential implementation of preventative detention through a constitutional amendment. The question becomes: how do we implement that in a way that maintains fidelity to evidence-based practices, protects due process, and avoids unnecessary jail overcrowding?

More broadly, there is an ongoing “information battle.” Misconceptions about pretrial can drive policies that favor unnecessary detention. In reality, overuse of detention has significant financial and human costs—and often isn’t needed to maintain public safety."

Current Challenges

Preventative detention policy changes
Protecting due process
Avoiding unnecessary jail overcrowding
Countering misinformation about pretrial release

Proud Accomplishment

Q: Looking back, what accomplishment related to pretrial improvement are you most proud of?

Judge Spitzer points to his role in helping build Indiana’s evidence-based pretrial system, but he is just as proud of the culture surrounding it. Indiana has not settled for maintaining the status quo. Instead, it has created a structure that continues to evaluate itself, learn from research, and improve over time.

“We’re not satisfied with the status quo—we’re continuing to move forward.”

"I’m proud of the role I’ve played—alongside many others—in developing Indiana’s evidence-based pretrial system.

What excites me most is not just what we’ve built, but how we’ve built it: a system committed to continuous improvement. We are not satisfied with the status quo. We evaluate, adapt, and evolve based on data and research. That mindset is what gives this work long-term promise."

Advice to Other Jurisdictions

Q: What guidance would you offer to jurisdictions beginning or advancing pretrial reform efforts?

His advice is straightforward: do not reinvent the wheel.

“There is already strong work happening across Indiana and around the country, and the pretrial field is notable for its willingness to share tools, lessons, and innovations.

Jurisdictions do not have to start from scratch. Many low-cost and no-cost resources already exist, and learning from others can accelerate progress.”

Priorities for the Future

What priorities should stakeholders focus on to continue strengthening pretrial practice?

Judge Spitzer emphasizes support for frontline practitioners. Indiana’s coordinators have had a meaningful voice in shaping the state’s work, and that feedback loop has been one of its greatest strengths.

By creating a safe and collaborative environment for coordinators to share concerns, ideas, and practical lessons, Indiana has reinforced the idea that systems are only as strong as the people doing the day-to-day work.

"Ultimately, systems are only as strong as the people implementing them. Empowering those individuals has been one of our most important decisions."

Final Reflection

Q: What should readers take away from this work?

For Judge Spitzer, the message is simple: this work matters.

Pretrial systems affect real lives—not only those charged with offenses, but also victims, families, and communities. Evidence-based approaches create a better opportunity to balance those interests fairly, thoughtfully, and effectively.

"This work is worth the effort.

In the criminal justice system, we’re talking about real lives—not just individuals charged with offenses, but also victims and entire communities. Evidence-based pretrial gives us the ability to better balance those competing interests than we have historically.

If you haven’t started this work, I encourage you to. It matters—and it makes a difference."

“This work is worth the effort.”

Indiana’s progress in pretrial reform reflects years of intentional collaboration, thoughtful leadership, and a willingness to evolve. Judge Mark Spitzer has helped shape that work from the bench, through statewide committees, and in the education of judges and practitioners across the state. His perspective is a reminder that strong pretrial systems are built not only on policy, but on principle, partnership, and persistence.

Meet the NAPSA Board: President Eric Schmidt

Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:06:34 GMT

Meet the NAPSA Board: Q&A Spotlight

Name: Eric Schmidt

Board Role/Title: President

Term of Service: 2017 - Present

Location (City/State): Detroit Michigan

Professional Role/Organization: Manager / Oakland County Pretrial & Justice Services

Tell us a little about yourself and your professional background.

I began my career in 1995 as a Pretrial Services Investigator for Oakland County, Michigan. Over the next 31 years, I would remain with the same organization holding many positions throughout the organization. The one I enjoyed the most was spending 16 years as the Supervisor for Oakland County Pretrial Services. In 2020, I completed my master’s degree in public administration, and shortly after was promoted Manager overseeing both pretrial and post-conviction programming.

What inspired you to get involved with NAPSA?

