Tompkins County committee reviews pretrial data, bail limits and probation practices

Members of the CJ ATI committee in Tompkins County spent their meeting reviewing pretrial statistics, local bail practices and steps judges and probation staff can take to reduce time people spend in jail.

The committee heard that local jail counts and state figures differ markedly: "the numbers from the two sources don't match each other at all," a presenter said, reporting that Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) totals were roughly double the local tallies. That presenter urged the group to obtain judge-by-judge data to compute per-capita jail time for particular jurisdictions and to clarify how DCJS defines "pretrial" versus local "unsentenced" counts.

Why it matters: Committee members said the discrepancy complicates planning. Data-driven decisions affect how the county targets alternatives to incarceration, how it staffs pre-sentence-investigation (PSI) workloads and how it deploys limited bail-fund personnel.

On arraignment and counsel, a judge on the panel described a new process now used in the county when arraignments occur outside normal hours: an assigned judge screens eligibility for assigned counsel, and an attorney-on-call system has been established to provide counsel essentially 24/7. "If they appear to be eligible for assigned counsel, probably 90% of them are going to be," the judge said, noting the system will take time and that counties may eventually absorb costs now covered by state startup funds.

The committee also discussed defender-based advocacy services contracted locally to provide mitigation or defense-focused work before sentencing. Members said Community Center for Change has a contract to deliver that work but is initially capped (speakers described a capacity on the order of about 30 cases per year) and that the county has a grant of roughly $100,000 per year for three years to support early implementation.

Members debated tools to shorten pretrial stays. The judge explained that a full PSI typically takes several weeks — four weeks for incarcerated defendants and five weeks for nonincarcerated defendants — and that interim probation (an intensive supervision period before formal sentencing) can be used in lieu of immediate incarceration. The judge emphasized that interim probation includes probation conditions and monitoring similar to a sentence but occurs before a formal sentencing hearing.

Speakers flagged both operational and regulatory constraints on charitable bail: recent state rules require oversight and licensing of charitable bail organizations and limit the amounts such groups can post. Committee members reported an operational interpretation that caps local philanthropic postings at $2,500 (with a quoted state limit discussed at $2,000) and said the Division of Financial Services has begun closer oversight of such organizations.

Staff and program representatives pointed to a staffing bottleneck in the bail fund: the office once had three client-service workers and processed many more cases; current staffing of two client-service workers limits how many bails the program can handle even if money is available. "If I had more staff, I could bail more people," one program representative said.

The group also addressed courtroom practices such as shackling defendants during trial and noted steps taken to minimize jury exposure to restraints (black curtains) and to use electronic monitoring where appropriate.

Next steps: Committee members asked staff to compile public-input suggestions into a single chart that categorizes items by time frame (immediate actions versus long-term work) and fiscal impact, to seek a presentation from the district attorney's office at a future meeting, and to consider forming subcommittees focused on clusters of ideas. Members noted an upcoming meeting scheduled for June 26 at noon and agreed to continue work on the master list of proposals.

The committee did not take formal votes on policy changes at this meeting; the discussion focused on data needs, operational constraints, training questions and drafting specific requests for future presenters from the DA's office and other partners.