What's Love Got to Do with Pretrial? Everything — and Not the Way You Think

How collaboration between the Cass County Sheriff's Office & Court & Pretrial Services is strengthening public safety, improving jail operations, and creating a more coordinated criminal justice system. Across the country, sheriffs face the increasingly complex responsibility of protecting their communities while managing jail populations, rising correctional costs, growing behavioral health needs, and limited county resources. These challenges require more than effective law enforcement and secure detention facilities. They require informed decisions about who needs to remain incarcerated, who can be safely supervised in the community, and how different parts of the justice system can work together to achieve better outcomes. In Cass County, Indiana, Sheriff Ed Schroder and Cass County Court & Pretrial Services have developed a working partnership that recognizes these responsibilities as interconnected parts of the same public safety mission.Their collaboration begins when an individual enters the jail and continues through assessment, judicial decision-making, supervision, enforcement, treatment, and transition back into the community. By sharing information, coordinating responses, and developing resources that benefit both detained individuals and those under community supervision, the agencies have created an approach that supports public safety while making more responsible use of county resources. For Sheriff Schroder, Pretrial Services is not separate from law e nforcement's responsibilities. They are an important part of fulfilling them. A Shared Philosophy of Public Safety and Accountability Established in October 2018, Cass County Court & Pretrial Services was designed to provide the courts with an evidence-based alternative to traditional monetary bond and unnecessary pretrial incarceration. The pro gram allows individuals awaiting trial, including those who lack the financial resources to secure release, to remain in the community when the court determines they can be safely supervised. The program's mission is grounded in public safety, maximizing court appearances, reducing recidivism, and protecting the presumption of innocence while providing appropriate supervision and access to supportive services. Although the program was established before Sheriff Schroder took office, the relationship between the Sheriff's Office and Pretrial Services has continued to develop into an active partnership built on communication, mutual respect, and shared problem-solving. " I believe pretrial is another important component of the criminal justice system ," Sheriff Schroder said. " My philosophy is that jails are filled with good people who made bad choices. Not every criminal violation requires incarceration. " He goes on to say that philosophy does not diminish the seriousness of criminal behavior or the importance of accountability. It recognizes that individuals entering the justice system present different levels of risk and that incarceration is not necessarily the most appropriate response in every circumstance. Some individuals pose significant public safety concerns and require secure detention. Others can be appropriately managed through structured supervision, regular reporting, and access to services that address barriers to successful participation in the justice system. The challenge is determining the difference. The Sheriff's Office brings enforcement authority, custody information, operational experience, and firsthand knowledge of the individuals entering the jail. Pretrial Services contributes objective assessment, supervision infrastructure, compliance monitoring, and established relationships with community treatment providers. Neither agency replaces the responsibilities of the other. Their partnership allows each to contribute its expertise to a more comprehensive approach to public safety. Better Information, Better Decisions, and More Appropriate Detention One of the most important aspects of the partnership begins within hours of an individual's arrest. In Cass County, the Pretrial Director interviews individuals booked into the jail within 24 hours and conducts an assessment using the Indiana Risk Assessment System–Pretrial Assessment Tool (IRAS-PAT), a validated statewide instrument designed to evaluate the likelihood of new criminal activity and failure to appear in court. The assessment is considered alongside criminal history, prior court performance, employment, residential stability, and other relevant circumstances. Using an established decision-making matrix, Pretrial Services develops an individualized recommendation regarding potential release and appropriate supervision conditions. That recommendation is provided to the judge, prosecutor, and defense counsel before the court determines whether release to Pretrial Services is appropriate. For the Sheriff's Office, this process provides valuable information that helps distinguish between individuals who require continued detention and those who may be safely supervised in the community. As Schroder explains, " A criminal charge alone does not always provide a complete picture of an individual's circumstances or potential risk. Two individuals charged with similar offenses may have very different histories, needs, and likelihoods of complying with court requirements. Likewise, the ability to post monetary bond does not necessarily indicate whether someone poses a danger to the community. Objective assessments provide judicial officers with information that supports more individualized and informed decisions. " This distinction is particularly important in cases that do not fit neatly into a single category. An individual may have significant medical needs but present minimal public safety concerns. Another may have relatively few personal barriers but a history of serious criminal behavior or repeated failures to comply with court orders. Still others may have circumstances that require careful consideration of both risk and individual needs. These are the situations Sheriff Schroder describes as the "gray area." " We have developed a relationship where, when there are people in that gray area, we communicate about what is most beneficial ," Sheriff Schroder said. That communication allows the Sheriff's Office and Pretrial Services to discuss concerns, share relevant information, and identify potential options while respecting the court's authority to make detention and release decisions. The exchange of information continues beyond the initial assessment. Booking activity, custody status, outstanding warrants, new arrests, and supervision concerns all have implications for the agencies' respective responsibilities. Timely communication helps ensure that important developments do not remain isolated within separate parts of the justice system. For law enforcement, this creates a more informed and coordinated approach to managing individuals whose circumstances may change throughout the pretrial period. Preserving Jail Capacity and Making Responsible Use of County Resources For sheriffs, jail population management is both a public safety responsibility and a significant operational challenge. Every occupied bed requires staffing, supervision, medical services, meals, security, and facility resources. When jail populations approach capacity, these demands can create substantial pressure on county budgets and limit the Sheriff's operational flexibility. Pretrial services can help address these challenges by identifying individuals who may be safely supervised in the community rather than remaining incarcerated primarily because they cannot afford monetary bond. In Cass County, the impact has been substantial. Since the program's establishment in 2018, the county has reported an approximately 86% reduction in its pre-adjudication jail population. Recent jail analyses also demonstrate a meaningful shift in the composition of the detention population. More than half of the individuals remaining in custody have been assessed as high or very high risk, while only a small percentage are classified as low risk. This distinction is significant because it suggests that jail resources are increasingly concentrated among individuals who present greater public safety concerns or are otherwise legally ineligible for release. " We have been able to identify people in the jail who are not a risk to the community but have needs or barriers with which they could use assistance, " Sheriff Schroder said. " At the same time, pretrial services give judges information about those who may present a danger. " The benefits extend beyond population reduction. Maintaining available jail capacity provides operational flexibility, allowing the Sheriff's Office to respond to changing detention needs without consistently operating near capacity. It also creates opportunities to house individuals from neighboring counties and federal agencies through contract housing agreements. These arrangements generate revenue that helps offset correctional operating expenses. Cass County's monthly analyses have documented substantial estimated avoided incarceration expenses through pretrial supervision, along with significant contract housing revenue. In September 2026 alone, the combined reported financial impact exceeded $260,000, representing more than 90% of the Pretrial Services department's reported annual operating budget. These figures demonstrate the financial significance of managing detention demand responsibly. For county officials working within limited budgets, the relationship illustrates how public safety and fiscal responsibility can reinforce one another. The Sheriff's Office benefits from preserving capacity and maintaining operational flexibility, while