Meet the NAPSA Board: Q&A Spotlight
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.
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.
Meet the NAPSA Board: Q&A Spotlight
How recognizing trauma improves court appearance, reduces new arrests, and strengthens the justice system legitimacy
Why Communication Matters in Pretrial Justice
Why Standards Matter in Pretrial
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:
Meet the NAPSA Board: Q&A Spotlight