After attending many NAPSA conferences, I started to understand the needs of practitioners nationally. I too had a desire to learn, to professionally grow, and push myself to continue bringing best practices to my organization. It was then that I joined the NAPSA Education Committee. My involvement in that committee motivated me to look for more ways to help the field, so I ran for the Midwest Regional Director.

What motivated you to serve on the NAPSA Board?

During my time on the NAPSA Education Committee, the people I met inspired me to keep learning, contributing, and gave me the inspiration to run for a board position. I am hopeful that I can contribute transparent leadership, fairness, and inspire others on the board to be creative, innovative, and together we will continue moving NAPSA forward.

What area of NAPSA’s work are you most passionate about?

The areas of NAPSA’s work that I am most passionate about are really the overarching goal to educate the field on best practices in pretrial. It’s been exciting two years with innovation, webinars, a new leadership session, and hosting a conference that educates not just pretrial professionals, but judicial officers and prosecutors / defense attorney’s alike.

What do you see as the biggest opportunity—or challenge—facing pretrial services today?

One of the biggest opportunities for pretrial services today is to continue building supportive services into supervision strategies and thinking critically about managing court ordered compliance in a way that supports people, provides recommendations for alternatives to revocation for technical violations, but when necessary, assists the court in determining who pose an articulable risk to public safety. These opportunities need to involve all system stakeholders.

How does your background or perspective strengthen the Board?

During my 31 year career in the pretrial services field, I have a good understanding of the needs of both practitioners and stakeholders. I have a collaborative approach, believe in transparency, and have a leadership style that welcomes the voices of not just the executive board, but all board members. I believe that this combination of leadership style, experience, and direct communication will help strengthen the board.

What accomplishment—professionally or personally—are you most proud of?

I’m very proud to have maintained such a long career within one organization. The field, system culture, and most recent system collaboration with all stakeholders in my home jurisdiction is something I’m professionally proud to have been a participant in. Personally, I am most proud of being a dad to my 12-year-old daughter.

What advice would you give to someone new to pretrial services or NAPSA?

My first suggestion to someone new to pretrial services would reflect the need to fully understand the court rules and / or bail statutes of the jurisdiction they work in. Second, I would recommend the review of the NAPSA Standards, and that they work within their agency to implement as many as possible. As the field continues changing, everyone needs to keep evolving themselves, their organizations, and their systems.

What do you hope NAPSA members know about the Board’s work?

I hope that NAPSA members know that the board continues to work for them, the field we all love, and that we are working tirelessly to bring education, training, and standards of excellence for pretrial justice.

Outside of work, what do you enjoy doing?

Outside of work, I enjoy spending time with my family, our Australian Sheppard (Wynter), playing golf, traveling, and the sport of fowling.

Closing

I’ve enjoyed my time on the NAPSA board and it’s been my pleasure to have served as the Midwest Regional Director, the President-Elect, and now continue serving the members as the President.

Texas Association of Pretrial Services (TAPS) Honors Aaron Johnson

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 02:08:15 GMT

Aaron Johnson:

A Career Defined by Pretrial Leadership, Reform, and Service

Written by April Craig, TAPS Vice President

In pretrial services, lasting change rarely comes from one policy or one moment. It comes from leaders who spend years building better systems, challenging outdated practices, and keeping fairness at the center of public safety. Aaron Johnson, Director of Personal Bond, Magistrate Court and Collections for Galveston County, is one of those leaders.

Mr. Johnson currently serves as President of the Texas Association of Pretrial Services and has led Galveston County’s Personal Bond and Collections operations since 2019. Before coming to Texas, he built a career across multiple jurisdictions and has worked in state and county public safety agencies since 1995. His professional background also includes service in the U.S. Army Reserve as a combat field medic, along with academic training in sociology and business administration.

One of the clearest themes in Mr. Johnson’s career is that he has not simply managed pretrial systems. He has helped create and modernize them. Mr. Johnson helped develop and implement the first Pretrial Services Agency for Mr. Johnson County, Kansas, in 2010. Working with the University of Missouri–Kansas City and the Pretrial Justice Institute, he contributed to the development and validation of Mr. Johnson County’s risk assessment tool and helped shape that county’s pretrial release and detention guidelines. Those efforts reflected an early commitment to evidence-based decision-making in a part of the justice system that too often relied on habit instead of data.