Pretrial Services provides structured supervision for individuals who do not require secure detention. The objective is not simply to reduce incarceration or maximize available beds for contract housing. It is to ensure that detention decisions are based on risk, legal requirements, and individual circumstances rather than financial resources alone. Accountability Beyond the Jail: Supervision, Enforcement, and Early Intervention A common misconception about pretrial release is that individuals are simply released without meaningful oversight. In practice, pretrial supervision creates an ongoing relationship between the individual, the court, and the supervising agency. When an individual is released to Cass County Court & Pretrial Services, they must report to the department within 24 hours and are assigned a supervision level based on assessed risk, individual needs, and court-ordered conditions. Participants are expected to attend required court proceedings, comply with release conditions, and refrain from new criminal activity. The department emphasizes using the least restrictive conditions appropriate to the individual's circumstances while maintaining public safety and accountability. For the Sheriff's Office, this creates an additional layer of oversight beyond the financial conditions of traditional bail aligning with their commitment to public safety. Pretrial staff maintain regular contact with participants, monitor compliance, document concerns, and communicate relevant information to the court. When circumstances involve new arrests, outstanding warrants, absconding, or immediate public safety concerns, law enforcement plays an essential role in the response. Coordination is particularly important when violations involve victim safety, threats of violence, or other circumstances requiring timely intervention. Clearly established communication procedures help ensure that supervision professionals and law enforcement understand their respective responsibilities and can respond appropriately when concerns arise. The partnership also supports a more proactive approach to supervision. Cass County follows the principles of the Coach (Referee) Model for Change , developed by Justice System Partners. Rather than focusing exclusively on identifying violations, the model encourages supervision professionals to build constructive relationships with participants, recognize incremental progress, and help individuals develop the skills necessary to comply with court requirements. This approach recognizes that individuals may encounter barriers involving employment, housing, transportation, substance use, behavioral health, or other circumstances that interfere with successful supervision. A missed appointment, for example, may result from a transportation problem or an unstable work schedule rather than a deliberate refusal to comply. Understanding the circumstances allows supervision staff to determine whether an appropriate intervention may resolve the concern before it becomes more serious. The coaching philosophy does not eliminate accountability. Participants remain responsible for complying with court-ordered conditions, and violations are addressed through established procedures. Instead, it combines accountability with practical assistance intended to improve compliance and promote stability. For law enforcement, this early intervention capacity provides another opportunity to address problems before they escalate into additional criminal justice involvement. Cass County's performance measures have reflected strong court appearance rates, favorable public safety outcomes, and high levels of successful supervision. These results demonstrate that meaningful accountability can coexist with a supervision approach centered on engagement, individualized intervention, and practical problem-solving. Working Through Complex Medical and Behavioral Health Cases Some of the most difficult decisions facing sheriffs involve individuals whose medical or behavioral health needs exceed the resources traditionally available within a county jail. Individuals experiencing serious medical complications, high-risk pregnancies, acute mental health crises, substance use disorders, or terminal illnesses may require specialized services that place substantial demands on correctional facilities. Jails have a responsibility to provide necessary medical care, but they are not designed to function as hospitals, comprehensive psychiatric treatment centers, or long-term medical facilities. Before Cass County established its pretrial program, individuals with significant medical circumstances could sometimes be released on their own recognizance without ongoing supervision or structured support. Although that approach could allow access to necessary care, it did not necessarily provide continued accountability or assistance navigating community services. Pretrial Services created another option. When the court determines that an individual can be safely supervised, release under appropriate conditions may allow access to specialized medical or behavioral health treatment while maintaining regular contact with the justice system. This is one of the areas where communication between the Sheriff's Office and Pretrial Services is particularly valuable. Jail personnel can provide relevant information regarding medical circumstances and detention-related concerns, while Pretrial Services can identify available community resources and evaluate whether appropriate supervision arrangements are feasible. Together, the agencies can provide the court with a more complete understanding of the individual's circumstances. This coordinated approach may help reduce certain medical and operational burdens on the jail while supporting access to necessary care. The value of the partnership lies in having additional information, resources, and options available when making difficult decisions. Expanding Treatment and Programming Across the Justice System The partnership between the Sheriff's Office and Pretrial Services extends beyond detention and supervision decisions. Both agencies recognize that many individuals entering the criminal justice system have unmet educational, behavioral health, and substance use needs that may contribute to instability and repeated justice system involvement. Rather than treating incarceration and community supervision as entirely separate experiences, Cass County has worked to expand opportunities for programming and treatment across both settings. In 2021, the Sheriff's Office collaborated with Pretrial Services and the local behavioral health center to establish a Jail Therapy Program focused on individuals with substance use disorders. The initiative incorporated recovery-focused curricula, with programming facilitated by Peer Recovery Specialists. In 2023, Court Services further expanded available resources through the implementation of the evidence-based eCourse program that is also used by pretrial release participants. Using Local Opioid Settlement funding, tablets were introduced to provide access to structured educational and cognitive-behavioral coursework within the jail. The facility also offers opportunities for individual counseling and High School Equivalency education. These programs allow detained individuals to begin addressing substance use, decision-making, emotional regulation, educational needs, and other challenges before returning to the community. For the Sheriff's Office, structured programming provides opportunities for constructive engagement during incarceration. For Pretrial Services, it creates a foundation for continuity after release. "The collaborative relationship with pretrial and the programming they use is beneficial," Sheriff Schroder said. "It allows us to create a more seamless transition for people moving through the criminal justice system." That continuity is an important advantage of the partnership. Individuals who begin educational or therapeutic programming while detained may have opportunities to continue working toward similar goals after release, reducing interruptions and helping maintain progress. Cass County has also expanded access to voluntary treatment through its dedicated Therapeutic Services Division. The department offers access to individual counseling, addiction treatment, trauma-focused therapy, EDMR, medication management, and other supportive services. Historically, individuals involved in the criminal justice system often had limited opportunities to receive treatment before their cases were resolved. The expansion of therapeutic services allows appropriate participants to access intervention earlier, rather than waiting until conviction or sentencing. The department has prioritized developing community partnerships, securing external funding, and reducing financial barriers so that services can be offered at little or no cost to many participants. Participation remains voluntary, consistent with pretrial principles and the presumption of innocence. Recent program reports demonstrate substantial engagement with counseling, Peer Recovery Specialist services, and voluntary inpatient treatment opportunities. For the Sheriff's Office, these resources provide additional options when individuals have significant treatment needs but do not necessarily require continued incarceration. The result is a more coordinated approach in which detention, supervision, treatment, and community support can complement one another. Preparing for Release and Strengthening Community Stability The transition from incarceration into the community can be a particularly challenging period. Individuals may leave custody without stable housing, reliable transportation, access to medications, treatment appointments, employment, or a clear understanding of