You are on page 1of 50

Ijay Consulting 1

Racial Justice Improvement Project


St. Louis County, Minnesota
Outcome Evaluation Plan, revised
November 22, 2013

Introduction:

St. Louis County, Minnesota, has chosen to look at pretrial release and detention decisions as its subject
of reform. Previous data indicated that racial minorities were being detained disproportionately at the
pre-trial phase (See Dr. Weidners report in Appendix A). Additionally, the courts had a tendency to set
higher bail amounts for minority defendants. The St. Louis County Task Force (TF) created a four-
pronged approach to addressing this inequity:
1) The TF assessed the new pretrial assessment tool used by Arrowhead Regional Corrections
(ARC) to be utilized by the courts in pretrial disposition hearings and sought expertise and
guidance from The Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) to evaluate their new modifications, and to
incorporate additional changes, if necessary, to the new pretrial assessment tool used by ARC.
2) The TF implemented changes recommended by PJI. Subsequent training was conducted for
Judges and Probation Officers to help in their understanding of this new modified tool.
3) The TF modified the pretrial release study (PRS) protocol utilized by ARC (specifically the types
of crimes for which a pretrial assessment will be conducted). The TF formulated an agreement
amongst their constituents on modification to the protocol. The TF offered training to the
Judges to ensure they thoroughly understood this change in protocol.
4) The TF developed a checklist for judges available at the bench, to assist them in their decision-
making process for pretrial orders and to facilitate consistency with Minnesota Rules of Criminal
Procedure.

Parts 1 and 2
During the early stages of the RJIP, the courts began using a new pretrial assessment tool to help
determine whether a defendant was to be released on own recognizance, released under supervision,
or detained in a local jail. The assessment tool was developed to standardize the way in which courts
looked at these defendants, in the hopes that it would provide more consistency in pretrial procedures
and reduce bias (implicit or otherwise) in the courts decisions.

In other ways, biases may also appear in who receives a pretrial release study, conducted by ARC. The
Task Force began looking for ways to standardize decisions regarding pretrial release studies, and thus
reduce bias. Thus, Parts 3 and 4 of the project were put in place.


Ijay Consulting 2
Parts 3 and 4
The TFs ultimate goal is that PRSs be conducted for all felonies in the Sixth Judicial District. The TF suggested
that the court order supervised release studies for all defendants charged with an offense calling for a
presumptive stayed sentence under the Minnesota sentencing guidelines. According to the recently established
Memorandum of Understanding:

The members of the RJIP suggest that the court order supervised release studies
for all defendants charged with an offense calling for a presumptive stayed
sentence under the Minnesota sentencing guidelines. The courts shall have
discretion to order supervised release studies for people charged with presumed
commits or whom have holds on them from other jurisdictions.

Please see the Task Forces Memorandum of Understanding in Appendix B.

The courts have discretion to order supervised release studies for people charged with presumed commits or
who have holds on them from other jurisdictions.

The TF recommended that defendants charged with presumed stays should either be released on their own
recognizance (ROR) or receive a supervised release (SR) study; and that SR studies and supervised release orders
should be substantially reduced for people facing gross misdemeanors and misdemeanors. Supervised release
should be completely eliminated for people facing petty misdemeanors [there are already very few of these
the project wants to ensure that there are none].

Due to current resource and staffing levels, ARC cannot expand studies for felonies without reducing the
number of studies done in other areas. The TF has identified non-person misdemeanor offenses, as well as gross
misdemeanors appearing after arrest, as charges for which a reduced number of pretrial release studies can be
conducted without compromising community safety. Under the terms of this plan, the parties agree to increase
the number of felony pretrial release studies, decrease the number of pretrial release studies for misdemeanors
and gross misdemeanors, and eliminate pretrial release studies for petty misdemeanors.

The following model provides a graphical representation of the reforms and their impacts on racial disparities in
the pretrial detention and bail system.



Reduced disparities
in detention rates
and bail amounts
Increased resources
for felony SR studies
Valid pre-trial
assessment tool
Reduced bias/
increased quality in
felony SR studies
Reduced implicit
bias by the court
Ijay Consulting 3

This evaluation plan will address each part of the St. Louis County program.

Part 5
The TF worked with judges, ARC, and other stakeholders to develop a checklist meant to standardize
arraignment decisions. The checklist included a list of the factors from the Minnesota Rules of Criminal
Procedure (Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6.02, Subd. 2,) to be considered for pretrial release.

Appendix C contains the Judges Pretrial Release Considerations checklist.


Proposed Evaluation Plan

In order to determine the efficacy of St. Louis Countys reformed pretrial assessment system, before, during and
after reform measurements will need to be in place. The focus of the evaluation will be on determining the
number of felony pretrial release studies conducted before and after the reform effort and the final stage in the
reform model. The long-term goal is to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in detention and bail setting.

Raw data which were collected by Dr. Robert Weidner, the Pretrial Justice Institute and ARC will be used to
provide a picture of pretrial release before the implementation of the new pretrial assessment tool. Those data
will be compared with data collected after the initial implementation of the assessment tool and again six
months after the implementation of the prerelease study protocol.

To assess the impact of the use of the new assessment tool, type of pre-trial assessments, and the detention
rates of felony defendants, a series of nonparametric statistical analyses will be conducted, including frequency
and descriptive analyses and chi-squares. These analyses will allow for a comparison in detention rates of
minorities versus Whites, before and after the implementation of the reforms.

These data will be compared to six months worth of data collected after the revised tool was put into place.
Specifically, a comparison between American Indian, Blacks, and Whites will be compared. If the revised tool
and new protocol are effective, fewer individuals of color will be detained prior to trial after the reforms have
taken place than in the baseline phase. These comparisons will indicate whether the pretrial detention tool was
effective in reducing racial disparities in pretrial detention orders.

In addition to the collection and analysis of the archival data, judges will be asked to complete a questionnaire
immediately after an arraignment for which the checklist is used, which will include: factors that went into their
bail/ROR/detention decisions; judges experience with the checklist; and training needs judges might have.
Judges will complete the questionnaires at arraignments held between December 2013 and February 2014.

Appendix D contains the questionnaire.

As with the archival data, a series of nonparametric statistical analyses will be conducted on the questionnaire
data, including frequency and descriptive analyses and chi-squares. Further, judges responses to the
questionnaire will be compared to judges interview responses collected at the beginning of the project.

Ijay Consulting 4
Lastly, data will be gathered and an assessment made for the percentage of pretrial release studies conducted
for those charged with felony offenses. This will be compared to the baseline data (the number of pretrial
release studies conducted prior to the signing the Memorandum of Understanding) to determine whether more
focus was put on increasing studies for felony offenses, when resources were freed up


Ijay Consulting 5


















APPENDIX A
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PRETRIAL DETENTION & RELEASE DECISIONS IN
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MN, IN 2009 & 2010:
INTERIM FINDINGS
(Please see included report)

Ijay Consulting 6


















APPENDIX B
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Ijay Consulting 7
Introduction
In 2010 the American Bar Association chose St. Louis County as one of four pilot sites around
the country to address racial disparities in the criminal justice system. A task force of criminal
justice practitioners and community members has been working for over two years to explore
issues in pretrial decision-making in St. Louis County. The Racial Justice Improvement Project
(RJIP) has collected and analyzed data, interviewed all of the judges in the county, and met
numerous times to try to determine the extent of racial disparities and to identify possible
policy-based solutions to what we have found.