Mr. Johnson later brought that same reform-minded approach to Santa Clara County, California, where he served as Director of Pretrial Services from 2016 to 2019. In that role, he helped implement 16 recommendations from the county’s Bail and Release Work Group. Those changes included the use of the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment tool in intimate partner violence cases and multiple diversion efforts through the department. His work there showed an ability to connect policy, operations, and public safety in practical ways.

Since taking over in Galveston County in 2019, Mr. Johnson has led within a jurisdiction that has been central to some of Texas’ most important pretrial debates. Public reporting and court records show that Galveston County’s bail system became the subject of federal litigation over wealth-based detention and the lack of counsel at initial felony bail hearings. In 2018, a federal court ordered the county to provide counsel at those hearings, a ruling described by the ACLU as the first federal decision to hold that the Sixth Amendment requires counsel at initial felony bail hearings. More recent Texas Indigent Defense Commission monitoring materials show that Galveston County’s Personal Bond Office screens defendants for indigence after arrest as part of that process. While those reforms grew out of litigation and broader county action, they also form the environment in which Mr. Johnson’s leadership in Galveston has taken shape.

Mr. Johnson’s influence extends well beyond one county. TAPS elected him as its current President, and he also serves as the Chair of the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies’ (NAPSA) Education Committee and has been a regular speaker at national conferences on pretrial risk assessment and leadership. Mr. Johnson received NAPSA’s 2019 Member of the Year award. His statewide policy engagement is also public: Texas House materials show him submitting comments on pretrial legislation as a TAPS representative.

That broader leadership helps explain why his colleagues see him as a pioneer. Reform in pretrial services is difficult work. It requires balancing constitutional protections, public safety, court operations, victim concerns, and the realities counties face every day. Mr. Johnson’s career reflects repeated involvement in that kind of work: creating agencies, implementing validated tools, expanding diversion options, engaging in statewide advocacy, and helping shape conversations about how Texas handles pretrial release.

On March 25, 2026, Mr. Johnson was recognized at the Texas Association of Pretrial Services conference with the TAPS Pioneer Award. Based on the record of his career, that recognition fits. The award honors leadership that moves the field forward, and Mr. Johnson’s work has done exactly that across counties, across states, and across the broader movement for fairer pretrial justice.

At a time when jurisdictions across the country continue to examine the role of bail, detention, and equity in the justice system, Aaron Johnson’s career stands out as a reminder that meaningful reform is built by people willing to do the long, detailed, collaborative work. His contributions have not only shaped local practice; they have helped push the field of pretrial services toward a more thoughtful and more just future.

About the Author:

April Craig serves as Vice President of the Texas Association of Pretrial Services and as Programs Manager for Dallas County Pretrial Services. After graduating from Texas State University, she began her career in criminal justice as a felony legal assistant and probation officer before transitioning into pretrial services, where she developed a strong passion for bail reform and professional education. She later earned a master’s degree in criminal justice leadership and management from Lamar University and was first elected to the TAPS Board as Treasurer in 2015. Through her work at both the county and statewide levels, Ms. Craig has remained committed to advancing effective pretrial practices, supporting professional development, and strengthening the field across Texas.

Celebrating the Retirement and Enduring Legacy of Timothy R. Schnacke

Mon, 06 Apr 2026 16:07:34 GMT

A tribute to a scholar and leader whose work reshaped the national conversation on bail and due process.

On behalf of the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) and its Board of Directors, we are proud to recognize and celebrate the retirement of Timothy R. Schnacke—a transformative leader whose scholarship, integrity, and vision have helped shape the modern pretrial justice landscape.

Throughout his distinguished career, Tim has guided the field to better understand not only what pretrial justice should be, but how to build it. His work has supported practitioners, courts, policymakers, and researchers nationwide, consistently grounding reform in constitutional principles, the history of bail, and evidence-based legal practice.

Tim’s unique ability to clarify complex legal issues—and to challenge long-standing misconceptions about bail, risk, and detention—has strengthened the foundation of pretrial reform efforts across jurisdictions. His scholarship has helped elevate the national conversation from one centered on money and tradition to one focused on due process, fairness, and intentional decision-making.