available community resources. These circumstances can affect their ability to comply with court requirements and maintain stability. The partnership between the Sheriff's Office and Pretrial Services creates opportunities to begin addressing these concerns before an individual leaves custody. When release is anticipated, agencies can coordinate information about supervision expectations, treatment needs, and available community resources. For individuals with substance use disorders, that may involve connecting them with treatment providers or Peer Recovery Specialists. For individuals with behavioral health needs, it may involve arranging counseling appointments or helping establish continuity of care. For others, the immediate priority may involve housing, employment, transportation, or educational resources. Cass County's investments in jail-based programming and community treatment services provide a foundation for these transitions. The objective is to reduce the gap between incarceration and pretrial supervision, allowing individuals to move from one stage of the justice system to the next with clearer expectations and more consistent access to appropriate support. For sheriffs, this approach recognizes that what happens after someone leaves custody can influence future demands on law enforcement and correctional resources. A more coordinated transition can benefit not only the individual but also the agencies responsible for maintaining public safety. Shared Data, Transparency, and Continuous Improvement A strong partnership between law enforcement and pretrial services requires more than positive working relationships. It also requires reliable information about whether the system is producing the intended results. Sheriffs need to know whether individuals released under supervision are appearing for court, complying with conditions, and avoiding new criminal activity. Pretrial Services benefits from understanding booking patterns, jail population trends, warrant activity, and the circumstances that lead individuals back into custody. Cass County's monthly Pretrial Services Review and Jail Analysis provide a framework for examining these issues. The reports evaluate detention populations, risk classifications, supervision activity, court appearance rates, new criminal activity, technical violations, treatment participation, and financial impacts. This information allows agencies to evaluate trends, identify operational challenges, and consider whether adjustments to supervision practices or response procedures may be appropriate. For example, reviewing supervision-related returns to custody can help distinguish individuals detained for new criminal activity from those held for technical noncompliance. Understanding these differences is important because not every violation presents the same level of public safety concern. The data also provide valuable information for judges, prosecutors, county commissioners, advisory boards, and other stakeholders responsible for evaluating criminal justice policies and resource needs. Rather than relying on assumptions about whether pretrial supervision works, agencies can examine documented outcomes and use that information to guide future decisions. This commitment to transparency and continuous improvement strengthens the partnership and reinforces public confidence in the responsible use of detention and community supervision. Building Public Confidence Through a Unified Public Safety Message Pretrial services are sometimes misunderstood as an effort to reduce incarceration without sufficient consideration for public safety. For law enforcement leaders, that perception can create understandable concerns. A sheriff's perspective is particularly important in addressing those concerns because sheriffs are directly responsible for maintaining secure detention facilities, responding to criminal activity, and protecting the community. Their experience provides practical insight into how detention and community supervision affect public safety and correctional operations. In Cass County, the partnership demonstrates that effective pretrial supervision is not about being lenient toward criminal behavior. It is about making informed decisions, maintaining accountability, and using detention resources appropriately. The county's experience provides measurable support for that approach. The pretrial program has substantially reduced the pre-adjudication jail population while maintaining strong court appearance and public safety outcomes. At the same time, the jail population has become increasingly concentrated among individuals assessed as presenting greater risk, and preserved detention capacity has created operational and financial opportunities. These outcomes help explain why a well-functioning pretrial program can be an asset to law enforcement rather than an obstacle. The Sheriff's Office and Pretrial Services can further strengthen public understanding through participation in community meetings, advisory boards, stakeholder education, and discussions with elected officials. A unified message from both agencies helps reinforce that appropriate detention, effective supervision, and access to treatment and supportive are complementary public safety strategies. For sheriffs who may be skeptical of pretrial services, the Cass County experience offers a practical example of what collaboration can accomplish when agencies maintain clear responsibilities, meaningful accountability, and shared expectations. Communication: The Foundation of a Successful Partnership The success of a sheriff–pretrial partnership does not depend on the agencies always agreeing. Law enforcement and community supervision professionals have different responsibilities, and those responsibilities may occasionally lead to different perspectives on individual cases. The Sheriff's Office must prioritize enforcement, public protection, and safe detention operations. Pretrial Services must provide objective information, supervise individuals according to court orders, monitor compliance, and help participants address barriers to successful supervision. A productive relationship requires recognizing the value of both perspectives. In Cass County, communication has become the foundation for addressing difficult situations, coordinating services, and maintaining mutual confidence. When agencies operate independently without consistent communication, important information can be delayed or overlooked. Individuals may experience unnecessary interruptions in services, and opportunities for coordinated intervention may be missed. By maintaining an active working relationship, the Sheriff's Office and Pretrial Services can better understand each other's responsibilities and respond more effectively to shared challenges. That relationship extends across the entire justice process—from the initial booking and assessment through detention decisions, supervision, enforcement, programming, and eventual transition back into the community. The Sheriff's Office provides enforcement authority, facility access, and operational experience. Pretrial Services provides assessment expertise, structured supervision, and connections to community resources. Together, they create a more complete and coordinated response than either agency could provide independently. One System, One Community, One Shared Responsibility The partnership between the Cass County Sheriff's Office and Court & Pretrial Services demonstrates what can be achieved when law enforcement and community supervision agencies recognize that they are working toward the same objectives. The goal is not to eliminate incarceration or diminish the consequences of criminal behavior. It is to ensure that detention is used appropriately, courts receive reliable information, individuals remain accountable, and available resources are directed toward the circumstances in which they can have the greatest impact. Since its establishment in 2018, Cass County's pretrial program has grown into an important component of the local criminal justice system. The county has experienced a substantial reduction in its pre-adjudication jail population, maintained strong court appearance and public safety outcomes, expanded therapeutic and educational programming, and demonstrated significant operational and financial benefits. These accomplishments reflect more than the work of a single agency. They represent the value of collaboration among the Sheriff's Office, Pretrial Services, the courts, treatment providers, community corrections, and other local partners. For Sheriff Schroder, the relationship reflects a practical understanding that not every individual entering the jail presents the same risk, requires the same response, or benefits from the same intervention. The Sheriff's Office brings the authority and operational experience necessary to protect the community and maintain secure detention facilities. Pretrial Services brings objective assessment, structured supervision, and connections to resources that can help individuals succeed while remaining accountable to the court. Neither agency compromises its responsibilities by working with the other. Instead, the partnership strengthens their ability to fulfill them. Public safety is not measured solely by how many individuals are incarcerated. It is measured by whether the justice system identifies genuine risk, responds appropriately, maintains accountability, and uses its resources responsibly. In Cass County, the partnership between the Sheriff's Office and Court & Pretrial Services illustrates that these objectives are most effectively achieved through cooperation, informed decision-making, and a shared commitment to the community. One system. One community. One shared commitment to public safety.

