OCA Certification FAQs

We know there is $10M earmarked for state initiative outside of NYC.

Disbursement has yet to be decided. It will probably be on an “as-needed” basis through DCJS/OPCA. Stay tuned for updates.

Some counties already have a robust or growing supervision program. There are others who will be planning and beginning initial steps to start their program. The information received from your questionnaire will be helpful in commencing a “needs discussion” covering what can be done now; what areas will you need to create for your plan to move forward into next year and beyond.

We are moving toward better understanding of the new bail reform legislation. This will involve evolving discussion, but we should recognize the NYS Pretrial Standards 2020 that have been issued and available on NYAPSA.org. In our planning this year and beyond, we should strive to assure the best practices that these Standards advocate.

This is an important question and your participation in the questionnaire is extremely valuable in determining both statewide and individual program needs.

NYAPSA, through its education and technical assistance committees, will be an important resource along with consultation with OPCA. You may contact us for support in this area.

Some programs have a validated assessment they are already using. Others are using another jurisdiction’s assessment and collecting data to validate for their own jurisdiction. Others do not have such an assessment and are asking for statewide assistance such as existed with the Compas assessment This is an important question and there will be a statewide response based upon need expressed in the questionnaire.

Just answer if it applies anywhere in your program. So, if the question states: “Do you interview Principals?” The answer would be “YES” if there is a pre- or post-arraignment interview.

If a program does not achieve points for a specific area, it is not punitive. The Questionnaire is meant to see the status and needs of a pretrial program and the Certification level for the current year.

Everyone will be getting one of the levels of certification. No jurisdiction will be denied certification based upon points achieved.

This questionnaire is meant to have the program focus on their plan for the upcoming year and alert OCA to that program plan. NAPSA will have technical assistance (TA) available.

By asking the question in this way, it does not mean that this type of reporting would be a best practice. Do not interpreting the question as a directive.

The questionnaire score is given to earmark the existence of court/pretrial communication. How that communication is addressed is something to assess and discuss.

Yes, that would be fine.

Interpret this as meaning a second/ satellite location?

If a program specifically does a type or types of pretrial work, they count that as having a pretrial program to answer this question. As programs become more enhanced and robust, questions about services will expand.

The end of the questionnaire has each county listing the one or two initiatives they will work on over the coming year to expand the program.

You may also add who services the program, for example, probation or pretrial or other; what vendor is involved and to what extent does the vendor collect data; how is the program overseen, etc.

The question is to determine how information is shared and to whom. Sharing of information addresses confidentiality of defendant information. It also addresses to what extend information is shared and for what purpose.

Disclosure is sharing of pretrial defendant data, which a particular governmental agency or other party has requested, and where the agency or party has shown an appropriate need for such information and will only use it for the particular use for which it has been requested. There is no third-party sharing of such data, meaning they may not, in turn, share it with someone else.

It can be counted, if they were ordered with non-monetary conditions that would fall under pretrial services, but they have declined voluntary services offered. As long as there was some other outstanding aspect of the conditions that would fall within the purview of a pretrial services agency.

Thresholds have to be adjusted to make them reasonable, or more reasonable, given what we have gone through in making repeated adjustments in 2020 and 2021 regarding COVID.

Some counties now screen individuals at CAP court, so very few are screened at the jail. This may have to be discussed in your jurisdiction and changes made.

The total number per year, so it's not a floating daily average. When you look back over the timeframe as the report is compiled annually, total average number for the year is appropriate.

The transcript of Q & A webinars and other questions emailed to us will be posted on www.nyapsa.org early. All attendees of this webinar will receive a follow-up email with a link to the page when these are posted.

Different counties have their own assessment. COMPAS is no longer being used because it was not validated. The law pertains to validated risk assessments, but it doesn't say validated for your jurisdiction. Several counties have borrowed from counties that do have a risk assessment, to start somewhere, then adjust as needed.

Jurisdictions cannot charge for services related to supervision or ATI/ATD work. Connecting individuals with services would involve providing information about services that counties already provide or working with individual’s “qualified for funding” such as Medicaid, that would support them participating in treatment programs without cost to them. Services provided by pretrial should relate to addressing barriers for returning to court or compliance with supervision. It can act as a clearing house of information making connections that otherwise might not be presented to those principal/clients you are serving.

There is a possibility of such a circumstance because the person with financial means wouldn't qualify potentially for certain programs. Simultaneously defendants with means would likely have health insurance. Their health insurance would most likely include coverage for services such as substance abuse treatment. There is an issue, but it's not a strong impediment to helping individuals seek treatment, and to getting them help as part of non-monetary conditions. The monetary threshold is not at play as often. If this becomes an actual means where people are refusing to comply, or not able to comply with a court's mandate, it would be a definite topic of discussion for us to have within the state. Your data will be important.

