Expanded pretrial services helped more people stay out of jail in Alameda County, court data shows 14%

By Roselyn Romero15%

7/13/2026, 3:27:16 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 18.7% saturation with 143 hits. Analysis detected 1,109 faulty-reasoning hits from 765 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.6% and a BS Rank of 14% (18,850 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.10% of the article peer group.

A new Alameda County Superior Court program is reducing recidivism, according to data compiled by the court, but officials say funding could run out by the end of the year. 
At any given time, more than 3,000 people released from custody in Alameda County are awaiting trial. 
Many lack the resources needed to comply with court-ordered conditions or appear at scheduled hearings, including reliable transportation, stable housing, employment, and substance use treatment. 
Without that support, some are rearrested and return to jail. 
The Pretrial Expansion Program, launched in February, has served 503 people, including 191 enrolled in substance use treatment, 186 who were helped with securing housing, and 204 people helped with obtaining public benefits like CalFresh and transportation assistance. 
Court officials say this has greatly reduced the number of people rearrested. 
From 2024 to 2025, 43% of moderate-risk defendants released from Santa Rita Jail were rearrested, according to court spokesperson Paul Rosynsky. 
Since the program launched, that rate has dropped to 18%, according to the court’s latest data. 
Alameda County Pretrial Services uses an automated system to assess a person’s likelihood of being rearrested or failing to appear in court, categorizing them as low, moderate, or high risk. 
“When you release someone back into the same circumstances that led to their arrest, it’s often not realistic to expect a different outcome,” said Cory Jacobs, pretrial services program manager, in a news release. 
“People’s lives are changing, making the community safer in the process.” 
The initiative is a partnership between the Alameda County Superior Court, the Alameda County Probation Department, and the nonprofit Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency, or BOSS. 
## The county Board of Supervisors ultimately decides the program’s future 
The initiative is state-funded through Assembly Bill 109 rather than the county’s budget, but the Alameda County Board of Supervisors ultimately decides how that money is distributed. 
The goal is to save costs related to sending people to prison, while investing those funds in local services that improve public safety. 
Alameda County receives about $70 million in AB 109 funding each year, Rosynsky said. 
Some of that money is restricted to certain programs, but the rest can be used however the Board of Supervisors sees fit, as long as it’s related to the supervision and rehabilitation of non-serious offenders. 
In recent years, the county has not been using its full share of AB 109 funding. 
When the court asked the county to use the funds to launch the pretrial services program, the county “finally” agreed, said Rosynsky. 
Although early results are promising, the Board of Supervisors has not yet agreed to continue to fund the program. 
The need for pretrial services has become more pressing following two California Supreme Court decisions, Presiding Judge Michael Markman said. 
In In re Humphrey and In re Kowalczyk, the court ruled that judges must consider a defendant’s ability to pay when setting bail. 
If someone cannot afford bail, they may be released on their own recognizance while awaiting trial. 
“If somebody has a substance abuse problem and is required to go to AA, and they have a case manager who’s making sure they go, that makes a huge difference,” he said. 
“Pairing up somebody who doesn’t have a bed to sleep in with housing, and who’s arrested on a petty theft charge, might just stop them from committing another petty theft.” 
But the county’s pretrial population is growing, and the program’s current staffing is “nowhere near sufficient” to meet the demand, Rosynsky said. 
The program currently employs eight case managers, two supervisors, and two intake coordinators. 
“It’s a small but mighty group,” Markman said. 
“They’re doing a great job with not a whole lot of people.” 
The court hopes to expand the program to 24 case managers, four supervisors, four intake coordinators, four housing navigators, and eight reentry coordinators. 
The expansion would cost about $8.5 million, Rosynsky said. 
The Community Corrections Partnership Executive Committee, made up of representatives from the court, district attorney, public defender, probation department, and sheriff’s office, recommends to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors how AB 109 funding should be allocated. 
The court is asking the committee to recommend funding for the expansion. 
The Board of Supervisors has final authority over whether to approve that recommendation, Rosynsky said. 
The program’s current funding expires in December. 
“The program appears to be successful based on the early statistics that we have for the past five months,” Markman said. 
“Pulling the plug after less than a year would be a real tragedy.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.0%Roselyn Romero: 1.6%Berkeleyside: 2.1%Confirmation Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 1.1%Berkeleyside: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Roselyn Romero: 3.0%Berkeleyside: 2.3%Availability Heuristic4.1%This article: 5.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.9%Berkeleyside: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.1%Berkeleyside: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Roselyn Romero: 1.4%Berkeleyside: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias3.9%This article: 6.5%Roselyn Romero: 6.9%Berkeleyside: 3.2%Framing Effect6.5%This article: 0.9%Roselyn Romero: 0.9%Berkeleyside: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.9%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.5%Berkeleyside: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 16.6%Roselyn Romero: 3.6%Berkeleyside: 3.4%Optimism Bias16.6%This article: 4.2%Roselyn Romero: 0.4%Berkeleyside: 0.6%Pessimism Bias4.2%This article: 8.9%Roselyn Romero: 2.0%Berkeleyside: 3.8%Negativity Bias8.9%This article: 3.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.4%Berkeleyside: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.4%Berkeleyside: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.3%Berkeleyside: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Roselyn Romero: 2.4%Berkeleyside: 3.6%Halo Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.6%Roselyn Romero: 1.5%Berkeleyside: 0.8%Recency Bias7.6%This article: 2.9%Roselyn Romero: 0.4%Berkeleyside: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.3%Berkeleyside: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.7%Roselyn Romero: 6.4%Berkeleyside: 3.2%Appeal to Authority18.7%This article: 7.1%Roselyn Romero: 1.6%Berkeleyside: 0.7%False Dilemma7.1%This article: 3.9%Roselyn Romero: 0.5%Berkeleyside: 0.3%Slippery Slope3.9%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.2%Roselyn Romero: 5.0%Berkeleyside: 2.3%Hasty Generalization10.2%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 1.2%Berkeleyside: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.1%Roselyn Romero: 3.1%Berkeleyside: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion7.1%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.3%Berkeleyside: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.9%Roselyn Romero: 3.1%Berkeleyside: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.9%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.8%Roselyn Romero: 3.6%Berkeleyside: 3.0%Anecdotal5.8%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.3%Roselyn Romero: 1.9%Berkeleyside: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.3%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.3%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.3%Berkeleyside: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 1.8%Berkeleyside: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 1.4%Berkeleyside: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 1.3%Berkeleyside: 2.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 3.9%Roselyn Romero: 0.8%Berkeleyside: 0.7%Indoctrination3.9%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roselyn Romero: 0.4%Berkeleyside: 2.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

765 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers37%attributed speech481writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Rosynsky • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageCory Jacobs • 34 words • 0.0% coverageCory Jacobs • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Rosynsky • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Rosynsky • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Markman • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Markman • 32 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Markman • 30 words • 100.0% coveragePaul Rosynsky • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Markman • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Markman • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Rosynsky • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Rosynsky • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Markman • 21 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Markman • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Michael Markman

100%flagged-word coverage
136 attributed words48% of attributed speech70% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Indoctrination+22.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Michael Markman: 22.1%22.1%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.