Program Innovation Spotlight: Allegheny County Mobile Competency Restor ation and Support Team Across the country, courts and pretrial systems are confronting a growing competency crisis. Individuals with serious mental illness who are found not competent to stand trial can spend weeks or months incarcerated while awaiting admission to a state hospital for competency restoration. The result can be prolonged incarceration, delayed case resolution, disruption of treatment, and significant costs to both local and state systems. In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, that challenge had become impossible to ignore. In 2024 alone, individuals found not competent to stand trial spent more than 13,000 days—more than 35 years collectively—in the Allegheny County Jail while awaiting transfer to a state hospital for competency restoration. Between 2018 and 2024, the median wait for state hospital admission was 82 days. At the time, commitment to a state hospital was the county’s only option for competency restoration. Rather than accept those delays as inevitable, Allegheny County asked a different question: Could competency restoration be delivered locally, in the least restrictive setting appropriate to each individual, while still meeting the needs of the courts and protecting public safety? That question led to the creation of the Mobile Competency Restoration and Support Team (MCRST). Building a Local Solution MCRST was co-designed by the Allegheny County Department of Human Services and the Behavior Assessment Unit within Allegheny County Pretrial Services. The goal was straightforward but ambitious: provide local competency restoration services that could reduce state hospital wait times and decrease unnecessary incarceration for individuals with serious mental illness who had been found not competent to stand trial but were likely to be restored. Before developing the model, Allegheny County examined its own data. The findings demonstrated both the scope of the problem and the opportunity for a different approach. Nearly half—49%—of individuals committed to the state hospital for competency restoration had a misdemeanor as their highest charge. The county also found substantial cycling through the competency system: 30% of individuals committed to the state hospital had multiple commitments during the period reviewed, and 25% experienced multiple state hospital commitments within the same year. County leaders reviewed research, studied competency restoration models operating elsewhere in the country, and consulted extensively with evaluators, courts, the jail, public defenders, the judiciary, community providers, data analysts, and other subject-matter experts. Rather than simply replicate an existing program, Allegheny County used those lessons to develop a model specifically designed around its local needs. Meeting People Where They Are The resulting MCRST model is a multidisciplinary, mobile approach that combines mental health treatment, competency restoration, psychoeducation, case coordination, peer support, and persistent engagement. The team includes a program manager, psychiatrist, behavioral health registered nurse, certified peer specialist, dual-diagnosis licensed therapist, competency support specialist, and Justice Related Services forensic support specialist. Individuals are referred to MCRST by the Behavior Assessment Unit after being assessed as not competent to stand trial but likely to be restored and after the appropriate court order is entered. One of the program’s defining features is its mobility. Services are not tied to a single facility. MCRST can work with individuals in jail, treatment facilities, or the community, allowing the team to follow participants as their circumstances change. Treatment and case plans are individualized, and support continues through transitions until the court case is resolved and appropriate community services are established, when applicable. The program also provides 24/7 on-call crisis support and uses a level-of-care structure to determine the frequency of contact based on an individual’s current mental health needs. Participants requiring the highest level of care may receive four to six contacts each week. Even when someone is initially resistant to services, the team maintains consistent outreach. That assertive engagement philosophy is central to the model: MCRST meets people where they are rather than requiring people to fit into a predetermined service setting. From Pilot to Practice Allegheny County began a soft launch of MCRST in March 2025, initially limiting referrals to individuals in jail who had already been committed and were awaiting transfer to the state hospital, as well as individuals returning from the state hospital. Twelve people were referred during this initial phase. The program fully launched on June 1, 2025. Initially, every referred participant was incarcerated. As MCRST established credibility and trust with the courts and community partners, however, the program increasingly demonstrated that competency restoration services could be delivered safely outside of a jail or hospital. By August 2026, 52% of MCRST’s active caseload was receiving services in the community. The shift represents more than a change in location. It reflects a fundamentally different approach to competency restoration—one that separates access to treatment from unnecessary incarceration whenever the court determines that community placement is appropriate. Promising Results in the First Year The results from MCRST’s first year demonstrate the potential impact of locally designed competency restoration. The median wait for state hospital admission fell from 82 days to 43 days, meaning individuals who still required hospitalization waited approximately five weeks less than in previous years. More significantly, 55 individuals were diverted from state hospital admission because of their engagement with MCRST. Twenty-three existing state hospital commitments were rescinded because individuals were restored through MCRST services, made significant progress toward restoration, or were diverted to appropriate community-based acute treatment. Another 32 individuals who were found not competent but likely to be restored were referred directly to MCRST without first receiving a state hospital commitment—an option that did not exist before the program. For 29 individuals, the change was even more significant: they received competency restoration services entirely in the community and never had to be incarcerated to access those services. MCRST also reported 61 successful discharges during its first year. A successful discharge means the participant’s court case was resolved, the individual was released from jail to the community, outpatient treatment was established, and the person successfully reintegrated into the community. Early post-program outcomes are equally encouraging. Of 67 individuals discharged from MCRST during the first year, only four—6%—were subsequently incarcerated. Two were ordered to undergo another competency evaluation, and only one—1.5%—was again found not competent. The program has also demonstrated substantial fiscal impact. Based on the median length and daily cost of Allegheny County state hospital admissions, the 55 state hospital diversions produced an estimated $6.8 million in avoided state hospital bed costs alone—an amount exceeding the program’s operating costs even after staffing was expanded. That estimate does not include additional potential savings from reduced jail stays, transportation, sheriff staffing, and court processing delays. Lessons for Other Jurisdictions MCRST’s first year also produced lessons that may be valuable to jurisdictions considering similar approaches. One of the most immediate was the importance of planning for demand. Referral volume during the first year was 37% higher than anticipated based on the previous year, requiring Allegheny County to adjust its staffing model as implementation progressed. The experience also reinforced the value of phased implementation. Beginning with a smaller, targeted referral population gave partners an opportunity to identify problems, refine processes, and establish working relationships before expanding the program. Judicial engagement proved equally important. Judges need opportunities before implementation to understand the program, ask questions, establish expectations, and develop confidence in community-based alternatives. Collaboration with jail leadership and treatment staff is similarly essential to clarify responsibilities and ensure effective communication when participants remain incarcerated. Finally, Allegheny County emphasizes the importance of finding the right provider and staff. Building the appropriate team may require additional time and a broader recruitment strategy, but individuals who are genuinely invested in this work can make a significant difference in both implementation and outcomes. Redesigning Systems Around People For Allegheny County leaders, MCRST demonstrates what becomes possible when jurisdictions reconsider assumptions about where competency restoration must occur. “In its first year, our Mobile Competency Restoration and Support Team has shown what is possible when we redesign systems around dignity, treatment needs, and evidence. Individuals served are spending less time in jail, receiving services in the community, and returning to the competency process at dramatically lower rates, all while producing local and state cost savings greater than the program’s operating costs. We’re proud to contribute an approach that can scale and help other jurisdictions solve one of the most pervasive challenges in pretrial justice.” — Alex Jutca, Director, Allegheny County Department of Human Services MCRST Program Director Renee Madden also credits the people delivering the services: “Delivering this program has required significant effort and flexibility; I’m incredibly proud of how seamlessly the team has navigated this, with their consistent, assertive, and empathetic approach to support stability for some of the most complex patients in our county.” A Model With Lessons Beyond Allegheny County The competency crisis is not unique to Allegheny County. Jurisdictions across the country continue to struggle with increasing demand for competency services, limited forensic hospital capacity, lengthy waits, and the consequences of keeping people with serious mental illness incarcerated while they await treatment. MCRST was designed for Allegheny County, but its underlying principles are adaptable. A smaller jurisdiction might develop a smaller multidisciplinary team, combine staff responsibilities, or partner with a neighboring county. A larger jurisdiction might operate multiple teams serving different facilities or geographic areas. The precise structure can change while preserving the fundamental principle: competency restoration should occur in the least restrictive appropriate setting and should not require incarceration simply to access treatment. Allegheny County’s first-year results offer an encouraging example of what can happen when pretrial agencies, behavioral health systems, courts, jails, and community providers work together to rethink longstanding practices. For the broader pretrial field, the lesson may be larger than competency restoration itself. Meaningful system change often begins when jurisdictions examine their own data, question whether existing practices are producing the outcomes they want, bring the right partners to the table, and build alternatives around the needs of the people those systems serve. MCRST did not simply create another program. It created another pathway—one that demonstrates that improving public systems, supporting court processes, using resources responsibly, and treating people with dignity do not have to be competing goals.