A Culminating Contribution: Bipartisan Bail Reform: Three Pillars of Pretrial Justice

In December 2025, Tim published what he described as his final paper, “ Bipartisan Bail Reform: Three Pillars of Pretrial Justice .” The paper serves as a thoughtful culmination of decades of work and reflects his commitment to principled, practical reform.

In it, Tim outlines three essential pillars that jurisdictions must embrace to move from arbitrary, money-based systems toward intentional, constitutionally grounded pretrial frameworks:

1. Collaboration

Expanding and clarifying the roles of the broad range of stakeholders required to achieve meaningful pretrial justice—including courts, pretrial services professionals, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement, policymakers, and community partners.

2. Education

Addressing persistent misunderstandings about bail and “no bail,” distinguishing historic reform from modern improvements, and examining the complexities surrounding risk assessment and prediction. Tim consistently emphasized that sustainable reform begins with shared understanding.

3. Intentional Release and Detention

Replacing random, money-based outcomes with systems defined by purposeful release and narrowly tailored detention decisions grounded in law, due process, and individualized consideration. Together, these pillars reflect Tim’s lifelong message:

"Pretrial systems must be principled, evidence-based, and constitutionally sound."

A Lasting Impact on the Field

Tim’s extensive body of work—including seminal writings on risk, due process, and the history of bail—remains available through the Center for Legal and Evidence-Based Practices . His publications continue to inform policy development, training, and implementation efforts nationwide.

His voice has shaped national dialogue. His scholarship has guided reform. His leadership has strengthened practice.

While Tim may be retiring from active work, his influence will continue to guide the field for years to come. The principles he championed—collaboration, education, and intentionality—remain central to NAPSA’s mission and to the continued advancement of fair and effective pretrial justice systems.

On behalf of NAPSA and the broader pretrial community, we extend our deepest gratitude for his extraordinary contributions and wish him the very best in his well-earned retirement.

Wendy Venvertloh

Executive Director

National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA)

Culture Is King in Pretrial Systems

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 17:36:28 GMT

Why Culture Work Is Essential in a Complex and Changing Environment

Written by Glenn Tapia, ACJI

Pretrial systems are under constant pressure. New legislation, evolving court expectations, public scrutiny, staffing challenges, and rapid reform efforts all converge at the front end of the justice system. In this environment, leaders often focus on policies, tools, and evidence-based practices to drive improvement.

Yet time and again, reforms stall, fade, or fail to deliver their promise. The reason is rarely the tool itself. More often, it is culture.

This article explores why culture work is not optional in pretrial systems, why these environments are uniquely complex and change-heavy, and how leaders can intentionally shape cultures that support effectiveness, humanity, and sustainability rather than resistance and burnout.

Why Pretrial Is Inherently Complex

Pretrial work sits at the crossroads of public safety, legal decision-making, human behavior, and community trust. Decisions are fast, high-stakes, and highly visible. Staff navigate uncertainty daily, often with incomplete information and competing demands.

This complexity creates pressure. When systems are under pressure, culture shows up fast.

Culture influences how decisions are made, how discretion is exercised, how staff interact with one another, and how individuals are treated at their first point of system contact. In complex systems, culture becomes the operating system that guides behavior when rules alone are not enough.

Culture Is Upstream From Policy and Practice

At ACJI, culture is understood as upstream from strategy, practice, and outcomes. Policies and tools may define what should happen, but culture determines what actually happens and what becomes habit.

When culture is misaligned, even well-designed reforms struggle to take root. Control-heavy norms, deficit-focused problem solving, and unspoken expectations quietly undermine change. Staff may comply outwardly while disengaging inwardly. Innovation slows. Decision quality erodes.

When culture is healthy, adaptive, and people-centered, the opposite occurs. Staff engagement improves. Collaboration increases. Equity and consistency strengthen. Systems gain the capacity to adapt rather than react.