Objectives
As a result of this work, the RJIP has decided to focus on pretrial release issues in the
jurisdiction. The key stakeholders involved in the work include:
Sixth Judicial District, represented by Honorable John De Santo
Arrowhead Regional Corrections, represented by Kay Arola and Wally Kostich
6
th
District Public Defender, represented by Fred Friedman
St. Louis County Attorneys Office, represented by Mark Rubin
Duluth Police Department, represented by Robin Roeser
St. Louis Countys community of color, represented by Donna Ennis

According to Arrowhead Regional Corrections, x number of pretrial release studies are done
for the felonies in the Sixth Judicial District. (what percentage of felonies) The members
of the RJIP suggest that the court order supervised release studies for all defendants charged
with an offense calling for a presumptive stayed sentence under the Minnesota sentencing
guidelines. The courts shall have discretion to order supervised release studies for people
charged with presumed commits or whom have holds on them from other jurisdictions.

The RJIPs ultimate goals are that people who are charged with presumed stays should either
be released on their own recognizance (ROR) or receive a supervised release (SR) study; SR
studies and SR status should be substantially reduced for people facing gross misdemeanors
and misdemeanors. SR should be completely eliminated for people facing petty misdemeanors.

Ijay Consulting 8
Due to current resource and staffing levels, ARC cannot expand studies for felonies without
reducing the number of studies done in other areas. The RJIP has identified non-domestic,
non-violent misdemeanors, as well as gross misdemeanors appearing after arrest, as charges
for which a reduced number of pretrial release studies can be conducted without compromising
community safety. Under the terms of this plan, the parties involved agree to increase the
number of felony pretrial release studies conducted, decrease the number of pretrial release
studies conducted for misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors, and eliminate pretrial release
studies for petty misdemeanors. The RJIP will work out a mechanism agreed upon by the key
stakeholders to ensure the objective to increase pretrial release studies in felony cases.


Ijay Consulting 9
Approvals and signatures
X
Chief Judge Shaun Floerke
Sixth Judicial District
X
Honorable John DeSanto
Sixth Judicial District
X
Kay Arola
Executive Director, ARC
X
Wally Kostich
Chief Probation Officer, ARC
X
Fred Friedman
Chief Public Defender
X
Mark Rubin
St. Louis County Attorney
X
Gordon Ramsay
Chief of Police, Duluth Police Dept.
X
Robin Roeser
Deputy Chief of Police, DPD
X
Donna Ennis
Community liaison
X
Ross Litman
St. Louis County Sheriff
X
Rebecca St. George
RJIP coordinator


Ijay Consulting 10


















APPENDIX C
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PRETRIAL RELEASE CONSIDERATIONS
PRETRIAL RELEASE CONSIDERATIONS

Ijay Consulting 11
If there is a Supervised Release study on file for this Defendant for this
charge, please proceed with this checklist ONLY if there is a material
change in circumstance that would warrant another report.

If a Supervised Release study has NOT already been completed:

Does the Defendant have any holds from the Minnesota Department of
Corrections or other jurisdictions?

Is the Defendant facing murder or attempted murder charges?

If YES to either, a Supervised Release study is NOT recommended.


If ultimately found guilty, do the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines call for a
presumptive stay of execution or imposition of sentence?

Does the Defendant have a criminal history score of zero, OR does the
court have the Defendants most recent Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines
worksheet score?

If YES to both, and the Defendant is NOT Released on his/her Own
Recognizance, a Supervised Release study should be ordered.


Was the Defendant granted supervised release or released on her/his own
recognizance?

If NO, the court should state its reasons either on the record, or in a
subsequent order.


PRETRIAL RELEASE CONSIDERATIONS

Ijay Consulting 12

The Racial Justice Improvement Project

http://racialjusticeproject.weebly.com/
Conditions of Release: If the Court determines that pretrial release is appropriate, please
consider the following factors under Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6.02, Subd.
2, in determining conditions of release:

(a) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged;
(b) the weight of the evidence;
(c) family ties;
(d) employment;
(e) financial resources;
(f) character and mental condition;
(g) length of residence in the community;
(h) criminal convictions;
(i) prior history of appearing in court;
(j) prior flight to avoid prosecution;
(k) the victim's safety;
(l) any other person's safety;
(m) the community's safety.

This checklist is provided to you by the
St. Louis County Racial Justice Improvement Project Task Force:

Kay Arola, Executive Director, Arrowhead Regional Corrections
Honorable John DeSanto, Judge, Sixth Judicial District
Donna Ennis, Community Member
Fred Friedman, Chief Public Defender, Sixth Judicial District
Wally Kostich, Chief Probation Officer, Arrowhead Regional Corrections
Mark Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney
Rebecca St. George, RJIP Task Force Coordinator/Community Member

For more information on the work of the Task Force or the ABA Racial Justice Improvement Project
please visit our website: http://racialjusticeproject.weebly.com/



Special thanks to Salma S. Safiedine, RJIP Project Director from the American Bar
Association, and American University Washington College of Law Professor Cynthia Jones,
former RJIP Project Director.

The American Bar Association Criminal Justice Sections Racial Justice Improvement Project
is funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance with additional support from the Public Welfare
Foundation

The Racial Justice Improvement Project

Ijay Consulting 13









APPENDIX D
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
JUDGES POST-ARRAIGNMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Ijay Consulting 14

Racial Justice Improvement Project
St. Louis County, Minnesota
Post-Checklist Questionnaire
The Racial Justice Improvement Project has created a checklist to aid in determining pretrial release decisions. Our aim
with this questionnaire is to obtain information about the utility of the checklist developed by the RJIP. Your responses will
help us improve the bail setting procedure and the checklist and will never be used against you in any way. Your responses
will remain confidential, as we are only interested in improving the checklist and identifying training needs. Please complete
the following questions for each defendant who did not have a Supervised Release Study completed.

State v. ________________________________________________________

Did you use the pretrial checklist provided by the Racial Justice Improvement Project in making your release decision?
Yes No

Was the checklist helpful?
Yes No

Was the information you received about the defendants criminal history helpful?
Yes No

Which of the following factors did you take into consideration in your release decision?
the nature and circumstances of the offense charged
the weight of the evidence
family ties
employment
financial resources
character and mental conditions
length of residence in the community
criminal convictions
prior history of appearing in court
prior flight to avoid prosecution
the victims safety
any other persons safety
the communitys safety
none of the above

Would you like training about best practices on bail setting?
Yes No

Are you willing to provide time on your schedule for such training?
Yes No

Would you like training on any other topics?
Yes No

If yes, please indicate the topic(s):


Additional comments:


Ijay Consulting 15


Ijay Consulting 16









APPENDIX E
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
DATABASE OF CASES INCLUDED IN
THE INITIAL ANALYSIS

Ijay Consulting 17
DateofBirth Gender Description PTRRecommendation Judge's Decision St.LouisCountyOffice
ProbationOffice
rCode ProbationOfficerLastName
12-Sep-1975 F
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat Pre-Trial Accept placed on ptr St. Louis County-Duluth 6JS Serre
13-Aug-1970 M
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat Pre-Trial Accept placed on ptr St. Louis County-Duluth 3SJ Johnson
23-Nov-1976 M
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat Pre-Trial Reject rejected for pretrial release St. Louis County-Duluth 2SJ Johnson
05-Nov-1980 M Black Pre-Trial Reject rejected for pretrial release St. Louis County-Duluth 5LK Koster
08-Sep-1965 M Black Pre-Trial Reject rejected for pretrial release St. Louis County-Duluth 6AS Stevens
05-Dec-1958 M White Pre-Trial Accept placed on ptr St. Louis County-Duluth 6TK Kimball
05-Dec-1958 M White Pre-Trial Reject rejected for pretrial release St. Louis County-Duluth 6RL Langdon
14-Feb-1958 M White Pre-Trial Reject rejected for pretrial release St. Louis County-Duluth 6RL Langdon
24-Jul-1958 M
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat Pre-Trial Accept
offered pt release - client
chose to post bail of $5,000 St. Louis County-Hibbing 7RH Hooper
25-Sep-1982 M
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat Pre-Trial Reject rejected for pretrial release St. Louis County-Hibbing 7DF Wiener
24-Dec-1984 M
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat Pre-Trial Reject rejected for pretrial release St. Louis County-Hibbing 7PJ Johnston
24-Jan-1967 M Black Pre-Trial Accept placed on ptr St. Louis County-Hibbing 6RL Langdon
29-Jun-1976 F Black Pre-Trial Accept
order for release (deceased
9/14/10) St. Louis County-Hibbing 7DF Wiener
29-Jun-1976 F Black Pre-Trial Accept
order for release (deceased
9/14/10) St. Louis County-Hibbing 7DF Wiener
19-Nov-1974 M White Pre-Trial Reject rejected for pretrial release St. Louis County-Hibbing 7DF Wiener
02-Dec-1962 M White Pre-Trial Accept placed on ptr St. Louis County-Hibbing 7PJ Johnston
16-Jun-1971 M White Pre-Trial Accept placed on ptr St. Louis County-Hibbing 7JP Passeri
24-Dec-1971 F
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat Pre-Trial Accept placed on ptr St. Louis County-Virginia 8LA Anderson
15-May-1968 M
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat Pre-Trial Accept placed on ptr St. Louis County-Virginia 8JG Gherardi-Danich
15-May-1968 M
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat Pre-Trial Accept placed on ptr St. Louis County-Virginia 8LSW Westberg
18-Apr-1976 M Black Pre-Trial Accept placed on ptr St. Louis County-Virginia 6EA Abrahamsen
30-Jul-1974 F Black Pre-Trial Accept placed on ptr St. Louis County-Virginia 8SE Carlson
10-Feb-1986 M Black Pre-Trial Accept placed on ptr St. Louis County-Virginia 8SE Carlson
12-May-1948 F White Pre-Trial Accept placed on ptr St. Louis County-Virginia 8WF Frederickson
29-May-1981 M White Pre-Trial Reject rejected for pretrial release St. Louis County-Virginia 6JS Serre



Ijay Consulting 18

Dob Gender Race Recommendation Judges order Courthouse POlastname
POfirstnam
e
12/13/73 m american indian pre-trial reject JUDGE ROR'D 69du-cr-11-2892
St. Louis
County - Duluth jezierski maggie
9/28/86 m american indian pre-trial reject bonded out 69du-cr-11-2817
St. Louis
County - Duluth borchert Ken
10/8/88 f american indian pre-trial reject
bond posted and
released to
attend chemical
dependency
treatment 69du-cr-10-3201
St. Louis
County - Duluth kantonen John
12/31/92 m black Pre-Trial Reject
placed on
pretrial release 69du-cr-11-3568
St. Louis
County - Duluth Langdon Rian
2/26/62 M black Pre-Trial Reject JUDGE ROR'D 69du-cr-10-1412
St. Louis
County - Duluth
Jeanetta
Kantonen Jeanne
4/5/65 m black Pre-Trial Reject
rejected for
pre-trial
release 69du-cr-11-2888
St. Louis
County - Duluth Pogatchnik Becky
8/5/46 m white pre-trial reject
initially
rejected for
pre-trial
release; 2.5
months later,
placed on PTR to
attend chemical
dependency
treatment 69du-cr-11-3034
St. Louis
County - Duluth langdon Rian
3/18/52 m white Pre-Trial Accept JUDGE ROR'D 69du-cr-11-3221
St. Louis
County - Duluth Abrahamsen Eldon
8/19/58 m white Pre-Trial Reject JUDGE ROR'D 69-du-cr-12-308
St. Louis
County - Duluth Pogatchnik Becky
1/21/79 M American Indian Pre-Trial Accept
place on
pretrial release 69HI-CR-841
St. Louis
County -
Hibbing Hooper Ronald
9/27/82 M American Indian Pre-Trial Accept
This was a
"Failure to
Appear" warrant:
client placed
back on pretrial
release with
conditions
modified by
court 69HI-cr-11-812
St. Louis
County -
Hibbing Johnston Polly

Ijay Consulting 19
Dob Gender Race Recommendation Judges order Courthouse POlastname
POfirstnam
e
9/27/82 M American Indian Pre-Trial Accept
placed on
pretrial release 69hi-cr-11-812
St. Louis
County -
Hibbing Johnston Polly
2/10/67 M Black Pre-Trial Reject
rejected for
pre-trial
release 69hi-cr-09-222
St. Louis
County -
Hibbing Johnston Polly
6/30/70 M Black Pre-Trial Reject
rejected for
pre-trial
release - remain
held for North
Dakota Violation
of
Probation/Warran
t 69hi-cr-12-13
St. Louis
County -
Hibbing Johnston Polly
3/4/83 M Black Pre-Trial Reject
rejected for
pre-trial
release 69-hi-cr-11-787
St. Louis
County -
Hibbing Johnston Polly
6/29/87 M white Pre-Trial Reject
rejected for
pre-trial
release 69hi-cr-11-786
St. Louis
County -
Hibbing Passeri Jeff
3/19/90 M white Pre-Trial Accept
placed on
pretrial release 69-hi-cr-12-4
St. Louis
County -
Hibbing Hooper Ronald
4/30/74 F american indian Pre-Trial Accept
placed on
pretrial release 69-vi-cr-11-1567
St. Louis
County -
Virginia
Gherardi-
Danich Jeriann
10/7/75 M american indian Pre-Trial Reject
rejected for
pretrial release 69-vi-cr-11-862
St. Louis
County -
Virginia Papin Sam
12/20/75 M american indian Pre-Trial Accept
placed on
pretrial release 69-vi-cr-11-1497
St. Louis
County -
Virginia
Gherardi-
Danich Jeriann
5/4/75 M black Pre-Trial Accept
placed on
pretrial release 69-vi-cr-11-1413
St. Louis
County -
Virginia Frederickson Will
12/16/81 M black Pre-Trial Accept
placed on
pretrial release 69-vi-cr-11-1419
St. Louis
County -
Virginia Westberg Lara

