State audit finds interest in expanding pretrial services but data gaps, disparities and funding barriers slow adoption

The State Auditor’s Office told the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee on Jan. 7, 2026, that many Washington courts would like to expand pretrial services but face barriers including inconsistent data collection, funding constraints and local resource shortages.

"We have four key audit results," said Kevan Zadeh, the principal performance auditor who oversaw the review, listing local interest but barriers, variation and potential disparities in use, a lack of high-quality accessible data, and research-backed strategies jurisdictions can use to expand services.

The auditors selected 14 courts across seven counties to study how courts use pretrial services and whether the services align with leading practices. Erin Catterlin summarized the legal context, noting that state law and court rules presume release on personal recognizance and that no state rule requires courts to offer pretrial services, leaving the decision to independent courts.

Claire Nakayama, who led the audit’s data analysis, said auditors received usable pretrial data from only three of the 14 courts (Spokane Municipal Court, Spokane Superior Court and Yakima Superior Court) because many courts do not track pretrial referrals and outcomes in dedicated, accessible fields. From those three courts, auditors found each released 30% or fewer defendants via pretrial services in each year of the review period without requiring bail.

On disparities, Nakayama said crime-related factors and judicial discretion influenced who received pretrial services — more serious alleged offenses made services less likely — and that demographic patterns varied by court. "Female defendants were more likely to be provided pretrial services at all three courts," she said. In some courts auditors found Black or Hispanic defendants were less likely to receive services; auditors did not test causes for those differences.

Local court officials who testified after the SAO presentation described programs that, they said, show the potential benefits of expanding pretrial services. Judge Mary Logan of Spokane Municipal Court said Spokane’s unit is "data rich" and urged creation of a standalone, stably funded pretrial services unit to reduce reliance on grant funding.

Michael Diamond, who directs Community Justice Services for Spokane, described the court’s pretrial services unit and high‑level outcomes: "We’ve shown a 55.9% reduction of the use of bail," he said, and reported nearly a two‑day reduction in average custody time from booking to release, roughly a 30% reduction in time to disposition, an overall failure‑to‑appear rate of about 4.5%, and a 41% reduction in recidivism in a one‑year review. Diamond cautioned that Spokane’s population has unusually high indigency and behavioral‑health needs, which affects program design and outcomes.

Diana Scott of Grays Harbor County District Court Probation said her office used AOC pilot funds to place people on house arrest and track outcomes, and estimated local detention costs at about $168 per day in 2023. She said small courts face staffing limits that make comprehensive pretrial tracking difficult and again urged funding for stand‑alone pretrial units.

Matthew Moore, who manages Spokane’s legal case management system, told the committee Spokane’s integrated system shares data across court, prosecutor and defense offices and can track release conditions near real time. He noted, however, that AOC’s statewide EDR system mixes pretrial and post‑disposition conditions without a separate storage for pretrial fields, complicating statewide analytics.

The audit also summarized the Administrative Office of the Courts’ pilot program: the 2023 legislative allocation provided more than $1.4 million to AOC; roughly $700,000 of that award was distributed to 21 courts for staffing, data work and training, and AOC received additional funding to continue pretrial and post‑conviction work into the current biennium. SAO recommended local outreach with stakeholders, standardized guidance from AOC, centralized data collection, and regular monitoring and evaluation of pretrial programs.

Committee members asked how to communicate cost‑saving outcomes to local decision makers. SAO staff said clearer data and early stakeholder engagement help allay public‑safety concerns and demonstrate long‑term savings.

The committee received no oral public comment at the meeting but invited written testimony. No formal actions or votes were taken at the JLARC hearing.

What’s next: the audit report includes detailed recommendations and an appendix with methodology; AOC is finalizing its review of the pilot and will use continued funding to support courts that seek to implement or expand pretrial services.