Common Cultural Traps in Pretrial Environments

Pretrial systems often inherit cultural patterns shaped by risk, liability, and urgency. These patterns can include:

A strong emphasis on control rather than learning
Problem fixation instead of strengths-based improvement
Pseudo-silence, where people stop speaking up because it feels unsafe

Over time, these dynamics contribute to occupational stress, disengagement, and organizational fatigue. Leaders may sense something is wrong but struggle to name it because culture operates quietly in the background.

Culture Work Is Leadership Work

Culture does not change through memos or new checklists. It changes through daily leadership behavior, mindset, and interaction.

Leaders at all levels shape culture through how they respond to tension, invite dialogue, handle mistakes, and model curiosity. Psychological safety becomes a critical condition for change, especially in environments marked by stress and organizational trauma.

A foundational principle of culture work is simple but demanding: as a leader, I am culture. Every interaction either reinforces the current culture or nudges it toward something healthier.

Culture as the Anchor in a Changing Pretrial Environment

Pretrial systems operate amid constant change. Legislative reforms, political shifts, and differing stakeholder perspectives place ongoing pressure on agencies at the front end of the justice system. In these conditions, culture becomes the anchor.

Culture shapes how staff interpret new laws, respond to external pressure, and engage disagreement. When culture is clear and values-driven, agencies adapt without losing purpose. Shared norms provide stability when policies shift and leadership changes. Culture does not stop change, but it prevents drift. For pretrial systems navigating evolving legal and justice landscapes, culture is essential infrastructure, not a soft initiative. It keeps the system steady while allowing forward movement (Alliance for Community and Justice Innovation).

Moving From Survival to Advancement

Pretrial systems cannot afford to treat culture as an afterthought. In environments defined by complexity and constant change, culture is the strategy that allows reforms to take hold and people to thrive.

Intentional culture work creates the conditions for learning, adaptation, and resilience. It helps systems move beyond survival mode toward sustainable advancement.

Culture is not soft work. It is essential infrastructure for pretrial systems that seek to be effective, humane, and ready for the future.

Where Can I Learn More?

NAPSA is partnering with the Alliance for Community and Justice Innovation (ACJI) to deliver a webinar on Culture and Pretrial System Advancement. Join our webinar on Monday March 30 ^th at 2:00 p.m. EST for 90 minutes to learn what this culture talk is all about. Guest presenters Glenn A Tapia (ACJI) and Hillary Hartoin (Cass County Court Services and NAPSA) will discuss how Culture is King in our profession.

About the Author

Glenn A. Tapia is the Director of Leadership and Organizational Intelligence with the Alliance for Community and Justice Innovation (ACJI). He brings 37 years of public sector criminal justice experience, including 25 consecutive years with the State of Colorado and 13 years in senior executive leadership across both the executive and judicial branches. Glenn previously served as Director of Colorado Probation Services and Director of Colorado Community Corrections, providing statewide oversight of large-scale community supervision systems, policy development, and budget administration.

Glenn’s work is grounded in applied implementation science, evidence-based decision-making, and adaptive leadership. His expertise spans organizational culture, leadership development, neuro leadership, and system reform. He has taught criminal justice at the university level and consults nationally with local, state, and federal agencies. Glenn is deeply committed to advancing public safety policy and practice through the disciplined application of science, collaboration, and organizational intelligence.

Diversion Committee Relaunched - First Step, Revise Diversion Standards

Fri, 13 Mar 2026 13:30:22 GMT

NAPSA’s Diversion Committee

Begins Standards Revisions by Defining Diversion

The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) has played a seminal role in shaping the field of Diversion for nearly five decades. NAPSA first articulated a definition of Diversion in its 1978 Black Letter Standards for Pretrial Release , thereby laying the foundation for a national dialogue on alternatives to traditional criminal case processing. Building upon that framework, NAPSA issued the inaugural Pretrial Diversion Standards in 1995, emphasizing the importance of non-punitive pathways to case resolution—approaches designed not only to improve immediate community outcomes but also to mitigate long-term recidivism risk.

Recognizing the rapid evolution of Diversion practices, NAPSA published the second edition of the Performance Standards and Goals for Pretrial Diversion/Interventions in 2008. This work was prompted by profound system-level developments, including the advent of electronic criminal record systems and the proliferation of treatment courts. NAPSA further contributed to the field through the release of key publications such as Promising Practices in Pretrial Diversion (2009), Pretrial Diversion in the 21st Century (2009), and Outcome and Performance Measures for the Pretrial Diversion Field (2011). In collaboration with the National Institute of Corrections, NAPSA also convened a national symposium that culminated in the 2017 report, Using Front-End Interventions to Achieve Public Safety and Healthy Communities .