Ijay Consulting 20
Dob Gender Race Recommendation Judges order Courthouse POlastname
POfirstnam
e
9/1/46 M white Pre-Trial Accept
placed on
pretrial release 69-vi-cr-11-1739
St. Louis
County -
Virginia Papin Sam
10/18/47 M white Pre-Trial Accept
placed on
pretrial release 69-vi-cr-11-1495
St. Louis
County -
Virginia Westberg Lara
11/30/55 F white Pre-Trial Accept
placed on
pretrial release 69-vi-cr-11-1440
St. Louis
County -
Virginia Drobnick Phillip



Ijay Consulting 21

DateOfBirth Gender RaceDescription levelofoffense OffenseDescription acceptreject
judge's
decision dateofptrassessment ptrscore ptrassessor
10-Jun-1979 M
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat gm
obstructing legal
process reject
rejected for
pre-trial
release 12-Apr-2013 55 6rl
03-Oct-1989 F
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat gm
obstructing legal
process accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 28-Mar-2013 22 6kjb
10-Jan-1969 F
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat f Theft Related
reject-JUDGE
ORDERED ROR judge ror'd 27-Mar-2013 30 6RL
10-Jan-1975 M Black f
Terroristic
Threats accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 05-Apr-2013 18 6ejc
23-Feb-1968 M Black f Domestic Assault accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 15-Apr-2013 46 6jw
28-Apr-1972 M Black gm vio of ofp accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 09-Apr-2013 41 6tm
18-Nov-1981 M White gm Dwi accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 23-Apr-2013 08 6MJ
19-Sep-1963 M White gm Dwi accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 19-Mar-2013 21 6bt
01-Feb-1974 M White f
Terroristic
Threats accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 03-Apr-2013 27 6TK
23-Jan-1985 F
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat f Crim Veh Operation accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 23-Apr-2013 26 7KZ
19-Oct-1980 F
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat f Drugs accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 19-Apr-2013 39 7KH
22-Jul-1962 m White f drugs reject
rejected for
pre-trial
release 25-Apr-2013 68 7jp
29-Oct-1954 F White f Drugs reject
rejected for
pre-trial
release;
active
warrant in
Itasca
County 29-Apr-2013 29 7JP
16-Sep-1958 M White f Drugs accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 26-Mar-2013 22 7JP

Ijay Consulting 22
DateOfBirth Gender RaceDescription levelofoffense OffenseDescription acceptreject
judge's
decision dateofptrassessment ptrscore ptrassessor
30-Dec-1966 M White f Drugs
reject (actually
on scoring page
gave "no
recommendation";
on memo
recommended
rejection until
client has c.d.
evaluation &
follows
recommendations
rejected for
pre-trial
release 14-Mar-2013 17 7kh
26-Jun-1993 F
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat f Drugs accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 22-Apr-2013 17 8BP
29-Dec-1976 M
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat gm Domestic Assault accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 05-Mar-2013 40 8LSW
06-Oct-1976 F
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat f Assault accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 04-Mar-2013 21 8ew
06-Oct-1976 F
Am Ind/Alaskan
Nat f Assault accept
this charge
resulted in
prior PTR
being
revoked;
judge placed
back on PTR
w/ new
conditions 15-Apr-2013 21 8la
11-Dec-1968 M Black m disorderly conduct accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 03-Apr-2013 6 8jg
26-Jul-1989 M Black m Domestic Assault accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 22-Mar-2013 15 8se
10-Jun-1991 M Black gm
contrib to delinq
of minor accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 29-Apr-2013 18 8SE
15-Oct-1976 m White gm dwi accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 15-Mar-2013 6 8AGR
03-Sep-1983 M White m Dwi accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 02-Apr-2013 4 8ds
23-Jul-1984 M White f Assault accept
placed on
pre-trial
release 09-Apr-2013 18 8sp





ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA

RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT:
PRETRIAL RELEASE REFORM

YEAR 2 EVALUATION FINDINGS



PREPARED FOR:
The American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section

BY:
Inga James, MSW, PhD

Ijay Consulting
8407 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 2
Takoma Park, Maryland 20912
301.476.1299
www.ijayconsulting.com
APRIL 6, 2014


Ijay Consulting
24

Introduction and Background
St. Louis County, Minnesota, has chosen to look at pretrial release and detention decisions as
its subject of reform. Previous data indicated that racial minorities were being detained
disproportionately at the pretrial phase. During this phase of the project, the St. Louis County
Task Force (TF) created a four-pronged approach to addressing this inequity:
1) Provided implicit bias training for county judges and probation officers;
2) Created a policy to reduce the number of required supervised release reports to include
only felonies and gross misdemeanors;
3) Created a new risk assessment tool for probation officers writing supervised release
studies;
4) Provided training to probation officers about use of the risk assessment tool.
The TFs ultimate goal is that pretrial release studies (PRS) be conducted for all felonies in the
Sixth Judicial District. The TF suggested that the court orders supervised release studies for all
defendants charged with an offense calling for a presumptive stayed sentence under the
Minnesota sentencing guidelines. The courts have discretion to order supervised release
studies for people charged with presumed commits or who have holds on them from other
jurisdictions.
The TF recommended that defendants charged with presumed stays should either be released
on their own recognizance (ROR) or receive a supervised release (SR) study; and that SR studies
and supervised release orders should be substantially reduced for people facing gross
misdemeanors and misdemeanors. Supervised release should be completely eliminated for
people facing petty misdemeanors [there are already very few of these the project wants to
ensure that there are none].
Due to current resource and staffing levels, ARC cannot expand studies for felonies without
reducing the number of studies done in other areas. The TF has identified non-person
misdemeanor offenses, as well as gross misdemeanors appearing after arrest, as charges for
which a reduced number of pretrial release studies can be conducted without compromising
community safety. Under the terms of this plan, the parties agreed to increase the number of
felony pretrial release studies, decrease the number of pretrial release studies for

Ijay Consulting
25

misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors, and eliminate pretrial release studies for petty
misdemeanors.
According to a document provided by the TF, judges are very deferential to the
release/detention recommendations of the probation officers, and if probation officers do not
recommend supervised release, that recommendation is generally honored by the court.







Ijay Consulting
26

Methods
Procedure
Assessing reduction in disparities in detention rates. In order to determine the efficacy of St.
Louis Countys reformed pretrial assessment system, before, during and after reform
measurements were required. The focus of this evaluation was on the final stage in the reform
model: Reduced disparities in detention rates.

To assess the impact of the independent variables, use of the new assessment tool and type of
pretrial assessments, and the detention rates of felony defendants, a series of nonparametric
statistical analyses will be conducted, including frequency and descriptive analyses and chi-
squares. These analyses will allow for a comparison in detention rates of minorities versus
Whites, before and after the implementation of the reforms.

These data were compared to data collected after the revised tool was put into place.
Specifically, a comparison between American Indian, Blacks and Whites were compared. If the
revised tool and new protocol are effective, fewer individuals of color will be detained prior to
trial in the baseline phase than after the reforms have taken place. These comparisons will
indicate whether the pretrial detention tool was effective in reducing racial disparities in
pretrial detention orders.

