Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Probation outlines validated pretrial risk assessment, rising caseloads and Prop 36 impacts; board asks for multi‑agency follow-up
Summary
Contra Costa Probation reported a local validation of its public safety assessment tool and rising pretrial caseloads after Proposition 36, and the board asked for a later multi‑agency briefing including the DA, PD and sheriff.
Contra Costa County Probation presented an overview of its pretrial services program and a local validation of its public safety assessment (PSA) tool on May 20. Chief Probation Officer E. C. McCrash (presenting as the department’s chief probation officer) and probation manager Bart Sloan outlined how the department assesses defendants for release conditions, monitors out‑of‑custody defendants, and connects people to community services while they await trial.
Probation contracted RDA Consulting to validate its PSA pursuant to requirements that risk‑assessment tools be validated (SB 36 was cited). The validation found the tool had good predictive fidelity for the three outcomes the PSA measures—failure to appear, new criminal activity and new violent criminal activity—and the study reported that 73% of assessed defendants did not fail to appear. The consultant did not find measurable bias by race or gender in the county’s validation sample, according to the presentation.
Probation also reported a substantial caseload increase: it completed roughly 130 assessments in January–April 2024 and about 243 assessments in January–April 2025, an increase of 113 assessments. Staff said the department has seen roughly 264 new pretrial cases since the passage of Proposition 36 (the 2024 ballot measure that changes handling of some drug and theft offenses) and that the program expects an ongoing workload increase tied to Prop 36 cases, which may require additional behavioral‑health coordination and treatment placements.
The department described program innovations including a mobile outreach van that meets defendants at the court, special caseloads for transitional‑age youth and gender‑responsive services, and partnerships with community providers for housing and behavioral health referrals. Probation emphasized that managing Prop 36 caseloads successfully depends on state and county investments in treatment infrastructure and funding for pretrial staffing.
Supervisors asked for comparative data and a fuller, multi‑agency presentation that would include the district attorney, the public defender and the sheriff so the board could see pretrial populations in custody and out of custody and better understand racial and jurisdictional patterns; the board agreed to schedule a coordinated follow‑up later in the year. The board voted to accept the pretrial services report (5‑0).
Ending: Probation will continue operating the expanded pretrial services, monitor caseload impacts from Prop 36, and coordinate a multi‑agency briefing for the board on pretrial populations and outcomes.