Over the past several years, organizations such as the American Bar Association, the Center for Effective Public Policy, the National Institute of Corrections, and All Rise have produced exemplary resources, trainings, and scholarship in this area. NAPSA commends these contributions and now seeks to once again assume a leadership role by reestablishing the NAPSA Diversion Committee . The charge to this committee is multifaceted: to develop a comprehensive definition of Diversion; to delineate NAPSA’s role in advancing the field; to design practical tools for practitioners; and to update the Diversion Standards, which have not been revised since 2008.

The committee is composed of an accomplished and diverse group of practitioners from approximately a dozen states, representing rural, suburban, and urban jurisdictions. Members bring expertise across multiple disciplines, including direct service delivery, program management, and prosecution. This breadth of experience provides the foundation for producing resources that are both theoretically rigorous and operationally pragmatic. Over the coming years, the committee will release a series of documents and tools, culminating in the development of robust, research-informed Diversion Standards that reflect the needs and realities of contemporary practice.

As an initial step, the committee has adopted the following working definition:

Diversion refers to any program or strategy that directs individuals away from traditional criminal justice processes.

This intentionally broad conceptualization affirms the diversity of approaches currently in practice while leaving space for future innovation. It explicitly encompasses treatment courts, while recognizing that specialized organizations such as All Rise are best positioned to lead the field on that specific model. More broadly, the definition reflects NAPSA’s conviction that Diversion can—and should—be available at every stage of the criminal justice continuum. Whether implemented through law enforcement-led deflection, pre-charge prosecutorial initiatives, or post-charge options, Diversion must consistently be grounded in three essential pillars: ethics, empirical research, and the rule of law.

Through this relaunch, NAPSA reiterates its dedication to promoting Diversion as both a core principle and an applied practice. We invite members and colleagues to participate in this endeavor. Those interested in contributing to the NAPSA Diversion Committee may contact NAPSA Executive Director Wendy Venvertloh at execdirector@napsa.org.

Wendy Venvertloh

Executive Director

National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA)

Setting the Standard in Pretrial Justice

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 18:26:40 GMT

Introducing NAPSA’s Refreshed Strategic Vision:
Setting the Standard in Pretrial Justice

The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) has long served as the national voice for safe, fair, and evidence‑based pretrial justice. At our recent Board of Directors strategic planning meeting, leadership undertook an in‑depth review of the organization’s vision, mission, guiding values, and strategic approach. Today, we are excited to share the refreshed framework that will guide NAPSA’s future and continue to elevate the standard for pretrial practice nationwide.

Reaffirming Our Mission

At the center of this strategic refresh is a mission that remains deeply aligned with NAPSA’s purpose:

NAPSA’s mission is to promote pretrial justice and public safety through rational pretrial decision making and practices informed by evidence.

This unwavering focus ensures that every program, publication, partnership, and educational offering continues to support fairness, community well‑being, and data‑driven pretrial outcomes.

Our Updated Values

The Board reaffirmed and refined NAPSA’s core values, which now highlight the essential traits that define the organization’s leadership in the field:

Accountability
Collaboration
Equity
Integrity
Non‑partisan
Transparency

These values reflect our belief that the pretrial system must operate with fairness, openness, and a commitment to evidence‑based justice - principles that guide NAPSA’s programs and the broader field.

Our Core Strategic Approach

NAPSA continues to anchor its strategy in what it does best:

Providing evidence‑based standards and education to individuals and agencies.

This core approach will remain the foundation of NAPSA’s impact—ensuring that practitioners, jurisdictions, and policymakers have access to the most current research, proven practices, and high‑quality professional development opportunities.