Assessing the use of the checklist by judges. After the implementation of the checklist, judges
were surveyed about their pre-trial decision making process (See Appendix D for the complete
survey questionnaire). Both the interviews and questionnaire focused on what factors were
used in the judges pretrial decision making. Additionally, the post-checklist questionnaire
asked about perceived need for training.

Sample

Assessing reduction in disparities in detention rates. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in
2012, 93.0% of St. Louis County residents identified themselves as White or Caucasian, 2.3%
identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, and 1.9% identified as Black or African American.
However in the randomly selected sample of pretrial defendants in the county, American

Ijay Consulting
27

Indian/Alaska Native made up 37% of the defendant population, 28% were Black/African
American, and 25% were White/Caucasian.
1


Three samples were randomly identified from three universes of individuals arraigned in St.
Louis County. The samples were drawn from pre-trial release reports during the following time
periods:
Pre-training phase: Prior to probation officer training, between the dates of January 1
and December 30, 2010;
Interim phase: after the implicit bias training, between the dates of September 1, 2011
and January 30, 2012; and
Post-training phase: After the training about the new Supervised Release Study protocol
in February 2103, between the dates of March 1 and April 30, 2013.

The total sample had 75 members, 25 in each phase
2
.
There were no statistically significant differences between the three groups in either gender or
race/ethnicity. On the other hand, post-training probation officers were significantly more likely
to recommend pre-trial release than the officers in the earlier two samples.
3


Table 1. Sample characteristics by sample group.
Pre-Training
Phase
n (%)
Interim Phase
n (%)
Post-Training
Phase
n (%)
Total
n (%)
Gender
Male 19 (79%) 22 (88%) 16 (64%) 57 (77%)
Female 5 (21%) 3 (12%) 9 (36%) 17 (23%)
Race
American Indian/Alaska Native 9 (38%) 9 (36%) 9 (36%) 27 (37%)
Black/African American 7 (29%) 8 (32%) 6 (24%) 21 (28%)
White/Caucasian 8 (33%) 8 (32%) 10 (40%) 26 (35%)
Probation Officer Recommendation
Pre-trial release recommended 12 (46%) 12 (48%) 21 (84%) 48 (65%)
Pre-trial release not recommended 9 (37%) 13 (52%) 4 (16%) 26 (35%)

1
Whether this indicates a racial disparity in arrests or prosecutions is open for future examination. However, the
data point to a racial/ethnic disparity in the number of individuals brought before the court for arraignment.
2
Please note that caution should be used in interpreting these results due to the small sample size.
3

2
(2, N=74) = 7.19, p = .027

Ijay Consulting
28


Table 2. Sample characteristics by courthouse location.
Duluth
n (%)
Virginia
n (%)
Hibbing
n (%)
Gender
Male 22 (85%) 18 (69%) 17 (77%)
Female 4 (15%) 8 (31%) 5 (23%)
Race
American Indian/Alaska Native 9 (35%) 10 (35%) 8 (36%)
Black/African American 8 (30%) 8 (31%) 5 (23%)
White/Caucasian 9 (35%) 8 (31%) 9 (41%)
Probation Officer Recommendation
Pre-trial release recommended 12 (46%) 24 (92%) 12 (55%)
Pre-trial release not recommended 14 (54%) 2 (8%) 10 (45%)

There were no statistically significant differences in gender and race/ethnicity among the three
sites. However, probation officers recommended pretrial release significantly more often in
Virginia than in the other two locations.
4

Assessing the use of the checklist by judges. Twelve of the total 16 sitting judges participated in
the post-implementation survey. Eight completed the survey electronically and returned it to
the project evaluator, while four completed it by telephone. One judge declined to participate
and three were unreachable at the time of this writing.

Appendix A contains the checklist currently in use by St. Louis County judges, and Appendix B
contains the Post-Checklist Questionnaire.


4

2
(2, N=74) = 13.61, p = .001

Ijay Consulting
29

Results
Assessing reduction in disparities in detention rates. There were no significant differences in the
probation officers recommendation for pretrial release by race/ethnicity, either in total or at
each of the three data points. In other words, pretrial release recommendations did not vary by
race or ethnicity at any of the data collection times.
However, judges orders did vary by geographic location in that individuals seen at the Virginia
courthouse were significantly more likely to be placed on supervised release than were
defendants appearing at the other courthouses.
5
Please see Table 3 for additional information.
Table 3. Judges orders by location.
Duluth
n (%)
Virginia
n (%)
Hibbing
n (%)
Total
n (%)
Judges Pretrial Order
Released on Own Recognizance (ROR) 5 (19%) 0 0 5 (7%)
Placed on Supervised Release 11 (42%) 23 (88%) 9 (43%) 43 (59%)
Denied Supervised Release 7 (27%) 2 (8%) 8 (38%) 17 (23%)
Bonded Out 2 (8%) 0 0 2 (3%)
Other
6
1 (4%) 1 (4%) 4 (19%) 6 (8%)

Pretrial orders did not vary by race/ethnicity when encapsulated in the total sample (see Table
4).
Table 4. Judges orders by race/ethnicity.
American Indian/
Alaska Native
n (%)
Black/African
American
n (%)
White/
Caucasian
n (%)
Judges Pretrial Order
Released on Own Recognizance (ROR) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 2 (40%)
Placed on Supervised Release 15 (35%) 13 (30%) 15 (35%)
Denied Supervised Release 4 (16%) 6 (27%) 7 (38%)
Bonded Out 2 (8%) 0 0
Other 2 (8%) 2 (9%) 2 (8%)

5

2
(8, N=73) = 27.69, p = .001
6
The Other category included such dispositions as being held on a warrant from another jurisdiction and a
defendant choosing to post bond instead of being placed on supervised release.

Ijay Consulting
30


There were no statistically significant differences in judges orders across the three phases.
However, the difference did approach significance.
7
In this analysis, judges were more likely to
place defendant on supervised release after the final graduated sanctions training. Further,
judges were more likely to reject defendants for supervised release during the pre-training
phase (although, again, these data only approached significance so caution should be used in
making assumptions based on the results).

Please see Table 5 for additional detail.

Table 5. Judges orders by data collection phase.
Pre-Training
Phase
n (%)
Interim Phase
n (%)
Post-Training
Phase
n (%)
Judges Pretrial Order
Released on Own Recognizance (ROR) 0 4 (17%) 1 (4%)
Placed on Supervised Release 13 (54%) 10 (42%) 19 (76%)
Denied Supervised Release 9 (38%) 5 (21%) 3 (12%)
Bonded Out 0 2 (8%) 0
Other 2(8%) 2 (8%) 2 (8%)

There were no significant differences in the pretrial release orders by race/ethnicity at any of
the three data points. In other words, these data showed that Judges did not vary their orders
based on race or ethnicity from the pre-training phase to the post-training phase.

As can be seen in the tables presented, very few defendants were granted a release on bond (2;
.03%).

Please see Appendix C for the complete data set.

Assessing the use of the checklist by judges. Nine of 12 participating judges indicated that they
have been using the pretrial checklist. Those who did not use the form stated they were not
aware that the checklist was completed. Of those who used the checklist, all stated that it was
helpful to them in their decision making process.