Meet the NAPSA Board: Q&A Spotlight

Reflections on Culture, Mindset, and the Future of Pretrial Systems

Partnership is a word we use often in the pretrial field. But meaningful partnership is more than working alongside one another. It means sharing knowledge. Asking difficult questions. Bringing research and practice together. Creating space for different perspectives. And, perhaps most importantly, standing alongside people as they work to turn good ideas into meaningful change. A true partner does more than share your goals. A true partner helps carry the work, brings out the best in those around them, and remains beside you when the work becomes difficult. That spirit of partnership was echoed throughout the nominations submitted on behalf of this year’s recipient. NAPSA Nomination That is why the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) is proud to recognize Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research (APPR) as the 2026 Partner of the Year. Recognizing a Champion for the Pretrial Field First awarded in 2010, NAPSA’s Partnership Award recognizes a stakeholder association or individual who is a true champion for the pretrial field. The Partner of the Year Award is presented by the NAPSA Board of Directors to an organization whose collaboration with practitioners and justice system stakeholders helps advance pretrial justice. APPR exemplifies that spirit of partnership. Managed by the Center for Effective Public Policy, APPR is a national initiative working to strengthen the capacity of communities to implement fair, just, and effective pretrial practices. Its work brings together practitioners, researchers, policymakers, system leaders, and community members around a shared goal: improving pretrial systems and the outcomes they produce for people and communities. But APPR’s impact is about more than the policies it promotes or the resources it develops. It is about how the work gets done. Bridging Research and Practice One of the persistent challenges in our field is translating what we know into what we do. Research can tell us a great deal about effective pretrial systems. Law establishes the principles that should guide our decisions. Data can help us understand what is happening within our own jurisdictions. But none of those things implement themselves. Real change happens in courtrooms, pretrial offices, county meetings, data workgroups, training rooms, and conversations among people willing to examine their systems and ask whether there might be a better way. APPR helps create that bridge. Through training, technical assistance, research, practical resources, the APPR Community, the Pretrial Professional Network, and direct work with jurisdictions, APPR gives practitioners more than information. It gives them tools to put that information into practice. That distinction matters. It is one thing to tell a jurisdiction what research says. It is another to sit beside the people doing the work and help them determine what that research means for their policies, their data, their staff, their courts, and the people moving through their system. That is partnership in practice. Partnership That Produces Results APPR’s contribution to the pretrial field can perhaps best be understood through the experiences of the jurisdictions and practitioners who have worked alongside its team. For years, APPR has helped communities move from conversations about pretrial improvement to the difficult work of implementation. Its partnerships have included intensive technical assistance, implementation of the Public Safety Assessment, policy development, training, leadership development, research translation, and support for jurisdictions examining their own systems and practices. The results of those partnerships can be seen across the country. In 2020, Criminal Justice Alternatives in Wake County, North Carolina, became one of APPR’s inaugural Learning Sites. Over the next two years, APPR provided technical assistance for the county’s Pretrial Reform Project. According to Executive Director Jennifer Gibbs, that collaboration ultimately resulted in a new bond policy and six distinct areas of system-wide reform, supported by the guidance of Alison Shames and the expertise and resources of the broader APPR team. In Nebraska, APPR worked alongside pretrial leaders in both Douglas and Lancaster Counties in implementing the Public Safety Assessment. Jeff Kilpatrick and Tyrone Harper highlighted not only APPR’s assistance with implementation, but the team’s broader commitment to helping jurisdictions implement fair, effective, and data-driven pretrial practices. And in Oakland County, Michigan, APPR’s impact extended beyond a particular policy or tool. Public Services Director Barbara Hankey described technical assistance provided by Alison Shames and Kelvin Banks as instrumental in helping the county reignite a shared vision for pretrial improvement, providing guidance that was practical, thoughtful, and grounded in experience. These examples illustrate something important about APPR’s approach: The work is not done to jurisdictions; it is done with them. That philosophy is reflected in the people APPR has assembled to provide technical assistance. Its team includes professionals with years of direct experience in pretrial services who understand both the challenges and realities faced by local jurisdictions. As one nomination emphasized, that practitioner experience has allowed APPR to provide assistance that is not only informed by research, but practical, credible, and relevant to the people responsible for implementation . That experience has helped APPR earn something that cannot be created through research or policy expertise alone: Trust. And trust makes difficult conversations possible. It allows jurisdictions to examine longstanding practices honestly. It creates room to acknowledge when something is not producing the intended result. And it gives local leaders a knowledgeable partner who can help them determine not only what should change, but how to make that change achievable and sustainable. Creating a Community of Pretrial Professionals Perhaps one of APPR’s most important contributions has been its investment in the people doing this work. Pretrial professionals work in systems that can look remarkably different from one jurisdiction to another. Some programs have large teams and sophisticated data systems. Others may have only a handful of staff members—or even one person—trying to build effective practices with limited resources. Yet many of the questions we face are remarkably similar. How do we support court appearance? How do we use supervision appropriately? How do we measure whether what we are doing is working? How do we implement assessment tools with fidelity? How do we communicate effectively about pretrial justice? How do we change practices that have existed for years when research, data, or law tells us we should do something differently? APPR has helped create spaces where practitioners do not have to answer those questions alone. Through technical assistance, training opportunities, online communities, and professional networks, APPR has fostered collaboration and created opportunities for practitioners to reach beyond the boundaries of their own jurisdictions when they need ideas, guidance, or simply the perspective of someone who understands the work. As nominators from Nebraska noted, APPR’s online forum gives practitioners a place to connect with others in the field when facing challenges or seeking guidance. Those connections allow people to share resources, troubleshoot challenges, learn from one another, and recognize that innovation does not always have to begin from scratch. Sometimes the most valuable technical assistance starts with someone saying, “We struggled with that too. Here is what we learned.” That kind of connection strengthens not just individual programs, but the entire field. Giving Practitioners Tools to Lead Change APPR’s extensive collection of resources and training reflects another important principle: sustainable system change requires capacity. Jurisdictions need more than recommendations. They need practical ways to examine their current practices, understand their data, engage stakeholders, implement improvements, measure outcomes, and continuously evaluate whether those improvements are working as intended. APPR’s contributions have taken many forms. Its work has included targeted technical assistance for jurisdictions implementing the Public Safety Assessment, resources such as the Gender-Based Toolkit, mentoring opportunities for the next generation of pretrial leaders, and ongoing webinars covering issues relevant to pretrial practitioners and system decision-makers. Many of these opportunities are offered at no cost to participants, expanding access to professional development and expertise across the country. APPR has also developed resources addressing issues across the pretrial continuum—from legal principles and first appearance to pretrial services, supervision, data and performance measurement, system collaboration, community engagement, and implementation of the Public Safety Assessment. Its work encourages jurisdictions not simply to adopt a practice because it is considered a best practice, but to understand why