One element that is often mentioned by the National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies is for pretrial to work with defendants to assure that they have access to insurance via navigator, etc. Some pretrial programs are asking those questions (about co-pays) and then assisting clients by directing them to facilities that would be more flexible, or have financial care packages, or charity care, or sliding scales to assist them in making an informed decision as to where they can get those services.

We do not charge for drug screens. We do not charge for our electronic monitoring component. However, we do have court orders releasing under supervision with the condition they obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation and follow program recommendation. This will be a good issue to follow – namely, are supervised persons treated adversely because they cannot afford treatment, co-pay for the treatment, or are without insurance.

Some jurisdictions have both a pre-arraignment risk assessment instrument and then a post-arraignment intake, which is used by pretrial for placement addressing need, and criminogenic factors for individuals assignment to a release-under-supervision program. Standards say it is best practices to interview individuals pre-arraignment, but also recognize that it is not always possible. For example, Monroe County does half pre-arraignment, half post-arraignment because there is no CAP Court in Monroe County. They have town and village arraignments that go on all night long. So they look for the earliest time that pretrial can meet with an individual to gather necessary information. Ideally, it would be pre-arraignment.

Pretrial should be the only one to perform pretrial risk assessment. Pretrial is the neutral party in the collection of data. This means asking the questions in the same way to everybody. Pretrial staff are trained in explaining the protocol of interview (what it is, why we are doing the questionnaire and who will get he information information) to principals, ask follow-up questions to get necessary information and the proper recording of defendant elicited information. Data collection, recording and confidentiality are key therefore important.

Efforts should continue on a local level to collaborate among the local judiciary, the administrative judges and supervising judges, prosecutors and the defense bar to educate what services and support pretrial can provide. The goal should be all parties and the court deciding to properly advocate and use pretrial supervision and services as part of the arraignment process. OCA can talk with NYAPSA also about how an individual agency can ensure they have an open line of communication with the supervising judge for their county helping judges participate and be knowledgeable about pretrial program initiatives.

There have been, and there are continuing to be judicial legal education updates on bail reform, pretrial services, and non-monetary conditions of release. OCA can talk with NYAPSA about how an individual agency can ensure they have an open line of communication with the supervising judge for their county helping judges participate and be knowledgeable about pretrial program initiatives.

Outside of New York City, there are multiple locations for arraignments. This is an issue especially during overnight. Supporting centralized arraignment parts in counties without them is one way that could at least consolidate for certain periods of the day, and have arraignments in one location as opposed to taking place in all the town village and city courts throughout our county.

We understand there are limitations, especially in jurisdictions where many local courts are each handling arraignments. Using technology and virtual interviewing and intake is one possibility for better assuring collection of data and court reporting throughout rural areas.

OCA and NYAPSA will talk about existing assessment instruments submitted. NYASPA could host a webinar and/or have available assessment information on their website. OCA prefers this information sharing directly through OCA or through NYAPSA.

No, there is not one that is preferred as a statewide tool. This is being explored, however.

There was some research from the PSA of the Arnold Foundation that was somewhat predictive. This however, makes decisions about arrested persons all paper decisions with no one speaking to the defendant. There are news articles about people being treated fairly , not as ciphers, in courtrooms and the criminal justice system. If you look at our NY State Pretrial Standards 2020, they do talk about the need and benefit of interaction with the defendant. We ask certain questions from the defendant that are predictive of their return. Other factors that support interviewing a principal - Is the person treated with more dignity; is pretrial able to give a fuller picture of the arrested Principal standing before the court; does the collection of defendant data at an earlier time enable the court to arrive at a different release decision; is the collection of pretrial data helpful for pretrial planning?

If there is a one-year provisional certification, then it will be an ongoing discussion with OCA, NYAPSA and with other stakeholders across the state about how can we advocate for more support. We will all learn and must make adjustments with respect to the certification survey once it is actually completed. We will all learn with respect to the certification survey once it is actually completed. I would not want to say you should anticipate any outcome until we have one full set of data that shows where counties fall on the continuum of certification, and how it needs to be adjusted to make it as fair and helpful process for growth as possible.

Anyone who completes the certification survey, the addendum, provides the statutorily required data, or the annual data reporting that bail reform mandates, and is committed to attempting pretrial initiatives with resources they are provided to carrying out pretrial services in their county, is not in danger of being denied certification. The questionnaire helps to collect the information and looking at state and national standards and what is being done currently.