Judges were also asked what factors they took into consideration when making pretrial release
and detention decisions. Based on Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6.02, Subd. 2,

7

2
(10, N=73) = 17.54, p = .063; Approaching significance - the cut-off for statistical significance is a p equal to or
less than .05.

Ijay Consulting
31

judges were asked about the 13 factors listed in the rule and whether they were useful in
making their decisions. Table 6 provides detail about the judges responses, with one column
detailing the number of judges who indicated they do take the factor into consideration in their
decisions and another column showing the number who do not.

As can be seen from Table 6, all participating judges take into consideration the following
factors:
Criminal convictions;
Prior history of appearing in court;
Prior flight to avoid prosecution;
The victims safety; and
Any other persons safety.

Nearly all judges also take into consideration the nature of the circumstances of the offense
charged. The individual who answered no to that question stated that this type of information
was generally not available at the arraignment phase.

Factors that were not taken into consideration by the majority of the participating judges
included the weight of the evidence and the defendants financial resources. Several, though
not the majority, of the judges also stated that they also do not consider the following factors:
Family ties;
Employment; and
Length of residence in the community.

Table 6. Factors taken into consideration by pretrial judges.
Factor to be taken into consideration Yes No
Nature of the circumstances of the offense charged (n = 12) 11 1
Weight of the evidence (n = 11) 4 7
Family ties (n = 11) 8 3
Employment (n = 11) 7 4
Financial resources (n = 11) 4 7
Character and mental conditions (n = 11) 10 1
Length of residence in the community (n = 11) 8 3
Criminal convictions (n = 11) 11 0

Ijay Consulting
32

Factor to be taken into consideration Yes No
Prior history of appearing in court (n = 11) 11 0
Prior flight to avoid prosecution (n = 11) 11 0
The victims safety (n = 11) 11 0
Any other persons safety (n = 11) 11 0
The communitys safety (n = 11) 10 1

Fewer than half (6 judges) indicated on the post-checklist survey that they would like additional
training on best practices on bail setting. Only two judges stated that they would like training
on other subjects, although neither elaborated on what type of training they desired.

Please see Appendix D for the complete data set.

Project Update:

On March 27, 2014, Arrowhead Regional Corrections submitted an update to the project. The
following was noted:
1) Nearly every individual incarcerated on a felony charge is now being screened for
pretrial release, resulting in an 11% increase from 2010 until 2013;
2) The majority of clients recommended for pretrial release climbed by four percentage
points, from 75% to 79%, between 2010 and 2013;
3) In July 2013, Arrowhead Regional Corrections received a grant of $571,761 from St.
Louis County to expand intensive pretrial release and community sanctions supervision
services. As a result, 50 pretrial clients, who would otherwise be incarcerated, were
placed on intensive pretrial release, saving more than $175,000 in jail costs.
Additionally, two Community Sanctions Program probation officers carry caseloads of
35-45 of individuals who have violated conditions of their probation and are at
imminent risk of being incarcerated.

Please Appendix E for the complete Arrowhead Regional Corrections update report.

Ijay Consulting
33

Summary and Recommendations
The St. Louis, Minnesota, Task Force chose to look at pretrial release and bond amount orders
by judges in the three county courthouses. Data from the courthouses were collected across
three time periods. Results indicate that there was no disparity in the release status by
race/ethnicity or across time.

The majority of judges indicated that they use the Pretrial Release Checklist in making their
pretrial bail/detention/release decisions. Those who did not use the Checklist indicated that
they were unaware that it had been finalized.

However, probation officers who completed the final training were more likely to recommend
supervised release than were the officers at the other two points in time. Further, judges in
Virginia were more like to order supervised release than were the judges seated at the other
courthouses. Based on the results of this evaluation, we offer the following recommendations:

Ensure that all sitting judges have the updated Checklist at their disposal;
Continue to work with judges to help them utilize the newly created Pretrial Release
Checklist;
Work with law enforcement to examine the disparity in arrests across race/ethnicity;
Continue to improve the communication among the three courthouses;
Complete a similar data analysis six months after the Pretrial Release Checklist has been
introduced to judges in the county;
Re-analyze the data using a larger sample;
Examine the data controlling for level of crime committed (e.g. felony, misdemeanor,
etc.);
Continuously review and upgrade the Pretrial Release Checklist based on feedback and
continuing evaluation.



Ijay Consulting
34















Appendix A
Pretrial Release Checklist


Ijay Consulting
35

If there is a Supervised Release study on file for this Defendant for
this charge, please proceed with this checklist ONLY if there is a
material change in circumstance that would warrant another report.

If a Supervised Release study has NOT already been completed:

Does the Defendant have any holds from the Minnesota Department
of Corrections or other jurisdictions?

Is the Defendant facing murder or attempted murder charges?

If YES to either, a Supervised Release study is NOT recommended.


If ultimately found guilty, do the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines call
for a presumptive stay of execution or imposition of sentence?

Does the Defendant have a criminal history score of zero, OR does
the court have the Defendants most recent Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines worksheet score?

If YES to both, and the Defendant is NOT Released on his/her Own
Recognizance, a Supervised Release study should be ordered.


Was the Defendant granted supervised release or released on her/his
own recognizance?

If NO, the court should state its reasons either on the record, or in a
subsequent order.


The Racial Justice Improvement Project

http://racialjusticeproject.weebly.com/

Ijay Consulting
36

Conditions of Release: If the Court determines that pretrial release is
appropriate, please consider the following factors under Minnesota Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Rule 6.02, Subd. 2, in determining conditions of
release:

(a) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged;
(b) the weight of the evidence;
(c) family ties;
(d) employment;
(e) financial resources;
(f) character and mental condition;
(g) length of residence in the community;
(h) criminal convictions;
(i) prior history of appearing in court;
(j) prior flight to avoid prosecution;
(k) the victim's safety;
(l) any other person's safety;
(m) the community's safety.

This checklist is provided to you by the
St. Louis County Racial Justice Improvement Project Task Force:

Kay Arola, Executive Director, Arrowhead Regional Corrections
Honorable John DeSanto, Judge, Sixth Judicial District
Donna Ennis, Community Member
Fred Friedman, Chief Public Defender, Sixth Judicial District
Wally Kostich, Chief Probation Officer, Arrowhead Regional Corrections
Mark Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney
Rebecca St. George, RJIP Task Force Coordinator/Community Member

For more information on the work of the Task Force or the ABA Racial Justice Improvement
Project please visit our website: http://racialjusticeproject.weebly.com/



Special thanks to Salma S. Safiedine, RJIP Project Director from the American Bar
Association, and American University Washington College of Law Professor Cynthia
Jones, former RJIP Project Director.

The American Bar Association Criminal Justice Sections Racial Justice Improvement
Project is funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance with additional support from the
Public Welfare Foundation

The Racial Justice Improvement Project

Ijay Consulting
37







Appendix B
Post-Checklist Questionnaire

Ijay Consulting
38

Racial Justice Improvement Project
St. Louis County, Minnesota
Post-Checklist Questionnaire

To: Judges of the Sixth Judicial District

1. Have you been using the pretrial checklist provided by the Racial Justice Improvement Project (RJIP) in
making your release decisions?