they are doing it, implement it intentionally, and examine whether it is producing the outcomes they intended. That is how improvement becomes sustainable. The Courage to Ask Better Questions Some of the most meaningful progress in pretrial justice begins with a deceptively simple question: Why do we do it this way? Across the country, APPR has worked with jurisdictions willing to ask that question. Sometimes the answer confirms that a practice is working. Sometimes the data tells a different story. And sometimes we discover that a practice exists primarily because it has existed for a very long time. Improvement requires the willingness to look honestly at all three possibilities. APPR creates opportunities for practitioners and system leaders to examine long-standing assumptions through the lens of law, research, data, equity, and real-world experience. Just as importantly, it helps jurisdictions move from asking questions to identifying practical next steps. Because asking better questions matters. But what we do with the answers matters even more. A Steady Partner in a Changing Field The pretrial field does not operate in a vacuum. The public conversation surrounding bail, pretrial release, public safety, and justice reform has changed considerably over time. Those conversations can be complicated, and the work can become more difficult when evidence-based practices become caught in broader debates. One of APPR’s nominators specifically recognized the organization for remaining a steady, thoughtful, and trusted partner during a time when pretrial and bail reform have become increasingly challenging topics. Rather than becoming distracted by the surrounding debate, APPR has continued supporting practitioners and jurisdictions through practical, nonpartisan, and evidence-informed work. That consistency matters. Partnership is easiest when everyone agrees and progress comes quickly. The measure of a partner is often what happens when the work becomes difficult. APPR has continued to show up. Why This Partnership Matters to NAPSA NAPSA and APPR share something fundamental: a belief in the people who make up the pretrial field. Our organizations understand that advancing pretrial justice requires strong policy and sound research, but it also requires practitioners who have the knowledge, resources, professional networks, and support necessary to turn those principles into daily practice. That shared commitment has created countless opportunities for collaboration, including conference education, professional development, resource sharing, and connections among practitioners and experts across the country. APPR’s partnership with NAPSA is also reflected in the service of its people. Tara Boh Blair serves on the NAPSA Board of Directors, while Tanya Anderson serves on the NAPSA Education Committee and contributed to the development of the judicial track at this year’s conference. APPR has consistently supported NAPSA conferences through workshops, presentations, educational opportunities, and participation while also extending learning beyond the annual conference through virtual training, webinars, research summaries, and other resources. But the partnership between NAPSA and APPR extends far beyond a conference. It exists whenever research reaches a practitioner who can use it. Whenever a jurisdiction finds a resource that helps solve a problem. Whenever one pretrial professional connects with another. Whenever data causes a team to reconsider an assumption. Whenever someone leaves a training with not only a new idea, but a practical way to put that idea into action. Those moments may happen quietly, one jurisdiction or one practitioner at a time. Collectively, they move a field forward. Partnership Is How Progress Happens No single organization can advance pretrial justice alone. Not NAPSA. Not APPR. Not any court, pretrial agency, researcher, policymaker, or practitioner. The work requires all of us. It requires people willing to share what they know and equally willing to acknowledge what they still need to learn. It requires researchers who listen to practitioners and practitioners who engage with research. It requires national organizations willing to support local innovation and local leaders willing to share what they learn with the broader field. Most importantly, it requires relationships built around a common purpose. That is what APPR has helped cultivate. The nomination letters submitted for this award came from practitioners in different jurisdictions with different systems and experiences. Yet their messages were remarkably consistent: APPR has provided expertise, resources, technical assistance, professional development, connection, and—perhaps most importantly—people willing to stand beside practitioners while they do the difficult work of improving their systems. There will always be more work to do. More questions to ask. More data to examine. More practices to improve. More people to bring into the conversation. But we are better equipped to do that work because we do not have to do it alone. That is the value of partnership. And that is why NAPSA is proud to recognize Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research as the 2026 Partner of the Year. To the entire APPR team: thank you for the research you translate, the resources you create, the questions you encourage us to ask, the practitioners you connect, and the jurisdictions you walk alongside. Thank you for showing up when the work is exciting and when it is difficult. Most of all, thank you for being a partner to NAPSA and to the pretrial field. Congratulations, APPR. This recognition is well deserved.

Beyond the Credential: Why NAPSA Certification Matters to the Future of Pretrial Services

I’d like to talk with you about the intersection of public health and the criminal legal system—specifically, behavioral health and pretrial services. People detained pretrial make up a significant portion of the population in our nation’s local jails. We also know that behavioral health needs are highly prevalent among people who come into contact with the criminal legal system, including substance use disorders and mental health conditions. Often, these needs occur together. For purposes of this discussion, I will refer to them as co-occurring disorders . Those statistics matter, but the people behind them matter even more. Looking Beyond the Charge Many people entering the pretrial system face charges that do not necessarily indicate a high likelihood of new criminal activity or failure to appear. When validated pretrial assessment tools are appropriately used, they can help practitioners and courts identify individuals who have a high likelihood of remaining arrest-free and returning to court while their cases are pending. Put positively—as we are increasingly learning to do—many of the people we encounter have a high likelihood of succeeding in the community while awaiting trial. Yet many people remain detained. Courts may believe that setting what appears to be a relatively low monetary bond—$100, $250, or $500—provides a reasonable path to release. Those of us working directly with pretrial populations know that even a seemingly small amount can represent an insurmountable barrier for someone experiencing poverty. For a person choosing between rent, food, transportation, medication, or other basic necessities, there may simply be no money available for bond. Poverty does not exist independently from health. When people experience poverty, they are more likely to face unmet social determinants of health—the conditions in which people are born, live, learn, work, and age that influence their health and well-being. Those needs may include: Access to safe and stable housing Reliable access to food and clean water Transportation Employment and economic stability Access to physical and behavioral healthcare Personal and community safety Social connection and support Now picture yourself on one of the hardest days you have ever experienced. Maybe it was a final exam in college. Maybe it was going through a divorce. Maybe it was moving your family from one home to another or losing someone you loved. Now imagine navigating that same experience without stable housing, reliable transportation, employment, education, financial resources, or a strong support system. Then imagine doing it while also experiencing a serious mental health condition, substance use disorder, or both. How much harder would that hardest day become? A Public Health Issue Within the Criminal Legal System I believe it is incumbent upon us as a field to look closely at the prevalence of behavioral health needs among people entering our jails and pretrial systems. When we see the same challenges repeatedly—untreated mental health conditions, substance use disorders, housing instability, poverty, food insecurity, and limited access to healthcare—we should ask whether we are responding to an individual criminal legal problem or seeing the consequences of much larger public health and community challenges. That distinction matters. If we understand these challenges partly through a public health lens, our response begins to change. Instead of asking only, “What condition should we impose?” we can also ask: “What does this person need to succeed?” And then: “Does that need require a court condition, or is it something we can offer voluntarily through supportive services?” Those are very different questions. Treatment Should Not Require Incarceration For far too long in the United States, jails and other parts of the carceral system have become de facto points of access to behavioral healthcare for people who were unable to obtain adequate services in their communities. We have all heard some version of the same statement: “What is the largest provider of mental health services in our community?” Too often, the answer is the local jail. In Maine, where I work, that conversation frequently points to facilities such as the Cumberland County Jail. But consider what that really means. Think about the people in your own life who have never been involved in the criminal legal system. How many take medication for depression or anxiety? How many receive counseling? How many need medication or other support to focus, function, sleep, work, or manage daily life? Probably more than we realize. Now think about people you know who live with serious and persistent mental health conditions and have never been arrested. We understand that they need healthcare. Why should our understanding of behavioral health fundamentally change when the person needing care has also come into contact with the criminal legal system? Jail should not have to become the gateway to treatment. Support Without Turning Support Into a Condition Our country is moving—far too slowly, in my estimation—toward a model that better recognizes the value of supportive services for people involved in the pretrial system. The idea is relatively simple: we can help people access what they need without automatically turning every service into a condition of release. I strongly support that approach. At Maine Pretrial Services, we have been doing versions of this work for 40 years. We may not always have had a particular name for it. If pushed to describe it, I might simply call it humanity . If you met someone who had very little and you had access to resources that could help, what would you do? You would ask: “What do you need?” You might follow that with: “What can you do, and what can I do to help?” Sometimes people need treatment. Sometimes they need housing. Sometimes they need transportation, identification, food, medication, or help understanding where they are supposed to be next. Sometimes they simply need someone who knows the system to point them in the right direction. That is support. It does not always have to become supervision. Navigators—and a Larger Purpose That brings us to the growing role of navigators . Navigators can be tremendously valuable, particularly when systems are complicated and resources are fragmented. But I believe we should challenge ourselves to think beyond helping one person navigate a broken or disconnected system. What if navigation also helped us identify where the system itself needs to change? If we repeatedly encounter people who cannot find behavioral healthcare, that tells us something. If we repeatedly encounter people without stable housing, that tells us something. If transportation consistently prevents people from reaching treatment, employment, or court, that tells us something. If people routinely enter jail because community services were unavailable long before their arrest, that tells us something too. Instead of addressing each issue only after an individual has been arrested and detained, we should also be asking: What does this community need to better support the people who live here? That is the larger purpose. If communities are supported, funded, connected, and trained to respond effectively to behavioral health and social needs, they can become the center of service rather than relying on the criminal legal system to fill gaps it was never designed to fill. Moving Upstream I believe we need to move upstream. We should not wait until someone's needs have gone unmet for so long that crisis becomes the point of intervention. We should not wait until housing instability becomes homelessness. We should not wait until an untreated behavioral health condition becomes an emergency. And we should not wait until someone enters the criminal legal system before they can finally access help. The consequences of unmet needs do not necessarily stop with one person. Persistent poverty, instability, trauma, and lack of access to care can affect families and communities across generations. I was fortunate. My parents grew up during the Depression, but they had enough. And because they had enough, we could keep our eyes open and our bodies moving forward. We could go to school. We could work. We could contribute. When you do not have enough—enough food, enough safety, enough stability, enough healthcare, enough opportunity—it becomes extraordinarily difficult to do those things. We can change that. The Role of Pretrial Services None of this means pretrial services should become the behavioral health system, housing system, public health department, or social services agency. It should not be up to pretrial services to fix every unmet community need. But pretrial professionals occupy a unique position. Every day, we see where systems connect—and where they do not. We see the person who could succeed in the community if transportation were available. We see the individual whose behavioral health needs existed long before an arrest. We see the person whose housing instability makes nearly every other part of life more difficult. We see what happens when community resources are available. And we see what happens when they are not. That perspective gives our field both an opportunity and a responsibility to contribute to the conversation. We can build partnerships with public health agencies, behavioral health providers, housing organizations, peers, community-based organizations, and other local resources. We can offer voluntary connections to services without unnecessarily transforming every need into a court mandate. We can collect and share data about the barriers we repeatedly see. We can ask whether our practices support successful pretrial outcomes while preserving the presumption of innocence and using the least restrictive interventions necessary. Most importantly, we can use our proximity to the issue to advocate within our own systems for a different way of thinking. Start upstream. Build communities in which people can access help before crisis becomes criminal legal system involvement. Make treatment available because someone needs treatment—not because someone has been arrested. Create systems where support is truly support. It should not have to be the responsibility of pretrial services to solve these problems. But, as always, pretrial services aims to assist. And because we have such a close perspective on these issues, I call upon us to be among those who help change them. About the Author:

An association says a lot about itself through the people it chooses to honor. The Ennis J. Olgiati Award, established in memory of Ennis J. Olgiati and first presented in 1983, is the highest honor bestowed by the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA). It recognizes individuals and organizations whose lifetime achievements have made a lasting impact on the field of pretrial services. This year, NAPSA had the privilege of adding Tim Schnacke to that remarkable group. For those of us who know Tim, have learned from him, called him with a question, sat through one of his trainings, read his work—or received one of his famously detailed emails—it is hard to imagine someone more deserving. It is also hard to figure out where to begin when describing his impact. Tim has spent decades helping our field understand not only what we should be doing, but why. He has pushed us to understand the history behind our practices, the law beneath them, and the principles they are supposed to protect. And he has never been afraid to tell us when he thinks we need to look again. As Kennedy Spurgeon said in honoring Tim: “An Association says a lot about itself in the people it chooses to honor.” Kennedy went on to describe what selecting Tim says about NAPSA: that we respect our history, that we want to understand the legal and practical underpinnings of our work, and that we value those willing to carry the message of pretrial justice into places practitioners cannot always reach. And perhaps most fittingly for Tim, it says we don't mind “having our assumptions challenged if it shows a better path forward.” Anyone who has spent much time with Tim is probably smiling at that last part. Tim the Professional Mike Jones describes Tim as “easily the foremost pretrial legal scholar of our generation.” That is a big statement. But look at what Tim has done. His scholarship has influenced some of the most prominent university law professors writing about pretrial law. His work has helped shape legal thinking in bail litigation across the country, including cases before state and federal courts. His scholarship has influenced portions of the NAPSA Standards. For more than 15 years, Tim's work has also helped guide publications, trainings, and technical assistance provided through the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). And at the state and local level, Tim became the person people called. Line staff. Executives. Attorneys. Judges. Policymakers. Practitioners. When someone needed to understand pretrial law—or, as Tim often reminds us, “Bail and No Bail” —Tim was there. As Mike put it: “There might not be another attorney, or any professional, who has done even one of these things. Tim has done them all.” But Tim's contribution has never been just about knowing the law. It is about the way he thinks. Tim sees things other people don't always see. He can take history, law, policy, research, and practice, find connections between them, and turn those connections into ideas that practitioners can actually use. Mike describes Tim as one of those rare people whose mind truly lives “ on the balcony”— someone able to see both what is happening right in front of us and the much larger picture. And Tim has used that perspective to ask our field some difficult—and necessary—questions. He has never been particularly impressed by the explanation, “Well, that's the way we've always done it.” Instead, Tim asks us to go back to the law. Go back to the evidence. Go back to history. Go back to the principles we say we believe in. Sometimes, after pages of research and discussion, Tim can bring all of that complexity back to one remarkably simple idea: “Bail means release. No bail means no release.” That ability to strip away years of assumptions and return a complicated issue to its fundamental legal principle is quintessentially Tim. And it has changed the way many of us understand our own systems. From Scholarship to System Change Tim's ideas have never stayed confined to journal articles, conference sessions, or training rooms. They have changed systems. New Mexico provides one powerful example. When New Mexico became one of the first states in the country to move toward an in/out model of pretrial release, the state was entering new territory. There wasn't a roadmap. Tim worked alongside the late Justice Charles Daniels and the New Mexico judiciary as they figured out what that new system should look like. And in typical Tim fashion, he didn't help once and disappear. He kept coming back. He trained. He answered questions. He worked through constitutional issues. He helped with legislative questions. He helped people understand the history behind policies and the legal principles underneath them. Kelly Bradford remembers calling Tim during legislative sessions with questions about proposed legislation, constitutional issues, or the history behind a policy. No matter how busy he was, Tim made time. And he didn't just give her an answer. He gave her the answer that helped her understand. That difference tells you a lot about Tim. He wasn't interested only in helping someone solve the problem in front of them. He wanted them to understand enough to be better prepared for the next one. That is the difference between simply being an expert and being a teacher. Tim has always been both. And Then There Is Tim the Person The professional accomplishments alone would make Tim worthy of the Olgiati Award. But they aren't the whole reason so many people in this field care about him. Because then there is Tim the person. Yes, Tim is incredibly smart. His ability to research, investigate, connect ideas, and imagine possibilities is extraordinary. But there is no ivory tower here. A remarkable amount of the work that has influenced courts, national organizations, scholars, policymakers, and pretrial systems across the country has come from Tim's one-person nonprofit, working out of his basement. There is something wonderfully Tim about that. And while doing all of that, he has remained one of the most generous people you could hope to have as a colleague. Need something? Call Tim. He will stop what he is doing. He will listen. He will give you his full attention. It doesn't particularly matter whether the problem is professional or personal. And Tim doesn't just answer the question and move on. He follows up. He stays with you until the issue is resolved. That kind of generosity is harder to put on a résumé, but it may explain Tim's impact better than almost anything else. Tara Blair, who has known Tim for more than 20 years, put it beautifully: “So much of what we now teach, discuss, and take for granted in this field has Tim's fingerprints on it.” She's right. Tim's Fingerprints Are Everywhere They are in the scholarship of people he has influenced and mentored. They are in the NAPSA Standards. They are in national training and technical assistance. They are in courtrooms and legal arguments. They are in New Mexico and in jurisdictions across the country. They are in conference sessions and weeklong trainings. They are in the practitioners who sat through one of Tim's trainings and went home thinking differently about their own systems. And they are in the countless phone calls, conversations, emails, and brainstorming sessions where Tim helped someone understand something they didn't understand before. His influence has reached jurisdictions he may never visit and rooms he may never know his work entered. That is an extraordinary legacy. Over the years, Tim has been a lot of things to NAPSA and to the larger pretrial field. Historian. Educator. Legal scholar. Advocate. Advisor. Mentor. Colleague. Friend. And, as Kennedy Spurgeon affectionately described him, an occasional “agent provocateur.” We wouldn't have it any other way. A Tribute From the People Who Know Him Unfortunately, Tim wasn't able to be with us in person at the 2026 NAPSA Conference to receive the Olgiati Award. And if there is one challenge in trying to explain Tim's impact in a blog post, it is that there are simply too many people with a Tim story. So we asked some of them to help us tell his. NAPSA's special video tribute brought together colleagues and friends from across the pretrial field, including Spike Bradford; Alison Shames, Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research (APPR); Mike Jones; Holly Busby, National Institute of Corrections (NIC); Virginia Bersch, APPR; and Matthew Alsdorf, APPR. They come from different organizations, different roles, and different parts of Tim's career. But listen to their stories and a remarkably consistent picture emerges. They talk about the scholar whose work helped shape a field. The teacher who could make enormously complicated ideas understandable. The person willing to challenge assumptions when the law, history, or evidence told us we needed to think differently. And they talk about Tim the person . The mentor. The colleague. The friend. The person who made time, shared what he knew, answered the question—and then followed up to make sure you were okay. Together, their stories demonstrate something that a list of professional accomplishments never could. They show the reach of one person's willingness to teach, challenge, mentor, and give. Tim's influence isn't contained in one organization, one jurisdiction, one publication, or even one generation of pretrial professionals. It lives in the people he has taught, challenged, advised, mentored, and befriended over decades. Tara's words come back to us: “So much of what we now teach, discuss, and take for granted in this field has Tim's fingerprints on it.” The people in this video are some of those fingerprints. And they are only a few of them. Watch NAPSA's tribute to Tim Schnacke, presented at the 2026 NAPSA Conference, and hear—in their own words—what Tim has meant to the people and the field he has spent his career serving. A Lifetime of Advancing Pretrial Justice The Olgiati Award is a lifetime achievement award, but in Tim's case, “lifetime achievement” shouldn't make his contribution sound finished. It isn't. Tim's work continues every time someone he taught teaches someone else. It continues every time a practitioner asks why instead of accepting “that's how we've always done it.” It continues every time a jurisdiction goes back to the law and examines whether its practices actually reflect the principles it is trying to uphold. It continues through the standards, scholarship, training, litigation, and reforms he helped shape. And it continues in all of us who are better at this work because Tim took the time to teach us, challenge us, or answer the phone. The people Tim taught are teaching others. The people he challenged are asking better questions. The people he mentored are leading systems. And the people he helped are helping someone else. That is a legacy worthy of NAPSA's highest honor. Tara said it simply: “Nobody deserves this recognition more.” We couldn't agree more. In recognizing Tim Schnacke as the 2026 recipient of the Ennis J. Olgiati Award, NAPSA honors one of the foremost pretrial legal minds of our generation. But we also honor the person behind that scholarship—the teacher, mentor, colleague, and friend who has spent decades studying deeply, questioning thoughtfully, teaching generously, and challenging all of us to get the work right. Tim, thank you for the scholarship. Thank you for the questions. Thank you for challenging us. Thank you for answering the phone—even apparently at 6 a.m. And most of all, thank you for spending so much of your career making the rest of us better at ours. Congratulations, Tim. This one is very well deserved.

Why Communication Matters in Pretrial Justice