Part of what this survey, and the addendum, are trying to understand is the breakdown of where those interviews are taking place, or when those interviews are taking place. OCA does not have a dataset on this. About the second half of the question, information on the assessments could be helpful in determining arrestee reporting frequency.

Remember: The risk assessment should be measuring appearance rate on the pre-arraignment or post-arraignment population.

One will be more of a public document, to aid the court, in deciding. The secondary is more of an internal document, which puts the person on a standard with regular types of supervision or enhanced supervision.

It means that the program would look at the survey and choose three areas of focus. By the next year or two the jurisdiction would make improvements in providing those services in line with the state and national standards. It does not mean there has to be guarantee it is achieved since there may be elements needed beyond the program control.

It's a promise to be mindful of, and to do, what is within the powers of the agency to improve on that area. It’s an exercise in self-reflection. All the questions are based upon the state standards.

That’s one way to reach out. The other way is to go to the website and directly contact the person who is your regional director, one of the board close to your location, or any Board member.

Take elements from an RAI that that is being used in another jurisdiction. That way you are using something that has been tested and is showing some validation for that jurisdiction. This shows how one validated tool can start in one jurisdiction, but assist other jurisdictions in using that basic information, then gather that information from its own arrestee population and eventually validate it against your own particular population. This cuts down on the initial background and footwork you must do for a validation. Remember: It takes a while to collect your own data — perhaps one or two years. Most programs cannot handle the validation research in-house, it is often done through a university. National best practice is that programs validate their risk assessment about every five years after the initial validation.

Perhaps the research department at a local university. For example, Niagara University was very gracious to validate Niagara County’s instrument. Sue Mowrey of Washington County Pretrial & NYAPSA Secretary can provide further information if you are interested. smowrey@washingtoncountyny.gov

You can use many questions from various assessments, if you think they're well related to your jurisdiction. Several counties looked at New York City questions and determined several questions were significant for their county.

Please note: An initial pre-arraignment intake is done most of the time, and that is simply the risk assessment instrument that looks at failure to appear. However, a secondary, complete intake can be done if the defendant is ordered for Release Under Supervision. This second assessment is for Pretrial use only: It is a mini psychosocial, so to speak which looks at criminogenic and what level of supervision or conditions may be necessary to make sure that the person returns to court. It also encourages the person you are working with to disclose more information as to referrals that may be helpful in their life but may not be needed as a condition for them returning to court. An example of that would be somebody who uses drugs regularly but has never had a failure to appear. It does not interfere with them getting a job. Pretrial will not make treatment a condition of them returning to court because it does not impact their ability. So Pretrial might talk with them about a referral and, and their use, but Pretrial would not necessarily make that a condition.

Yes. The questions about the communications with the court and the recommendations from the agency are not dependent upon having a validated risk assessment instrument you use. If you use any kind of an interview, and we make a report and communicated to the court, then you should answer “yes” to capture that court pretrial service interaction.

Hopefully by mid-April OCA would have some results to release back to the agencies. And that would give us also enough time to see the actual results. We need to determine whether at this stage questionnaire information would cause OCA to rethink the point allocations or the threshold level. If the response of some programs is delayed there may be OCA delays to have a complete picture before we release anything.

Go with the range, the distance to the furthest court versus the closest court, and then indicate the number of courts you cover.

The original email that came with the letter has the survey link (also see above). Lisa Mangal, OCA Department of Technology, is the individual that is the caretaker of the data and the website lmangal@nycourts.gov.

Please note: The key benefits of taking a questionnaire like this is to get a better picture about the state of pretrial practice in the state, and, as an association, NYAPSA may offer the technical assistance needed individually.

No. There should however be a written protocol that interview staff can recite or explain telling the purpose or reason pretrial questions are being asked and who will have access to them. Please see NY State Pretrial Release Standards 2020 (www.nyapsa.org for more information.) When a person gets arrested, he is without an attorney, and he is informing pretrial personnel.

There should be a pretrial policy regarding sharing of information. Please consult the confidentiality section in the NY State Pretrial Release Standards 2020.

Talking about mission statement for pretrial was very important in developing the certification process. If you are a program ​that is under a larger umbrella, for example, a pretrial program under probation, or under some other forum such as the Sheriff's office, the mission statement cannot be one size fits all. There must be something that addresses what Pretrial does for people at the pre- and post-arraignment phase in the system.

Another important issue is Pretrial website information. The pretrial website, or website page in a larger website, should be prominently displayed and user friendly. Pretrial contact Information, or instructions for one-click to access contact information, should be on the home page.