Yes No

2. Has the checklist been helpful?

Yes No

3. Was the information you received about the defendants criminal history helpful?

Yes No

4. Which of the following factors have you been taking into consideration in making your decisions (please
select all that apply)?

the nature of the circumstances of the offense charged
the weight of the evidence
family ties
employment
financial resources
character and mental conditions
length of residence in the community
criminal convictions
prior history of appearing in court
prior flight to avoid prosecution
the victims safety
any other persons safety
the communitys safety
none of the above

5. Would you like training about the best practices on bail setting?

Yes No

6. Are you willing to provide time on your schedule for such training?

Yes No

7. Would you like training on any other topics?

Yes No

If yes, please indicate the topic(s):


Additional comments (please use additional paper or space if appropriate):


Ijay Consulting
39






Appendix C
Data Set for Pretrial Release Decisions

Ijay Consulting
40


Pre-Training Pretrial Release Data
DateofBirth Gender Description PTRRecommendation St.LouisCountyOffice ProbationOfficerCode ProbationOfficerLastName
12-Sep-1975 F Am Ind/Alaskan Nat Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Duluth 6JS Serre
13-Aug-1970 M Am Ind/Alaskan Nat Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Duluth 3SJ Johnson
23-Nov-1976 M Am Ind/Alaskan Nat Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County-Duluth 2SJ Johnson
05-Nov-1980 M Black Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County-Duluth 5LK Koster
08-Sep-1965 M Black Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County-Duluth 6AS Stevens
05-Dec-1958 M White Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Duluth 6TK Kimball
05-Dec-1958 M White Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County-Duluth 6RL Langdon
14-Feb-1958 M White Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County-Duluth 6RL Langdon
24-Jul-1958 M Am Ind/Alaskan Nat Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Hibbing 7RH Hooper
25-Sep-1982 M Am Ind/Alaskan Nat Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County-Hibbing 7DF Wiener
24-Dec-1984 M Am Ind/Alaskan Nat Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County-Hibbing 7PJ Johnston
24-Jan-1967 M Black Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Hibbing 6RL Langdon
29-Jun-1976 F Black Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Hibbing 7DF Wiener
29-Jun-1976 F Black Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Hibbing 7DF Wiener
19-Nov-1974 M White Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County-Hibbing 7DF Wiener
02-Dec-1962 M White Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Hibbing 7PJ Johnston
16-Jun-1971 M White Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Hibbing 7JP Passeri
24-Dec-1971 F Am Ind/Alaskan Nat Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Virginia 8LA Anderson
15-May-1968 M Am Ind/Alaskan Nat Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Virginia 8JG Gherardi-Danich
15-May-1968 M Am Ind/Alaskan Nat Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Virginia 8LSW Westberg
18-Apr-1976 M Black Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Virginia 6EA Abrahamsen
30-Jul-1974 F Black Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Virginia 8SE Carlson
10-Feb-1986 M Black Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Virginia 8SE Carlson
12-May-1948 F White Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County-Virginia 8WF Frederickson
29-May-1981 M White Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County-Virginia 6JS Serre



Ijay Consulting
41

Interim Pretrial Release Data
Gender Race PTRAssessmentDate PTRRecommendation StLouisCountyOffice ProbationOfficerLastName ProbationOfficerFirstName
m
american
indian 06-Sep-2011 pre-trial reject St. Louis County - Duluth jezierski maggie
m
american
indian 06-Sep-2011 pre-trial reject St. Louis County - Duluth borchert ken
f
american
indian 02-Sep-2011 pre-trial reject St. Louis County - Duluth kantonen john
m black 25-Oct-2011 Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County - Duluth Langdon Rian
M black 10-Oct-2011 Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County - Duluth Jeanetta Kantonen Jeanne
m black 29-Sep-2011 Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County - Duluth Pogatchnik Becky
m white 19-Sep-2011 pre-trial reject St. Louis County - Duluth langdon rian
m white 23-Nov-2011 Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County - Duluth Abrahamsen Eldon
m white 31-Jan-2012 Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County - Duluth Pogatchnik Becky
M
American
Indian 01-Nov-2011 Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County - Hibbing Hooper Ronald
M
American
Indian 02-Nov-2011 Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County - Hibbing Johnston Polly
M
American
Indian 18-Oct-2011 Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County - Hibbing Johnston Polly
M Black 05-Jan-2012 Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County - Hibbing Johnston Polly
M Black 05-Jan-2012 Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County - Hibbing Johnston Polly
M Black 12-Oct-2011 Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County - Hibbing Johnston Polly
M white 14-Oct-2011 Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County - Hibbing Passeri Jeff
M white 03-Jan-2012 Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County - Hibbing Hooper Ronald
F
american
indian 15-Nov-2011 Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County - Virginia Gherardi-Danich Jeriann
M
american
indian 27-Oct-2011 Pre-Trial Reject St. Louis County - Virginia Papin Sam
M
american
indian 28-Oct-2011 Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County - Virginia Gherardi-Danich Jeriann
M black 07-Oct-2011 Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County - Virginia Frederickson Will
M black 11-Oct-2011 Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County - Virginia Westberg Lara
M white 13-Jan-2012 Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County - Virginia Papin Sam
M white 18-Nov-2011 Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County - Virginia Westberg Lara
F white 17-Oct-2011 Pre-Trial Accept St. Louis County - Virginia Drobnick Phillip



Ijay Consulting
42

Post-Training Pretrial Release Data
StLouisCountyOffice DateOfBirth Gender RaceDescription levelofoffense acceptreject dateofptrassessment
St. Louis County-Duluth 10-Jun-1979 M Am Ind/Alaskan Nat gm reject 12-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Duluth 03-Oct-1989 F Am Ind/Alaskan Nat gm accept 28-Mar-2013
St. Louis County-Duluth 10-Jan-1969 F Am Ind/Alaskan Nat f
reject-JUDGE
ORDERED ROR 27-Mar-2013
St. Louis County-Duluth 10-Jan-1975 M Black f accept 05-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Duluth 23-Feb-1968 M Black f accept 15-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Duluth 28-Apr-1972 M Black gm accept 09-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Duluth 18-Nov-1981 M White gm accept 23-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Duluth 19-Sep-1963 M White gm accept 19-Mar-2013
St. Louis County-Duluth 01-Feb-1974 M White f accept 03-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Hibbing 23-Jan-1985 F Am Ind/Alaskan Nat f accept 23-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Hibbing 19-Oct-1980 F Am Ind/Alaskan Nat f accept 19-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Hibbing 22-Jul-1962 m white f reject 25-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Hibbing 29-Oct-1954 F White f reject 29-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Hibbing 16-Sep-1958 M White f accept 26-Mar-2013
St. Louis County-Hibbing 30-Dec-1966 M White f reject 14-Mar-2013
St. Louis County-Virginia 26-Jun-1993 F Am Ind/Alaskan Nat f accept 22-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Virginia 29-Dec-1976 M Am Ind/Alaskan Nat gm accept 05-Mar-2013
St. Louis County-Virginia 06-Oct-1976 F Am Ind/Alaskan Nat f accept 04-Mar-2013
St. Louis County-Virginia 06-Oct-1976 F Am Ind/Alaskan Nat f accept 15-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Virginia 11-Dec-1968 M Black m accept 03-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Virginia 26-Jul-1989 M Black m accept 22-Mar-2013
St. Louis County-Virginia 10-Jun-1991 M Black gm accept 29-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Virginia 15-Oct-1976 m white gm accept 15-Mar-2013
St. Louis County-Virginia 03-Sep-1983 M White m accept 02-Apr-2013
St. Louis County-Virginia 23-Jul-1984 M White f accept 09-Apr-2013


Ijay Consulting
43







Appendix D
Judge Questionnaire Data Set

Ijay Consulting
44

Have you
been
using the
checklist?
Has it
been
helpful?
Was the
defendant's
criminal
history
information
helpful?
nature of the
circumstances
of the offense
charged
weight of
evidence
family
ties employ
financial
resources
character
and mental
conditions
length of
residency
criminal
convictions
prior history
of appearing
in court
prior flight
to avoid
prosecutio
n
victim's
safety
other
person's
safety
community'
s safety
No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Haven't
received any
information Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ijay Consulting
45

Have you
been
using the
checklist?
Has it
been
helpful?
Was the
defendant's
criminal
history
information
helpful?
nature of the
circumstances
of the offense
charged
weight of
evidence
family
ties employ
financial
resources
character
and mental
conditions
length of
residency
criminal
convictions
prior history
of appearing
in court
prior flight
to avoid
prosecutio
n
victim's
safety
other
person's
safety
community'
s safety
Yes and
No Yes
I don't receive
this information Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No

Yes
Don't get this
info No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No

Yes



Ijay Consulting
46

Would you like
training on bail
setting?
Can you provide time on
schedule for training?
Would you like any other
training? What sort of training? Additional comments
Yes Yes No

I thought the checklist was undergoing revisions, so that is why I had not been using it. As for the factors in #4, I consider those
when I have that information, which is certaily sporadic at a first appearance
Yes Yes No

No No No

Retiring April 11th.
Yes Yes No


The ONLY reason I didnt answer these questions is due to my impending retirement on 4/2/14. Otherwise, even after eighteen
years on the bench, I would welcome this needed and important training. If you need additional information, I'm on vacation
this week and the week of March 3. I'm working the weeks of March 10, 17, and 24. Technically I'[m out March 31-April 2, but
I'll probably be in my office clearing it out. If you have questions, please contact me at 201-726-2466. This was important and
needed work. I appreciate the efforts of the RJIP staff/volunteers/etc. Heather Sweetland
No (We have had it in
July 2012) No No

RJIP has been a worthwhile and helpful project for the Sixth Judicial District judges and probation officers; I believe that
because of RJIP we are making more informed decisions and reducing pretrial bail and incarceration of offenders charged with
felonies
No No No

Yes Yes No Nothing in mind I look at the checklist, but not everytime
Neutral

Yes Nothing mentioned
I haven't been able to get sentencing sheets; I look at the checklist periodically; I don't always get the information suggested on
the checklist.
Yes Yes Yes nothing in particular

Yes
Depends on when and how
long No



Ijay Consulting
47







Appendix E
Project Update
Submitted by
Toni Poupore-Haats, Research Analyst
Arrowhead Regional Corrections
March 27, 2014

Ijay Consulting
48

UPDATE ON ST. LOUIS COUNTY PRE-TRIAL RELEASE INITIATIVE:
1. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Court and Field Pre-Trial Policies and Procedures have been modified.
As a result, nearly every incarcerated client charged with a felony offense is being screened for pre-trial
release. The only clients not being screened are those with felony-level charges who, if found guilty, are
likely to be sentenced to prison under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.

2. The changes have resulted in an increase in the overall number of clients who are screened for pre-trial
release. The total number of clients screened during the four years of the project:

Year Number of Pretrial
Assessments
2010 1273
2011 1229
2012 1225
2013 1415

3. In addition to the number of pretrial assessments outlined above, there were additional assessments done
on clients who were denied pretrial release, not assigned to a probation officer and therefore never
entered into CSTS, our probation database. Our lead information specialists have developed a process for
tracking these clients. The total number of these clients include:

Year Number of Pretrial
Assessments Not Entered into
Probation Database
2010 0
2011 55
2012 124
2013 119

4. The majority of clients who are screened continue to be recommended for pretrial release. In 2013, the
percentage of clients recommended for pretrial release increased to 79%.

Year Percentage of
Pretrial Assessments
that Recommend

Ijay Consulting
49

Pretrial Release:
2010 75%
2011 76%
2012 75%
2013 79%

5. Arrowhead Regional Corrections developed a new Pre-trial Evaluation Form, based on the Hennepin
County pre-trial assessment form. The new form has a point system based on factors that have been tied
directly to success or failure on pre-trial release. Factors that are assessed include: current offense level,
income source/school status, current problematic chemical use, homelessness/transiency, criminal history,
history of failure to appear for court hearings, conditional release violations and violations of probation.
The total score provides guidance to the court. In an effort to aid future analysis, the form also includes a
place to record the probation officers recommendation and the actual court decision.

6. Arrowhead Regional Corrections also developed a new ARC Pre-trial Release Study Automatic Rejection
Recommendation Form. It requires a preliminary pre-trial assessment and is used when the probation
officer recommends rejection of pre-trial supervision due to an active warrant or hold, a previous
assessment/rejection on the same case with no significant status changes or when there is a pre-trial
warrant issued on the same case.

7. The St. Louis County Racial Justice Improvement Project Task Force adopted a Pre-Trial Release
Considerations Form and distributed it to St. Louis County judges. It provides guidance to area judges on
the use of Pre-Trial Release assessments.
The new forms have led to more consistent and objective pre-trial assessments. All Arrowhead
Regional Corrections probation officers have received training on pre-trial release forms and
procedures.

8. St. Louis County and Arrowhead Regional Corrections (ARC) are committed to continuing their efforts to
increase the number of offenders released from pre-trial incarceration. In July 2013, St. Louis County
awarded ARC an 18-month, $571,761 grant to expand intensive pre-trial release and community sanctions
supervision services.

Intensive Pre-Trial Release Program: Three-quarters of the funding is being used to provide intensive pre-
trial community supervision of offenders who were initially rejected for pre-trial release. Two additional
probation officers were hired to closely supervise these higher risk offenders, using electronic monitoring
services as needed. It allows the offenders to continue their work or schooling, support themselves and
their families and receive needed services in the community. During the first six months of the program,
more than 50 clients were placed on intensive pre-trial release, saving more than 1500 jail days and more

Ijay Consulting
50

than $175,000 in jail costs. The program has been successful in saving jail costs, drastically reducing jail
overcrowding and allowing pre-trial offenders to remain in the community.

Community Sanctions Program: One-quarter of the funding is being used to provide close supervision of
offenders who have violated their conditions of probation and are at imminent risk of being incarcerated.
Instead of being incarcerated, they are able to remain in the community under closer supervision,
maintaining their employment or education, supporting their families and receiving community-based
services. The program has saved jail costs and allowed offenders to remain in the community while
receiving community-based programming. The two Community Sanctions Program probation officers each
have a caseload of between 35 and 45 clients at any one time.

Update submitted by Toni Poupore-Haats, Arrowhead Regional Corrections Research Analyst on
3/27/2014