Marion, Indiana
The Setting
Grant County is a rural Indiana county of approximately 67,000 people with a large geographic footprint and a county seat, Marion, that anchors services for surrounding small towns. The pretrial program launched around 2017 and became the first county in Indiana to be certified by the Office of Court Services. It was also the first to be recertified in 2024. The program is staffed by a coordinator and two officers, all holding state probation officer credentials, and supervises between 60 and 75 individuals per officer. Funding comes from the state of Indiana, with the county covering any gaps. The program does not charge supervision fees.
The Challenge
After COVID, the pretrial policy team dissolved. Rebuilding it required two years of persistence with stakeholders who were skeptical of pretrial release, did not see the meetings as necessary, and sometimes said so directly. The program also needed to move its supervision model from a compliance-focused approach to something more intentional, without a clear evidence base for what that change would produce at the local level.
The Strategy
The pretrial policy team meets quarterly in person, with a fixed and comprehensive roster: all four judges and one magistrate, the prosecutor, the managing public defender, the director of court services, the director of community corrections, the chief probation officer, the city police chief, and the sheriff. Agendas are distributed in advance. Minutes are kept. The final item on every agenda is an open discussion: what are you seeing, what do you need? Policy changes that emerge from the team are reviewed at the Community Corrections Advisory Board and reported to the Justice Reinvestment Advisory Council (J-RAC).
Data drives every agenda. When case management tracking revealed that certain individuals were remaining in jail after initial hearings at unexpectedly high rates, the policy team used two consecutive meetings to design a new sequential review process. The data identified the problem; the team designed the solution. That new process was finalized in January 2026 and has been in implementation for several months.
To move the supervision model toward intentional engagement, the program partnered with George Mason University on a 16-month study. One officer served as the treatment condition, trained in and applying an intentional supervision model focused on rapport, genuine inquiry, and resource connection. The other officer served as the control. The coordinator observed that conversations under the intentional model became longer and were no longer one-sided. Resource pamphlets in the hallway were cleared out constantly. Clients who opened up more asked for more help. Formal results from George Mason are still being compiled.
The coordinator also distributes free training opportunities, from NAPSA and related organizations, to every policy team member at every meeting. Making training visible and accessible to the entire team, including judges and prosecutors, normalizes professional development across roles rather than limiting it to pretrial staff.
“As much as they resist the meetings at times, they are actually so involved and bring meaningful ideas to the table.”
— Pretrial coordinator, Grant County
What Made It Work
The rural context is itself a resource for formal governance structures. The coordinator sees the judges at the courthouse every day. The prosecutor is a work friend. The personal relationships that exist naturally in a small community make formal policy meetings more productive than they would be among strangers. The meetings give those relationships a structured channel for professional disagreement and collective decision-making.
Transportation is addressed operationally, not programmatically. Check-ins are scheduled on the same day as court appearances. Phone and Zoom appointments substitute for in-person visits without penalty. The framing for clients is consistent: if your car breaks down on the way, call and let us know. Missing one appointment does not send anyone back to jail.
Considerations for Replication
Building a policy team from scratch, or rebuilding one after it has dissolved, is a two-year project. Persistence is the variable. Send the agenda. Keep the minutes. Show the data. Do it again next quarter.
The policy team's membership should include everyone who touches a pretrial decision: judges, prosecutors, public defenders, law enforcement, corrections, and court services. Leaving anyone out creates blind spots that surface later as opposition.
In the summary brief
Establish formal governance structures so that pretrial coordination outlasts any single champion.
An interagency policy team meets quarterly with a fixed roster that includes the judges, prosecutor, public defender, sheriff, police chief, and community corrections leadership. Agendas are distributed in advance, minutes are kept, and every meeting closes with an open discussion built around three standing questions: what are you seeing, what do you need to know, and what would help you. Through this discussion, members raise emerging trends, ask questions, and increasingly bring their own proposals. Programmatic changes that emerge from the team are reviewed by the county’s Community Corrections Advisory Board and reported to Indiana’s Justice Reinvestment Advisory Council, giving local decisions a durable institutional home. The team has outlasted judicial retirements and staff transitions that would have stalled a program built on relationships alone.
Also under Strategy 1
This project was supported by Grant No. 15PBJA-22-GK-03661-JAGT awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.