Supporting Strategies for the Future

To carry out this strengthened strategic agenda, the Board reaffirmed a suite of supporting strategies that reflect NAPSA’s long‑standing leadership in setting and advancing professional standards:

Professional Standards
Annual Conference & Training Institute
Individual Practitioner Certification
Agency Accreditation
Diverse Educational Opportunities
Publications
Professional Development
Technical Assistance

These strategies ensure that NAPSA remains the premier resource for practitioners and agencies committed to equitable and effective pretrial practices.

Why This Matters for the Pretrial Field

NAPSA’s refreshed mission and strategy reaffirm our commitment to the principles that have defined the organization since its founding. The updated framework positions NAPSA to:

Lead national dialogue on evidence‑based pretrial practices
Elevate practitioner professionalism and agency excellence
Strengthen partnerships across jurisdictions
Expand access to high‑quality training and resources
Support innovation and continual standards improvement

NAPSA’s standards, collaborations, and educational initiatives have long helped jurisdictions adopt safe and fair pretrial practices—and this updated strategic agenda ensures we continue to lead the field into the future.

What’s Next

In the coming months, NAPSA will be rolling out enhanced resources and communications aligned with this strategic refresh, including:

Amplified messaging, including this blog and social media - be sure to visit our new Instagram account at napsa_pretrial .
Updated standards and standards-related materials
Expanded educational offerings, including a focused judicial education curriculum at our 2026 conference
Leadership development
Modernized governance documents
Enhanced practitioner and agency support tools
Increased technical assistance capacity
New opportunities to engage with NAPSA committees, initiatives, and membership

We invite all members, partners, and practitioners to join us in advancing this renewed vision for pretrial justice.

Closing Thoughts

NAPSA’s Board of Directors has charted a bold and thoughtful path forward—one that honors our history while preparing us for the evolving challenges and opportunities within pretrial justice. With this updated vision, reaffirmed mission, clarified values, and strengthened strategies, NAPSA remains firmly committed to setting the standard for safe, fair, and evidence‑based pretrial practices nationwide.

Stay tuned for more updates here on The Standard , where we will continue to share insights, resources, and stories that move our field forward.

Wendy Venvertloh

Executive Director

National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA)

The Standard

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 16:51:28 GMT

Welcome to The Standard

Welcome to the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) Blog - The Standard - where we highlight the people and practices that define our field.

For more than 50 years, NAPSA has served as the nation’s leading membership organization supporting legal and evidence-based pretrial practices. Our mission - to promote pretrial justice and public safety through rational pretrial decision making and practices informed by evidence - relies on continuous learning, open dialogue, and the exchange of ideas across jurisdictions and disciplines. This blog is designed to advance that mission.

The title The Standard reflects NAPSA’s role as the nation’s leader in developing, maintaining, and promoting the pretrial standards that guide our field. It underscores our commitment to elevating the practices and professionals who embody excellence and set the benchmark for high‑quality, evidence‑based pretrial services

What You Can Expect

Each month, we’ll highlight the topics that matter most to professionals, policymakers, researchers, and partners across the pretrial field, including:

News from NAPSA

Updates on training opportunities, the Annual Conference, committee work, partnerships, and organizational initiatives.

Innovations & Field Highlights

Profiles of programs, tools, and strategies that represent promising advancements in pretrial practice.

Policy & Practice Updates

Insights into legislative developments, case law, and best practices shaping pretrial systems nationwide.

Research & Emerging Evidence

Summaries of new studies, data trends, and evidence-based approaches that advance our understanding of pretrial justice.

Member Spotlights

Stories from practitioners and leaders across the country whose work strengthens communities and improves outcomes.

Why a Blog—and Why Now?

The pretrial field is evolving rapidly. With new research, shifting policies, ongoing public conversations about justice, and a growing need for reliable, practical information, NAPSA is committed to being a trusted source for insight and leadership. This blog provides a hub where members and the broader field can stay informed, stay connected, and stay inspired.

Join the Conversation

We encourage you to engage with the content, share articles with colleagues, and reach out if you have ideas or stories to contribute. Whether you’re a long-time NAPSA member or new to the organization, we’re glad you're here and we look forward to exploring the future of pretrial justice together.

Thank you for your commitment to advancing fair, evidence-based, and effective pretrial systems.

Welcome to The Standard !

Wendy Venvertloh

Executive Director

National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA)