Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:03 pm
Time: 12:03 pm
Results for pretrial release
89 results foundAuthor: Snowball, Lucy Title: Bail Presumptions and Risk of Bail Refusal: An Analysis of the NSW Bail Act Summary: This report examines the relationship between various statutory presumptions surrounding bail and the risk of bail refusal in New South Wales. A total 37,165 cases where defendants were either granted or refused bail by a Local Court were analysed to determine what impact the presumptions surrounding bail had on the risk of bail refusal. Controls included in the analysis were age; gender; Indigenous status of the defendant; number of concurrent offences; the number of prior criminal convictions; whether the offender had a previous conviction for a breach offence; the number of days between the date of first court appearance and the date of finalisation; whether the defendant had legal representation in the current case; and the plea in the current case at time of finalisation. After adjusting for the effects of other factors, the risk of bail refusal was found to be higher for those charged with offences where there was a presumption against bail or where bail should only be granted in ‘exceptional circumstances’. The risk of bail was also elevated for those with a larger number of prior convictions and/or concurrent offences. Three main anomalies were noted. Firstly, nearly half of those falling into the ‘exceptional circumstance’ category were on bail at their final court appearance. Secondly, factors such as prior criminal record, number of concurrent offences and delay in finalising a case, exert a much stronger influence on the risk of bail refusal than the presumptions surrounding bail. Thirdly, the bail refusal risk was higher for those charged with offences where there was no presumption for or against bail than for those charged with offences involving a presumption against bail. The report concludes that the NSW Bail Act may need some simplification and clarification. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2010. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Bureau Brief, Issue Paper No. 49; Accessed October 13, 2010 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb49.pdf/$file/bb49.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb49.pdf/$file/bb49.pdf Shelf Number: 119945 Keywords: BailPretrial Release |
Author: Schnacke, Timothy R. Title: The History of Bail and Pretrial Release Summary: While the notion of bail has been traced to ancient Rome,2 the American understanding of bail is derived from 1,000-year-old English roots. A study of this “modern” history of bail reveals two fundamental themes. First, as noted in June Carbone’s comprehensive study of the topic, “[b]ail [originally] reflected the judicial officer’s prediction of trial outcome.” In fact, bail bond decisions are all about prediction, albeit today about the prediction of a defendant’s probability of making all court appearances and not committing any new crimes. The science of accurately predicting a defendant’s pretrial conduct, and misconduct, has only emerged over the past few decades, and it continues to improve. Second, the concept of using bail bonds as a means to avoid pretrial imprisonment historically arose from a series of cases alleging abuses in the pretrial release or detention decision-making process. These abuses were originally often linked to the inability to predict trial outcome, and later to the inability to adequately predict court appearance and the commission of new crimes. This, in turn, led to an over-reliance on judicial discretion to grant or deny a bail bond and the fixing of some money amount (or other condition of pretrial release) that presumably helped mitigate a defendant’s pretrial misconduct. Accordingly, the following history of bail suggests that as our ability to predict a defendant’s pretrial conduct becomes more accurate, our need for reforming how bail is administered will initially be great, and then should diminish over time. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2010. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 29, 2010 at: http://www.pretrial.org/Docs/Documents/PJI-History_of_Bail.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Docs/Documents/PJI-History_of_Bail.pdf Shelf Number: 120121 Keywords: BailPretrial Release |
Author: Dedel, Kelly Title: Multnomah County Department of Community Justice Recog Tool Validation Study Summary: The Multnomah County Department of Community Justice (DCJ) uses a structured decision-making tool, "the Recog instrument," to assist in making decisions about which defendants should be released or detained pending trial. This type of instrument, in which each defendant is evaluated using an identical set of criteria, brings greater consistency and transparency to pretrial release decisions, which have profound consequences for both public safety and defendants' liberty. Even when developed through consensus among those with great practical experience and expertise in public safety, objective decision-making instruments should be validated through research to maximize the precision of their guidance. The overall purpose of the Recog tool is to properly classify defendants into risk levels that reflect their risk of a negative outcome (i.e., failing to appear in court (FTA) or being re-arrested for a new offense). This validation study examines the statistical relationships between the risk factors on the instrument and defendants'actual rates of FTA and re-arrest. Details: Portland, OR: One in 37 Research, Inc., 2008. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 8, 2010 at: http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dcj/FINAL_Recog_Report-90908.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dcj/FINAL_Recog_Report-90908.pdf Shelf Number: 120201 Keywords: Pretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Austin, James Title: Kentucky Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument Validation Summary: This study examines the validity of the Kentucky Pretrial Services Agency pretrial risk assessment instrument. The data used in this analysis are based on all cases where a pretrial interview was conducted by the various pretrial agencies that are located throughout Kentucky. The study found that the 13-item instrument produces a strong association between the risk levels of low, moderate and high, failure-to-appear and pretrial arrest rates. Details: Washington, DC: JFA Institute, 2010. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 30, 2010 at: http://www.pretrial.org/Docs/Documents/2010%20KY%20Risk%20Assessment%20Study%20JFA.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Docs/Documents/2010%20KY%20Risk%20Assessment%20Study%20JFA.pdf Shelf Number: 120317 Keywords: Pretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment (Virginia) |
Author: Gelbach, Jonah Title: Testing for Racial Discrimination in Bail Setting Using Nonparametric Estimation of a Parametric Model Summary: Black defendants are assigned systematically greater bail levels than whites accused of similar offenses and, partly as a result, have systematically lower probabilities of pre-trial release. We construct a simple model of optimal bail setting that allows us to measure how much of the bail difference is due to judicial bias against blacks, holding constant defendant heterogeneity that judges observe, regardless of whether we also observe it. We show how to use nonparametric methods to consistently estimate the model's key parameter by using the judge's first-order condition to form an auxiliary projection relationship involving defendants' conditional choice probabilities. While the behavioral model requires parametric assumptions, they have a substantial payoff: under these assumptions, we need not make any assumptions at all on the conditional distribution of heterogeneity observed by judges but not researchers. We implement the model using 2000 and 2002 data for five counties, from the State Courts Processing Statistics. While our point estimates are somewhat imprecise, they suggest that in several counties, judges value blacks' lost freedom from a typical pre-trial jail stay by thousands of dollars less than they value whites' lost freedom. Details: Berkeley, CA: Law and Economics Workshop, Berkeley Program in Law and Economics, University of California - Berkeley, 2010. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Law and Economics Workshop: Accessed February 2, 2011 at: http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/labor/lap11/gelbach-110218.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/labor/lap11/gelbach-110218.pdf Shelf Number: 120679 Keywords: BailDiscriminationPretrial Release |
Author: Walsh, Nastassia Title: When More Is Less: How a Larger Women's Jail in Baltimore Will Reduce Public Safety and Diminish Resources for Positive Social Investment Summary: Despite declines in the number of women being held in the Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC, or “the jail”), the State of Maryland, which operates the jail, is planning a new women’s facility with twice the beds currently being used, with an ability to increase capacity to up to 1,024 women. Projections used for the planning of the new jail are based on old information and trends indicating an increase in crime, arrests and incarceration that never materialized. While the estimated operational costs for the new Women’s Detention Center are unavailable, the total project costs to plan and build it are estimated at $181 million, including planning and construction, to be completed in 2015. If Maryland insists on building a jail, instead of building a larger jail with the capacity to hold more than twice as many women as are currently detained, the State of Maryland and the Division of Pretrial Detention and Services should build a jail with fewer beds and more space for services and treatment, and develop a strategic plan for further reducing the number of women held pretrial in Baltimore City. As about nine out of 10 women in the Baltimore jail are still awaiting trial on the current offense, multiple options are available to help ensure that people return to court and receive any services or programs they need to avoid future involvement in the justice system. Through modest programs and interventions like reminder phone call systems, expanded and more substantive pretrial release supervision, and more justice system diversion, jail should be a rare last resort for women awaiting trial in Baltimore. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2011. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2011 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/11-01_REP_WhenMoreisLess_MD-AC.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/11-01_REP_WhenMoreisLess_MD-AC.pdf Shelf Number: 120706 Keywords: Female InmatesFemale Offenders (Baltimore)JailsPretrial Release |
Author: Denning-Cotter, Gabrielle Title: Bail Support in Australia Summary: In Australia the prison population has been increasing at a rate of 5% per year since 1984, and recent figures indicate that Indigenous people comprise 24% of the prison population in Australia (ABS, 2007). In 2007 the proportion of prisoners on remand was 22% of the entire prison population (ABS, 2007). Because of the increase in the numbers of people on remand, there has been an increased interest in bail support programs for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people as a viable alternative to remand. Bail support is defined as the provision of services, intervention or support, designed to assist a person to successfully complete their bail period. These programs may be undertaken on a voluntary basis or mandated as a condition of bail. These programs usually aim to: Reduce re-offending while on bail; Increase court appearance rate; and Provide magistrates and police with a viable alternative to remand or incarceration. In the first section, this paper examines Australian and international literature to present principles of best practice; in the second section current bail support programs in Australia are identified. Indigenous-specific support programs are also discussed. Details: Canberra: Indegenous Justice Clearinghouse, 2008. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Brief 2: Accessed February 16, 2011 at: http://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/briefs/brief002.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: http://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/briefs/brief002.pdf Shelf Number: 12 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationBailIndigenous PeoplesPretrial Release |
Author: Ringland, Clare Title: The Decline in Unconditional Release Before Trial Summary: This paper examines whether the reduction in the percentage of cases where bail is dispensed with (unconditional release) is due to a change in the profile of cases coming before the criminal courts or a general increase in the threshold for dispensing with bail. A series of statistical (logistic regression) models of the likelihood of unconditional release were constructed to see whether the fall in the likelihood of unconditional release over time remained significant after adjusting for other factors associated with the likelihood of unconditional release. Separate models were constructed for three offences: assault, property crime and property damage. The report concludes that the reduction in matters where bail is dispensed with is not accounted for by a change in the profile of cases coming before the courts. Instead, this appears to reflect an increase in the threshold for dispensing with bail. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2010. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Bureau Brief, Issue Paper No. 55: Accessed February 22, 2011 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb55.pdf/$file/bb55.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb55.pdf/$file/bb55.pdf Shelf Number: 120852 Keywords: BailPretrial Release |
Author: Hickert, Audrey O. Title: Evaluation of Pretrial Services Final Report Summary: This study examined pretrial releases (PTR) in Salt Lake County and found that failure to appear (FTA) rates ranged from 20% (for those released to Pretrial Supervision (PTS) at CJS) to 43% for those released on overcrowding (OCR) from the jail. PTR Recidivism rates ranged from 7% (Own Recognizance (OR) releases and Day Reporting Center (DRC) releases) to 15% (OCR). After controlling for individual significant risk factors (e.g., jail history, PTR history, current booking type, homelessness, etc.), groups who were supervised during pretrial release (PTS, Ordered to PTS (OPTS), bail/bond (BB)) had better outcomes than those not supervised (OR, OCR). Details: Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2010. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2011 at: http://ucjc.law.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/PTS_FinalReport.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.law.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/PTS_FinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 121090 Keywords: Bail (Utah)Pretrial Release |
Author: Mamalian, Cynthia A. Title: State of the Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment Summary: The most important decision that is made with respect to a newly arrested defendant is whether to release that defendant into the community while awaiting trial; getting that decision right is critically important for both the defendant and the community at-large. In June 2010, the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) and the Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) convened a meeting of researchers and practitioners to discuss the current state of the science and practice of pretrial justice. This document summarizes the key points that came out of that discussion and what leaders in the field identified as signficant next steps in advancing the administration of pretrial justice, ensuring efficient and effective release and detention decisions for pretrial defendants, managing defendant risk through appropriate and specific conditions of release, and balancing the rights of defendants with community safety. This publication is designed for a wide-ranging audience of criminal justice stakeholders who have questions about pretrial risk assessment and its value to the pretrial justice process. The first section of this publication provides a brief review of the history and current state of pretrial justice. The second section looks at critical issues related to pretrial release, detention, and risk assessment. The third section discusses challenges to implementing evidence-based risk assessment and threats to reliable administration, including time constraints and practicality of the risk assessment instrument, money bail schedules, local capacity, subjective risk assessment, and court culture and judicial behavior. The fourth section of the document outlines methodological challenges associated with the prediction of risk. The final section provides recommendations for research and practice. We discuss high priority research activities, the potential for a universal risk assessment instrument, and the need for training and technical assistance. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Pretrial Justice Institute, 2011. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 22, 2011 at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/PJI_PretrialRiskAssessment.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/PJI_PretrialRiskAssessment.pdf Shelf Number: 121099 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Phillips, Mary T. Title: Commercial Bail Bonds in New York City: Characteristics and Implications Summary: This report updates and expands upon a recent study of bail making by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA), which found that bail bondsmen play a much larger role in New York City than they once did (Phillips 2010a, hereafter referred to as the “bailmaking report”). The research revealed that bonds accounted for 15% of all bail releases in the study sample, and 21% of cases with bail set at $1,000 or more. The bail-making report presented data showing that over 750 commercial bonds were posted in the four largest boroughs of the City for cases with an arrest from July through September 2005. (The term “commercial bond” is used here to refer to an insurance company bail bond, written by a commercial bond agent.) That number results in an annualized estimate of about 3,000 bonds per year in the City, although the actual total is undoubtedly higher than that. The majority of defendants in New York City are still released on recognizance, and the majority of defendants who make bail do so by posting cash directly with the court. Still, the research showed that commercial bonds are by no means the rarity they once were. Analyses presented in the bail-making report utilized defendant and case-processing data from the CJA database, as well as form-of-bail data from the Office of Court Administration (OCA). The research examined the factors associated with making bail by cash versus bond, including the amount of bail set at arraignment, the courts’ use of cash alternatives, and time to release. Supplementary information collected by hand from cash bail receipts was presented pertaining to the sureties who posted cash bail for defendants, their relationship to the defendant, and geospatial relationships among the locations of the jail where the defendant was held, the bail-posting site, and the surety’s residence. Supplementary data describing characteristics of cash bail cases were presented citywide and for all four boroughs included in the research. Comparably detailed information about bonds was also collected by hand from court papers filed by bail bondsmen, but when the bail-making report was in preparation this supplemental information for bond cases had been collected only for Brooklyn and Manhattan. The results, revealing striking differences between the two boroughs, were presented in the full report (Phillips 2010a) and summarized in the corresponding Research Brief (Phillips 2010b) with a cautionary comment on the preliminary nature of the conclusions. We promised to enlarge the number of cases with supplementary bond data citywide and to round out the borough comparisons by adding supplementary data from the Bronx and Queens in a future update. This report provides that update with the presentation of supplementary bond data for all four of the largest boroughs and expands the analyses to consider the implications for bail setting suggested by the citywide data. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc., 2011. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2011 at: http://www.cjareports.org/reports/bonds2010final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjareports.org/reports/bonds2010final.pdf Shelf Number: 121543 Keywords: Bail Bonds (New York City)Bail BondsmenPretrial Release |
Author: Hedlund, Jennifer Title: Development and Validation of an Assessment for Pretrial Conditional Release Summary: The intent of pretrial decision making is to determine if an individual who is been arrested can be released back into the community prior to his or her court date without posing a risk of failing to appear for court, of committing a new offense or harming someone. The role of pretrial staff (bail commissioners and intake, assessment and referral [IAR] specialists) is to provide an independent assessment of the client’s risk and to recommend to the court whether the client should be considered for a financial bond or a non-financial form of release. A point scale currently provides pretrial staff with guidance in determining the level of risk posed by a client and thus what type of recommendation (financial bond or non-financial release) should be made. Pretrial staff also may add certain conditions to this recommendation, which are intended to minimize the risk posed by a client who may be released on a promise to appear or on a low bond. Until now there has been no tool to assist pretrial staff in determining the type of conditional release that best addresses a client’s needs. The main objectives of the current project were to develop and pilot a decision aid to guide conditional release recommendations, and to evaluate recent modifications to the risk assessment point scale. Details: Hartford, CT: Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut, 2005. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 21, 2011 at: http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/research/Dev_Val_Assess_PCR.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/research/Dev_Val_Assess_PCR.pdf Shelf Number: 122131 Keywords: BailConditional ReleasePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Center for Effective Public Policy Title: A Framework for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems. A Work in Progress, Third Edition. Summary: The Framework identifies the key structural elements of a system informed by evidence. It defines a vision of safer communities. It puts forward the belief that risk and harm reduction are fundamental goals of the justice system, and that these can be achieved without sacrificing offender accountability or other important justice system outcomes. It both explicates the premises and values that underlie our justice system and puts forward a proposed set of principles to guide evidence-based decision making at the local level—principles that are, themselves, evidence-based. The Framework also highlights some of the most groundbreaking of the research — evidence that clearly demonstrates that we can reduce pretrial misconduct and offender recidivism. It identifies the key stakeholders who must be actively engaged in a collaborative partnership if an evidence-based system of justice is to be achieved. It also sets out to begin to outline some of the most difficult challenges we will face as we seek to deliberately and systematically implement such an approach in local communities. Details: Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy, 2010. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2011 at: http://www.cepp.com/documents/EBDM%20Framework.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cepp.com/documents/EBDM%20Framework.pdf Shelf Number: 122448 Keywords: Correctional Administration (U.S.)Evidence-Based PracticesPretrial ReleasePrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. Title: Evaluation of the Bail Reform Pilot Project: Peace Region and Surrey. Final Evaluation Report Summary: In the fall of 2006, the Provincial Court of British Columbia proposed a number of justice system reforms in an effort to address time delays in the criminal justice system. One of these reforms concerned the bail process, which included changes to bail determination and redefined roles for judicial officers. The Bail Reform Project is jointly sponsored by the Provincial Court and the Ministry of Attorney General, and led by the Criminal Justice Reform Secretariat (CJRS). An important component of the Bail Reform Project was a comprehensive evaluation of the program design, delivery and impacts. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. was commissioned to complete the Evaluation of the Bail Reform Project. This report contains the key findings from this evaluation. Details: Victoria, BC: R.A. Malatest & Associates, Ltd., 2010. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2011 at: http://www.criminaljusticereform.gov.bc.ca/en/justice_reform_projects/bail_reform/docs/brp_evaluation.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://www.criminaljusticereform.gov.bc.ca/en/justice_reform_projects/bail_reform/docs/brp_evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 122769 Keywords: Bail (Canada)Bail ReformCriminal Justice ReformPretrial Release |
Author: Ballard, Clare Title: Research Report on Remand Detention in South Africa: An Overview of the Current Law and Proposals for Reform Summary: This research report provides an overview of the necessary research to develop possible solutions for limiting the amount of time remand detainees spend in custody. The report discusses, firstly, the bail provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act with regard to the right to liberty and in the broader constitutional notion of proportionality. Second, case law from regional and international bodies dealing with pre-trial release is explored, and third, detention time limits and automatic bail review proceedings are discussed. Fourth, the conceptual distinction between fair trial rights and liberty interests and the South African courts’ treatment of “undue delay” cases is described. The report concludes with the recommendation that a constitutional challenge, based on the Criminal Procedure Act’s failure to adequately protect the accused’s right to liberty, be brought on behalf of South Africa’s remand detainees. Such a challenge would be based on the right to liberty and argue that without custody time limits and a regular, automatic review of bail decisions, the law in relation to bail, as it currently stands, is unconstitutional. Details: Cape Town, South Africa: Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape, 2011. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.communitylawcentre.org.za/clc-projects/civil-society-prison-reform-initiative/publications-1/cspri-publications/Remand_Detention_in_SA.pdf/ Year: 2011 Country: South Africa URL: http://www.communitylawcentre.org.za/clc-projects/civil-society-prison-reform-initiative/publications-1/cspri-publications/Remand_Detention_in_SA.pdf/ Shelf Number: 123163 Keywords: Bail (South Africa)Pretrial ReleaseRemand Detainees |
Author: Hedlund, Jennifer Title: Development and Validation of an Assessment for Pretrial Conditional Release Summary: The intent of pretrial decision making is to determine if an individual who is been arrested can be released back into the community prior to his or her court date without posing a risk of failing to appear for court, of committing a new offense or harming someone. The role of pretrial staff (bail commissioners and intake, assessment and referral [IAR] specialists) is to provide an independent assessment of the client’s risk and to recommend to the court whether the client should be considered for a financial bond or a non-financial form of release. A point scale currently provides pretrial staff with guidance in determining the level of risk posed by a client and thus what type of recommendation (financial bond or non-financial release) should be made. Pretrial staff also may add certain conditions to this recommendation, which are intended to minimize the risk posed by a client who may be released on a promise to appear or on a low bond. Until now there has been no tool to assist pretrial staff in determining the type of conditional release that best addresses a client’s needs. The main objectives of the current project were to develop and pilot a decision aid to guide conditional release recommendations, and to evaluate recent modifications to the risk assessment point scale. Details: Hartford, CT: Judicial Branch, 2005. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 31, 2011 at: http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/research/Dev_Val_Assess_PCR.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/research/Dev_Val_Assess_PCR.pdf Shelf Number: 122131 Keywords: BailConditional ReleasePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Section Title: Dialogue On Strategies to Save States Money, Reform Criminal Justice & Keep the Public Safe Summary: The American Bar Association has chosen to focus on five key issues where states can implement changes that will promote public safety, reduce recidivism, and save money. These five issues cover a range of criminal justice topics, but the goal is the same: to create an effective, low-cost system that improves our current justice system. Below is a brief description of each policy. PRE-TRIAL RELEASE REFORM According to the United States Department of Justice, over 500,000 men and women sit in jail awaiting trial. Two-thirds of these people are low bail risk, meaning they have been deemed by a magistrate to pose no significant risk to themselves or the community, as well as representing a low risk of flight. Often, these inmates will sit in jail for over a year before standing trial. While these non-violent offenders are in jail, taxpayers provide them with food, clothing, healthcare, and security – last year alone the United States spent $9 billion on services for those who could not afford bail. With the development of better tools, methods, and technologies to supervise non-violent offenders, states will be able to save money on pretrial detention and reduce risk to the community. Those who pose the lowest risk can be identified, released before trial, and then appropriately monitored and supported so they do not become a risk. Under these narrow circumstances, not only do taxpayers save money, but the community is not put in danger. DECRIMINALIZATION OF MINOR OFFENSES State budgets have very limited resources. Because of these limits, police and prosecutors simply cannot bring justice to all culprits. By declassifying certain minor crimes, law enforcement and attorneys can focus on more serious offenders. A large portion of low-level cases in this country go unsolved – declassification would not only direct more resources toward the investigation of serious crimes, but it would also provide states with a steady stream of income in from applicable civil fines. EFFECTIVE REENTRY PROGRAMS Recidivists account for a significant portion of the United States’ prison populations – it is estimated that over half of former inmates are re-arrested and incarcerated within three years following release from prison. A key component to combating these high numbers is to more effectively choose those inmates who are prepared for release and to create programs that provide those released with useful counseling and vocational training. Without guidance, former inmates are often left without necessary support and job training and quickly return to a life of crime. With the costs of incarceration skyrocketing, states simply cannot afford to repeatedly house the same prisoners. At a reduced cost, states can implement programs that provide former inmates with the tools necessary to become successful, productive members of the community. INCREASED USE OF PAROLE & PROBATION Unnecessary inctiaornce irsa a tremendous expense to the taxpayer, and can do more harm than good with regards to an offender’s rehabilitation. Lengthy periods of incarceration should therefore be reserved for offenders who commit the most serious offenses and pose the greatest danger to the community. In contrast, alternatives to incarceration should be provided for those offenders who pose minimal risk to the community and appear likely to benefit from rehabilitation efforts outside a correctional institution. Recognizing that few convicted persons require lengthy incarceration and many require none, the ABA’s Criminal Justice Standards on Sentencing call for sentencing schemes that allow administrative parole boards to decide when individuals incarcerated under inadequately determinate sentences should be released. The Standards also include probation options for the courts, substantial “good time” credit for individuals sentenced to total confinement, and the assertion that violations of parole and probation for non-violent offenders should not automatically result in incarceration. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS Community corrections consists of any number of sanctions served by an offender within the community where that offender either (a) committed an offense, or (b) currently resides. The objectives of community corrections include punishing an offender in the least restrictive setting consistent with public safety and the gravity of the crime; providing offenders with education, training, and treatment to enable an individual to become a fully functional member of the community upon release from supervision; and making offenders accountable to the community for criminal behavior. Community corrections envisions a wide-range of locally implemented, non-incarcerative sanctions such as probation, day-reporting centers, community service, home confinement with or without electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol treatment, means-based fines, and restitution to both the victim and the community. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2011. 170p. Source: Interent Resource: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 123205 Keywords: BailCommunity CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy (U.S.)Criminal Justice ReformDecriminalizationParolePretrial ReleasePrisoner ReentryProbation |
Author: VanNostrand, Marie Title: Pretrial Risk Assessment in Virginia: The Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument Summary: There are currently 29 pretrial services agencies serving 80 of Virginia’s 134 cities and counties. All Virginia pretrial services agencies operate under the authority of the Pretrial Services Act1 and are funded in whole or part by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). DCJS administers general appropriation funds designated for the purpose of supporting the Pretrial Services Act (PSA) as discretionary grants to local units of government. The field of pretrial services contains two primary sub-fields; pretrial release and pretrial diversion. Pretrial release generally involves the provision of information to judicial officers to assist them in making the pretrial release/detention decision, as well as the monitoring and supervision of persons released from custody while awaiting disposition of criminal charges. Pretrial diversion is a dispositional alternative for pretrial defendants. Defendants voluntarily enter into a diversion program in lieu of standard prosecution and court proceedings. Virginia pretrial services agencies provide pretrial release related services and do not provide pretrial diversion related services.2 The Pretrial Services Act was enacted into law with the purpose of providing more effective protection of society by establishing pretrial services agencies that will assist judicial officers in discharging their duties related to determining bail. The Act states that “such agencies are intended to provide better information and services for use by judicial officers in determining the risk to public safety and the assurance of appearance of persons … other than an offense punishable by death, who are pending trial or hearing.” In addition, in accordance with Virginia Code § 19.2-152.3 the Department of Criminal Justice Services was required to develop risk assessment and other instruments to be used by pretrial services agencies in assisting judicial officers in discharging their duties relating to determining bail for pretrial defendants. The duties and responsibilities of pretrial services agencies are detailed in Virginia Code § 19.2- 152.4:3 - Duties and responsibilities of local pretrial services officers. Pretrial services agencies are required to supervise and assist all defendants placed on pretrial supervision by any judicial officer to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of bail. In order to assist judicial officers in discharging their duties related to determining bail for pretrial defendants, pretrial services officers are required to provide the following services: 1. Investigate and interview defendants arrested on state and local warrants and who are detained in jails located in jurisdictions served by the agency while awaiting a hearing before any court that is considering or reconsidering bail, at initial appearance, advisement or arraignment, or at other subsequent hearings; and 2. Present a pretrial investigation report with recommendations to assist courts in discharging their duties related to granting or reconsidering bail. Consistent with the Code of Virginia, the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services in partnership with the Virginia Community Criminal Justice Association and Luminosity, Inc., developed, implemented, and validated the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI) for use by pretrial services agencies. An overview of pretrial risk assessment generally, the development and validation of the VPRAI, and instructions for instrument completion are provided in this report. Details: Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Criminal Justice, 2009. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2011 at: http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/corrections/riskAssessment/assessingRisk.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/corrections/riskAssessment/assessingRisk.pdf Shelf Number: 123344 Keywords: Pretrial Detention (Virginia)Pretrial ReleasePretrial Risk Assessment |
Author: Kim, KiDeuk Title: A Case Study on the Practice of Pretrial Services and Risk Assessment in Three Cities Summary: This report compares three pretrial agencies—Washington, D.C., New York City, and Baltimore—and discusses their practice of pretrial services and programs, with a particular focus on risk assessment. DCPI researchers identify several unique attributes of the District of Columbia’s Pretrial Service Agency, including its focus on public safety, implementation of formal assessments of flight risk, and lack of reliance on monetary bail. They conclude that PSA’s pretrial risk assessment is more comprehensive than in the other two agencies because it is both designed to inform the use of a broad range of pretrial treatment and supervision options and is focused on helping to reduce and manage the risk to public safety posed by pretrial defendants. Details: Washington, DC: District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute, The Urban Institute, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 12, 2012 at http://www.dccrimepolicy.org/images/Pretrial-Comparative-Final-Report_1.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.dccrimepolicy.org/images/Pretrial-Comparative-Final-Report_1.pdf Shelf Number: 124103 Keywords: Case ManagementCase ProcessingPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: United States National Institute of Corrections Title: Assessing Local Pretrial Justice Functions: A Handbook for Providing Technical Assistance Summary: This guide “presents a protocol designed to produce high-quality technical assistance for the front end of the criminal justice system—the pretrial justice stage” (p. iii). Sections contained in this publication are: basic obligations of a technical assistance (TA) provider; preparation for the site visit; conducting the site visit; people who should be interviewed and areas of inquiry; after the site visit; characteristics of effective technical assistance; and logistics of acting as a consulting technical assistance provider. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 39p. Source: NIC Accession Number 025016: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2012 at http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025016.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025016.pdf Shelf Number: 124139 Keywords: Pretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Austin, James Title: Florida Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument Summary: Evidence-‐based practices requires the use of validated criteria to assess the risks that pretrial defendants pose of being rearrested on new charges while their cases are pending and of failing to appear (FTA) in court. Florida Statute 903.046 (2) lists the criteria that judicial officers are to take into consideration in making pretrial release decisions. Those criteria include: the nature and circumstances of the offense; the weight of the evidence; the defendant’s family ties, length of time in the community; employment history; financial resources; mental conditions; prior criminal history; prior history of appearance in court; current status on pretrial release, probation, and parole; and the “nature and probability of danger which the defendant’s release poses to the community.” The statute does not provide any guidance on what weight to assign each of these criterion in assessing a defendant’s risk of danger to the community and non-‐ appearance in court. But research has clearly demonstrated that it is possible to sort defendants into categories that accurately reflect the risks they pose to the safety of the community and to appearance in court.2 During 2011, six Florida counties participated in a project to develop a multi-‐county pretrial risk assessment instrument. The six counties are: Alachua, Manatee, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pinellas, and Volusia. The purpose of the instrument is to support pretrial decision making as outlined in state statute. Details: Denver, CO: The JFA Institute, 2012? 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2012 at: http://www.pretrial.org/Setting%20Bail%20Documents/FL%20Pretrial%20Risk%20Assessment%20Report%20(2012).pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Setting%20Bail%20Documents/FL%20Pretrial%20Risk%20Assessment%20Report%20(2012).pdf Shelf Number: 124918 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment (Florida) |
Author: Levin, David J. Title: Validation of the Coconino County Pretrial Risk Assessment Tool Summary: The goal of this analysis was to determine whether the risk assessment instrument used by the Coconino County Pretrial Services is a valid predictor of the likelihood of a defendant on pretrial release failing to appear in court or being rearrested on a new charge while the initial charge was pending. The findings indicate that the instrument is not efficient at predicting either form of pretrial misconduct. No correlation was found between most of the variables included in the instrument and the outcomes of failure to appear or rearrest. Efforts to identify which variables were related using multivariate models proved untenable given problems with selection bias, resulting from the fact that only about half the defendants in the study sample were released during the pretrial period. When release rates are so low, it is not possible to identify the variation between low, medium, and high risk defendants. As a result of these selection bias problems, a new risk assessment instrument was constructed based upon research-‐based findings from other jurisdictions. Simulations run on the new instrument show that it is successful in sorting out Coconino County defendants by risk level. The simulations also show that no significant additional risk would be incurred by releasing defendants currently not released who resemble defendants who currently are released. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2010. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 5, 2012 at: http://www.pretrial.org/Documents/PJI%20Final%20report%20to%20Coconino%20County.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Documents/PJI%20Final%20report%20to%20Coconino%20County.pdf Shelf Number: 125482 Keywords: Pretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Allegheny Casualty Title: Taxpayer Funded Pretrial Release: A Failed System Summary: PREFACE Persons legitimately suspected by a proper official of having committed a crime are processed into custody – usually the county jail where they remain until trial unless they are released upon approval of the court. Such a release pending trial is always based upon an assurance, acceptable to the court, that the person will return to court as directed. These promises of the defendant to make their scheduled court appearance fall neatly into two categories: where the promise is financially secured (posting of a bond) or where the release is based upon an unsecured promise to come back for trial. These unsecured releases are frequently recommended by, and supposedly administered through, a local taxpayer funded county agency commonly called “Pretrial Services.” Arranging for secured release is done by the private sector industry known as commercial bail bonding. It will be seen that claims by Pretrial Services which advocate that their taxpayerfunded agencies are a beneficial adjunct to local courts and law enforcement should be scrutinized carefully. Their key performance function is in getting persons in their charge to court for disposition of the charges against them. Proof will be provided to show that in this critical performance requirement Pretrial Services dramatically fails the test. The purpose of this booklet is to point out the critical differences between these two approaches and how those differences affect the public safety and economic interests of citizens. It is hoped that judges, state legislators and local government leaders will, by reviewing these materials, be better able to make appropriate decisions relative to the type of pretrial release system that would best serve the interests of their respective constituents. Details: Fairfax, VA: American Bail Coalition, 2011. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2012 at: http://www.americanbailcoalition.com/documents/PretrialWebBooklet-link.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbailcoalition.com/documents/PretrialWebBooklet-link.pdf Shelf Number: 119660 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Pretrial Release |
Author: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, Pretrial Executives Network Title: Measuring What Matters: Outcome and Performance Measures for the Pretrial Services Field Summary: This monograph presents recommended outcome and performance measures and mission-critical data for pretrial service programs. It is hoped that these suggested measures will enable pretrial service agencies to gauge more accurately their programs’ effectiveness in meeting agency and justice system goals. The contributors to this monograph believe the recommended elements are definable and measurable for most pretrial service programs and are consistent with established national pretrial release standards and the mission and goals of individual pretrial programs. The monograph defines each measure and critical data element and identifies the data needed to track them. It also includes recommendations for programs to develop ambitious but reasonable target measures. Finally, the monograph’s appendix lists examples of outcome and performance measures from three nationally representative pretrial service programs. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2012 at: http://www.pretrial.org/PerformanceMeasuresDocuments/Measuring%20What%20Matters.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/PerformanceMeasuresDocuments/Measuring%20What%20Matters.pdf Shelf Number: 125666 Keywords: BailPretrial ReleasePretrial Services (U.S.) |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Bail Fail: Why the U.S. Should End the Practice of Using Money for Bail Summary: The vaguely understood pretrial process of bail costs the taxpayers of the United States billions of dollars and infringes on the liberty and rights of millions of Americans each year. Fortunately, there are alternatives that states and localities can pursue that have been shown to effectively promote safety, deliver justice, and decrease the number of people in jails all while reducing the price of this incarceration to taxpayers and those directly impacted. Numerous reports and studies have supported the elimination of money bail since the early 1900’s; however, reform efforts have been slow. With the era of mass incarceration putting the United States at the top of the world regarding the number of its residents behind bars, the need for reform has become increasingly urgent. States that cannot maintain burgeoning criminal justice systems are now open to safer, more effective ideas. Current policies and practices around money bail are among the primary drivers of growth in our jail populations. On any given day, 60 percent of the U.S. jail population is composed of people who are not convicted but are being held in detention as they await the resolution of their charge. This time in detention hinders them from taking care of their families, jobs and communities while overcrowding jails and creating unsustainable budgets. In 2011, detaining people in county jails until their court dates was costing counties, alone, around $9 billion a year. The use of bail money is generally accepted for securing release from jail after an arrest. It is a part of our culture: there are jokes about getting bail money if one anticipates getting into trouble and a very common fundraiser involves donating dollars in order to “bail out” a person raising money for a cause. However what is not well known is that starting at the time of arrest, many people charged with an offense undergo a confusing, coercive, and expensive process intended to deliver justice. Constitutional safeguards, court rulings, and laws provide for both the protection of people who are accused of offenses, as well as, the power of government to pursue justice and safety in the community. However, the extensive use of money bail as the primary release mechanism has distorted the pretrial justice process. While cases are resolved, justice is not always served and our communities are not always safer. However, the ability to pay money bail is neither an indicator of a defendant’s guilt nor an indicator of risk in release. The focus on money alone as a mechanism for pretrial release means people often are not properly screened for more rational measures of public safety risk: their propensity to flee before their court date or their risk of causing public harm. Meanwhile, those too poor to pay a money bail remain in jail regardless of their risk level or presumed innocence. Evidence suggests that up to 25 percent more people could be safely released from U.S. jails while awaiting trial if the proper procedures are put in place, including valid risk assessments and appropriate community supervision. This report provides an explanation and analysis of the use of money bail in the pretrial justice system. The following sections are designed to facilitate meaningful discussion and reform: • Overview of the pretrial process so that even readers with little to no familiarity with the process can understand what may happen from arrest through a charge being resolved. • Discussion of issues involved in the use of money bail, such as disproportionate impact on certain communities, loss of liberty, and its linkage to the practice of plea-bargaining. • Overview of more effective, just, and cost-saving practices to give readers an idea of what could be done instead of depending on money bail. • Recommendations for beginning to practically address the issue of money bail. There are vastly more effective and cost-saving practices that should replace money bail as our primary release mechanism. By implementing more effective and efficient programs and services, various jurisdictions across the U.S. are demonstrating the cost savings and enhancement of community safety that could be gained. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2012. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2012 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/bailfail.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/bailfail.pdf Shelf Number: 126320 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Pretrial Release |
Author: Phillips, Mary T. Title: A Decade of Bail Research in New York City Summary: A decade-long research project examining the bail system in New York City has recently been completed by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA). The research was conceived in the context of CJA’s mission of reducing unnecessary pretrial detention, and it continued in the midst of a national debate about the role of bail and the commercial bail bond industry in the criminal justice system. With the publication in 2011 of the last of a series of reports from this research, it is now time to take stock of what we have learned, and to consider how the findings might inform the ongoing public discussion. This final report of the bail project synthesizes the major findings, with the dual objective of making the research results more accessible by gathering them together in one place, while also introducing a level of clarity that is difficult to achieve when disparate findings are viewed only as separate pieces. The bail research began in 2002 with a pilot project to determine the feasibility of collecting data from courtroom observations that would be of use in examining the factors that enter into judges’ decisions to release or set bail for defendants at arraignment. The first published report from that study appeared in 2004. Findings from each phase of the research raised further questions, leading us to expand the study to investigate the part played by the prosecutor in the judge’s bail decision, the role of commercial bonds in bail release, the association between release type and failure to appear (FTA), and the effects of pretrial detention on case outcomes. All together, eight full reports and seven Research Briefs were published between 2004 and 2011 presenting the results of the bail project. They are listed together in a separate section at the beginning of the References, and all are available on CJA’s website at www.nycja.org/research/research.htm. (Two additional unpublished reports, also listed in the References, are not on the website.) Two chapters included here are not based on any of the previously published reports. One of them (Chapter III) situates the New York City bail system within the country as a whole, comparing state bail statutes and presenting nationwide data pertaining to release and bail. This chapter provides essential context — not only for understanding how New York compares in release and detention of pretrial defendants, but also for understanding why national bail reform efforts occasionally focus on conditions that do not apply here. The other chapter with new material (Chapter IV) presents current baseline data on release and bail in New York City, separately for felony and nonfelony cases, including the setting of cash alternatives. The research summarized in Chapters V through VIII used datasets that were compiled between 2002 and 2005. Chapter IV, along with a more detailed table in Appendix B, provides updated data describing release and bail in New York City as of 2010, the most recent year for which data were available. CJA’s concerns about the uses and effects of bail can be traced to the Agency’s origins in the early 1960s. Upon learning that large numbers of impoverished defendants were held in New York City jails awaiting trial — for no other reason than that they lacked money for bail — industrialist Louis Schweitzer established the Vera Foundation in 1961 to address this inequity. The Vera Foundation (now the Vera Institute of Justice) launched the Manhattan Bail Project, in conjunction with the New York University School of Law and the Institute of Judicial Administration, to study the feasibility of release on recognizance (ROR) as an alternative to bail. The Manhattan Bail Project showed that defendants with strong ties to the community would usually return to court without bail, and as a result of that research Vera developed a recommendation system based on objective community-ties information obtained by interviewing defendants. Since that time, the Vera recommendation system has served as a model for pretrial services programs nationwide, and ROR has replaced bail as the dominant form of release in New York. The Vera recommendation system was administered by the NYC Probation Department until 1973, when the Pretrial Services Agency (PTSA) was created to take over its administration. In 1977, PTSA became independent from Vera and was incorporated as the New York City Criminal Justice Agency. From its inception, CJA has been responsible for interviewing virtually every defendant shortly after arrest to collect information that is used to calculate an objective score reflecting the estimated risk of nonappearance. The score provides the basis for assigning a recommendation category, which is provided to the court to assist in the release decision at arraignment. The Agency is constantly reviewing and monitoring its recommendation system, which is described in detail in Appendix A. Data presented in each year’s Annual Report show that the recommendation is effective in persuading judges to release low-risk defendants (Exhibit 12), and — no coincidence — that it is also effective in predicting which defendants are most likely to return to court without bail (Exhibit 18). The system was overhauled in 2003, and a new research project was recently launched to improve its predictive accuracy even further. In spite of the success of the recommendation system in establishing ROR as the primary release type in New York City, judges are not bound by it, and in fact they are required to consider other factors as well. As a result, there are many cases in which the recommendation is not followed. Every year thousands of defendants who were recommended have bail set, and an even larger number who were assigned to the highrisk category are released without bail.1 This observation formed the starting point for the bail project, which began by investigating the question of what — other than the CJA recommendation — influences judicial release and bail decisions. This and related issues addressed by CJA’s bail project have gained in importance as local and national criticism of the system of money bail has grown in recent years. U.S. jails are increasingly filled with pretrial detainees, as release rates drop and reliance on bail rises across the country (Clark 2010). Media and watchdog organizations have begun to put a spotlight on the shortcomings of the bail system in New York City, publicizing the plight of the thousands of New Yorkers “stuck behind bars because they’re too broke to get out,” as the Village Voice put it (Pinto 2012; see also Murphy 2007, Liptak 2008, Fellner 2010, and Eligon 2011a, 2011b). In December 2011 the New York County Lawyers Association held a public forum to discuss the topic.2 On a wider stage, a three-part National Public Radio series in January 2010 introduced the general public to the sad stories of people arrested for minor offenses and jailed for lack of bail money in Lubbock, Texas (Part 1), New York City (Part 2), and Broward County, Florida (Part 3). In the second part of the series, Martin Horn — then New York City Commissioner of Correction — commented on the difficult choice faced by individuals who do not wish to plead guilty and cannot afford bail. “‘Individuals who insist on their innocence and refuse to plead guilty get held,’ according to Horn. ‘But the people who choose to plead guilty get out faster’” (NPR 2010). In the most important development to date, Attorney General Eric Holder, together with the Pretrial Justice Institute, convened a National Symposium On Pretrial Justice on May 31 and June 1, 2011, in Washington, DC. Law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, victims, elected officials, and pretrial organizations were represented. Calling the pretrial release decision-making process “deeply flawed,” symposium organizers called on participants to help find solutions (PJI 2011b). The symposium harked back to the 1964 conference convened by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to bring attention to the injustice that had so disturbed Louis Schweitzer a few years earlier. Kennedy, like Schweitzer, argued that money should not be the only thing that matters in determining whether a defendant avoids jail while awaiting trial (PJI 2011a; Schnacke, Jones, et al. 2010). The Kennedy conference culminated in the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966, which led to the increased use of ROR across the country. It remains to be seen what concrete changes will result from the 2011 National Symposium, but a long list of recommendations came out of the proceedings, all of which reflect standards the American Bar Association has endorsed for many years (ABA 2007). The adoption of the recommendations in their entirety by New York would require major changes in the way release and bail decisions are made. We will return to this topic in the concluding chapter of this report, where we present the National Symposium recommendations and discuss what changes would be entailed in bringing New York into compliance. The role of the commercial bail bond industry in the U.S. forms a subtext to the public debate about bail. In some parts of the country (not New York) commercial bonds are nearly synonymous with release on bail, and the local pretrial service agency is responsible for supervising defendants on non-financial, conditional release. The bond industry has responded to this perceived competition for clients by launching an aggressive national campaign to discredit pretrial services agencies and to convince lawmakers and the public that bail bonds are the most effective form of release (see, for example, AIA 2010). In New York City, where the bond industry is relatively weak, it was unclear at the outset if enough bonds are posted here to conduct any meaningful research on their impact. However, the research soon revealed that bonds have regained a foothold in the City, enough to allow us to expand the bail project to include a study that eventually refuted some of the commercial bond industry’s claims. This study would have been much more difficult to do in areas of the country where virtually all bail release is by a commercial bond because it would be impossible to distinguish the impact of the bondsman from the impact of money bail itself. The most important findings from all the studies conducted as part of the bail project are grouped together in four chapters, addressing judicial decision making (Chapter V), bail release (Chapter VI), effects of release type on failure to appear (Chapter VII), and effects of pretrial detention on case outcomes (Chapter VIII). Most chapters summarize the findings from more than one report, and the order in which the research findings are discussed here is not necessarily the same order in which they were originally published. Many details, additional analyses, and discussions that were omitted here are included in the original reports. The reader is also referred to the original reports for full descriptions of the manual data collection procedures used to supplement data from the CJA database. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc., 2012. 171p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed September 13, 2012 at: http://www.cjareports.org/reports/DecadeBailResearch.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjareports.org/reports/DecadeBailResearch.pdf Shelf Number: 126322 Keywords: Bail (New York City)Pretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: For Better or For Profit: How the Bail Bonding Industry Stands in the Way of Fair and Effective Pretrial Justice Summary: As early as 1912 – 100 years ago – critics were concerned that poor people remained in jail while awaiting trial solely because of their inability to pay even small bail amounts, that bail bondsmen had become too prominent in the administration of justice and that corruption plagued the industry. Amazingly, these issues still apply to the for-profit bail bond system in today, the Justice Policy Institute shows in its report new report, For Better or For Profit: How the Bail Bonding Industry Stands in the Way of Fair and Effective Pre-Trial Justice. There are approximately 15,000 bail bond agents working in the United States, writing bonds for about $14 billion annually. Bail bond companies take billions from low-income people, with no return on investment in terms of public safety and added costs to communities, according to JPI’s findings. Backed by multibillion dollar insurance giants, the for-profit bail bonding industry maintains its hold in the pretrial system through political influence. For Better or For Profit recommends the U.S. should end for-profit bail bonding; promote and further institutionalize pretrial services; and require greater transparency within the industry. Details: Washington DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2012. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2012 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/_for_better_or_for_profit_.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/_for_better_or_for_profit_.pdf Shelf Number: 126392 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Bail BondsmenPretrial Release |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Bailing on Baltimore: Voices from the Front Lines of the Justice System Summary: In Baltimore City, the bail system relies almost exclusively on financial conditions of release, or money bail. All adults who are arrested are processed at the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center (Central Booking). After they have been booked, people attend a bail hearing where a District Court bail commissioner sets the initial bail amount. The State’s Attorney may make recommendations regarding the bail amount, but the commissioner is not required to accept these recommendations. In most cases, the bail commissioner has the authority to release people on their own recognizance, but in Baltimore City, this rarely occurs. In fact, most people in Baltimore City are not offered release under any conditions. On February 13, 2012, the jail population in the Baltimore City jail was 3,605 people, and 57 percent of the people were in custody due to not being offered bail on one or more of their charges. Bail commissioners are appointed by the Administrative Judge and must hold a bachelor’s degree but are not required to be lawyers or have any sort of certification or background in criminal justice. If a person pays their bail amount in full or procures the services of a for-profit bail bonding company, they are released. If they are detained in jail because they cannot pay the initial amount, they go before a judge during the next session of court for a bail review hearing. At the bail review hearing, the judge makes the final bail decision and may change the commissioner’s initial decision, including modifying the amount of bail or releasing a person on their own recognizance. However, data show that judges change the decision of the commissioners in less than a fourth of all cases. In effect, bail commissioners most often decide who is released on personal recognizance, who receives bail or who is held without bail. This report is the product of interviews with thirteen individuals with knowledge about or direct experience with the pretrial justice systems in Baltimore City and Washington, D.C. From March to May 2012, researcher Jean Chung sat down with residents of Baltimore City who had been in jail as well as criminal justice advocates, attorneys, judicial officials, and pretrial services providers in Baltimore City and Washington, D.C. The purpose of this report is twofold: first, to document and make heard the perspectives and stories of people whose lives have been affected by the bail system in Baltimore City; second, to identify the policy reforms that are most relevant and needed to improve the Baltimore City bail system. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2012. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2012 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/bailingonbaltimore.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/bailingonbaltimore.pdf Shelf Number: 126481 Keywords: Bail (Baltimore, Maryland)Pretrial Release |
Author: Bechtel, Kristin Title: Dispelling the Myths: What Policy Makers Need to Know About Pretrial Research Summary: The for-profit bail bonding industry has relied upon several recent studies to make the claim that commercial surety bonds are the most effective type of pretrial release. This paper provides an overview of those studies and explains why they cannot be used for this purpose because they do not answer questions about the effectiveness of any one type of pretrial release over that of others. This paper also cautions policy makers when the for-profit bail bonding industry presents them with these studies, and concludes that researchers should engage in objective and methodologically sound research that informs cost-effective and evidence-based pretrial public policy. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2012. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2012 at http://www.pretrial.org/Reports/PJI%20Reports/Dispelling%20the%20Myths%20%28November%202012%29.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Reports/PJI%20Reports/Dispelling%20the%20Myths%20%28November%202012%29.pdf Shelf Number: 126919 Keywords: BailCommercial BondsCost-Benefit AnalysisCriminal Justice PolicyPretrial Release |
Author: Pretrial Justice Institute Title: Using Technology to Enhance Pretrial Services: Current Applications and Future Possibilities Summary: The first pretrial services programs came into existence 50 years ago. The technological tools available to pretrial services staff of that period, and for many years thereafter, were a pen or pencil, paper and index cards, a land-line telephone, and a typewriter. With these tools, pretrial services staff performed their tasks of interviewing defendants, verifying information, checking criminal records, preparing reports for the court, supervising conditions of release imposed by the court, and reminding defendants of upcoming court dates. Today, the pace of technological change is transforming the way pretrial services work is done. And that pace is accelerating at an exponential rate. Computing power has been doubling every 18 months, telecommunications capacity every 34 months, and electronic information storage capacity every 40 months. One author has calculated that, when measured against the 20th Century’s rate of progress, we will experience an astonishing 20,000 years of progress in technological growth in the 21st Century. To what extent are pretrial services programs making use of current technologies? How might the avalanche of technological developments projected to come our way in the next couple of decades aid the work of these programs? This document seeks to explore those questions. It begins with a review of technology to manage information and track program performance. The second section addresses each of the functions of pretrial services programs (e.g., interviewing defendants, verification, and record checks) and describes how technologies can be used to help programs in performing these functions. The third section explores factors that affect the implementation of new technologies, including the maturity of the technology at the time of implementation, the level of staff training required to use the technology, any philosophical issues that should be addressed prior to implementation, and costs. The fourth section discusses how technology affects the diffusion of knowledge about effective pretrial practices. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2012. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed December 1, 2012 at: http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20USING%20TECHNOLOGY%20TO%20ENHANCE%20PRETRIAL%20SERVICES%20(2012).pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20USING%20TECHNOLOGY%20TO%20ENHANCE%20PRETRIAL%20SERVICES%20(2012).pdf Shelf Number: 127042 Keywords: BailPretrial ReleasePretrial Services (U.S.)Technology |
Author: Krahl, David E. Title: An Analysis of the Financial Impact of Surety Bonding on Aggregate and Average Detention Costs and Cost Savings in the State of Florida for 2008 by a Single Florida Insurance Company: A Follow-Up Study to Earlier Research Summary: In the twenty-first century world and in light of a sub-optimally performing economy, counties and local governments are attempting to find cost-effective and financially pragmatic ways to contain costs. The edict of "doing more with less" has been the perpetual mantra of local and county government officials when seeking to provide government services without increasing the size or the costs of the bureaucratic infrastructure. This has been particularly true when it comes to the issue of jail overcrowding, and the question of how to reduce the costs of jail operations. Today's jails are filled with defendants who are awaiting trial, those who are awaiting sentencing or who are actually serving sentences, those who are awaiting transportation to state prison facilities, illegal immigrants who have been apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and those who are detained to civil commitment orders. One pragmatic and workable solution to the problem of jail overcrowding and that oftentimes is routinely ignored by government officials is the use of surety bonding as a way to effectuate the pretrial release of those defendants who are awaiting trial. To say the least, the use of surety bonding has a rich tradition in the United States. One of the distinct advantages of surety bonding is that it functions as cost-effective mechanism to provide for the pretrial release of defendants at an absolute zero-cost to taxpayers. Because the surety bonding industry operates in the private sector, surety bonding is a strategy that does not increase either the size of the government's bureaucracy or the expense of its operation. Government-funded pretrial release programs are unable to make either of these claims; nor can they substantiate the cost-efficiency of their performance through the use of empirical data. This research is a follow-up study to one conducted last year which documents the cost-savings associated with surety bonding as a pretrial release mechanism for one surety bonding company in the state of Florida. This study also discusses the implications of these findings relative to the operation of the process of pretrial release. It also calls for more extensive research to further address the problems posed by government-sponsored pretrial release programs in terms of burgeoning costs to taxpayers and increasing the size of government infrastructure. Details: Tampa, Florida: Department of Criminology, University of Tampa, 2009. 65p. Source: Library Resource: Accessible at Don M. Gottfredson Library of Criminal Justice. Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 127260 Keywords: BailBail BondsmenCorrectional OperationsCorrections (Florida)Costs of Criminal Justice (Florida)Jail OvercrowdingPretrial Release |
Author: Council for Court Excellence. D.C. Misdemeanor Arrest & Pretrial Release Project Title: Clarifying the Post-Arrest Process in the District of Columbia: Report, Recommendations and Proposed Legislation. Summary: Post-arrest release is an often overlooked, yet important, facet of the DC criminal justice system. In 2012 alone there were almost 17,000 persons arrested that availed themselves of the array of post-arrest release options. The evolution of the District’s post-arrest release process has been largely rooted in custom and practice with the unintended result being confusion by the public and, at times, even criminal justice practitioners – attorneys and police officers alike – as to how the system works, which crimes are eligible for which types of release, and how current and prior criminal history and other factors may affect post-arrest release options. The CCE report recommends that: The Council for the District of Columbia should consider adoption of proposed legislation to update and clarify the post-arrest process and related criteria; and The Metropolitan Police Department should adopt the proposed “plain English” description of post-arrest options and conditions on MPD's Notice to Arrested Persons, with translations into other languages as necessary. It is worth noting that DC is one of the few jurisdictions in the country that has a post-arrest release process that embodies the principle that arrested persons, so long as they do not pose a danger to the community or a flight risk, should be released from custody on their own recognizance. The post-arrest process is largely based on the least restrictive options available to arrested persons, rather than being based on the amount of money they are able to post. The report is, for the most part, based on the consensus of the DC Misdemeanor Arrest and Pretrial Release Project Subcommittee - a diverse committee of those who are involved in the post-arrest process in DC. CCE thanks the Subcommittee for its efforts and excellent work! The Subcommittee is chaired by Clifford Keenan, a Board Director of the Council for Court Excellence, and includes CCE Board Directors Cary Feldman, Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell LLP; Mark Flanagan, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP; Richard Gilbert, Law Offices of Richard K. Gilbert; Michael Hays, Dow Lohnes PLLC; and Earl Silbert, DLA Piper. Representatives of DC criminal justice agencies on the Subcommittee are: Daniel Cipullo, Tenisha Jiggetts and Kiger Sigh, the DC Superior Court; Patricia Riley and Renata Cooper, United States Attorney’s Office for DC; Laura Hankins, the DC Public Defender Service; Kelly O’Meara, the DC Metropolitan Police Department; and David Rosenthal DC Office of the Attorney General. Details: District of Columbia, US: Council for Court Excellence, 2013. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2013 at: http://www.courtexcellence.org/uploads/publications/CCE_Post_Arrest_Report_and_Legislative_ProposalFINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtexcellence.org/uploads/publications/CCE_Post_Arrest_Report_and_Legislative_ProposalFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 128877 Keywords: BailPost-Arrest Release (District of Columbia, U.S.)Pretrial Release |
Author: Tafoya, Sonya M. Title: Assessing the Impact of Bail on California’s Jail Population Summary: Advocates of bail reform have argued that increases in bail levels and wide variation across counties discriminate against indigent and poor defendants and lead to overcrowded jails. Bail reform gained new momentum in 2011 when the Public Safety Realignment Act (known as “realignment”) took effect. In shifting responsibility for lower-level offenders from the state to the counties, realignment has increased concerns about overcrowding in county jails. It has also sharpened the focus on bail reform’s potential to reduce the unsentenced jail population, reduce county jail costs, provide low-risk indigent or poor arrestees a nonfinancial means of securing pretrial release, and make the bail system more equitable without unduly compromising public safety. Over the past decade, California’s bail levels have increased by an average of 22 percent. But counties have not increased their bail schedules uniformly. In fact, some counties have not increased their bail schedules at all. This analysis estimates that a 31 percent drop in the statewide average bail level, which equates to a $10,000 decrease, would result in a 4 percentage point reduction in the share of unsentenced inmates. Given the statewide unsentenced average daily population (ADP) in the year before realignment (50,472), this would translate to 2,843 fewer unsentenced inmates statewide. An alternate measure, using the number of unsentenced inmates per 100,000 residents, yields similar results. The same 31 percent drop in bail would result in an estimated drop of 7 unsentenced inmates per 100,000 residents, or 2,666 inmates statewide. However, these results are driven largely by the most populous counties (and particularly Los Angeles). This suggests that legislative proposals aimed at reducing bail amounts and making them more uniform across the state for the purpose of reducing the number of unsentenced jail inmates may not be widely effective. Reductions in bail are most likely to be effective in counties that rely heavily on bail as a means of pretrial release and that adhere closely to the scheduled bail amounts. The analysis also finds wide variation in bail levels across counties. However, the variation is not correlated with the size of the unsentenced population. This supports the conclusion that reduction in bail amounts across the board may not be the most promising approach for addressing jail overcrowding statewide. But it also suggests that to the extent that judges default to the bail schedule rather than basing bail or pretrial release on an individualized evaluation of risk, reducing bail and increasing uniformity across the state could address pretrial release equity issues. However, these reforms might well achieve greater equity at the expense of public safety without the simultaneous expansion of pretrial programs that effectively identify low-risk defendants for reduced bail, own-recognizance release, or conditional release. Details: San Francisco: Public policy Institute of California, 2013. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 24, 2013 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_613STR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_613STR.pdf Shelf Number: 129501 Keywords: Bail (California, U.S.)JailsPretrial Release |
Author: Jones, Michael R. Title: Unsecured Bonds: The As Effective and Most Efficient Pretrial Release Option Summary: For the first time ever, a study compares pretrial release outcomes by money bond type, controlling for the statistical risk level of defendants released pretrial. PJI compared unsecured bonds (no money upfront, but a promise to pay the full amount if one fails to appear) with secured bonds (whether cash or surety, one must pay upfront in order to be released) in 1,919 cases in Colorado. Some key findings include: - Unsecured bonds are as effective at achieving public safety as secured bonds. - Unsecured bonds are as effective at achieving court appearance as secured bonds. - Higher dollar amounts of secured bonds are associated with more pretrial jail bed use but not increased court appearance rates. - Unsecured bonds use far fewer jail beds than do secured bonds because more releasable defendants leave jail (94% unsecured versus 61% secured), and leave sooner. - Unsecured bonds are as effective as secured bonds at preventing defendants who fail to appear in court from remaining at-large on a warrant. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2013. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2013 at: Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Unsecured%20Bonds,%20The%20As%20Effective%20and%20Most%20Efficient%20Pretrial%20Release%20Option%20-%20Jones%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 131403 Keywords: BailPretrial ReleaseSecured Bonds |
Author: Lowenkamp, Christopher T. Title: Exploring the Impact of Supervision on Pretrial Outcomes Summary: Pretrial supervision is a relatively common condition of release and is encouraged by professional associations (e.g., American Bar Association, 2007; National Association for Pretrial Services Agencies, 2004), but very little is known about its effects overall and even less is known about what makes a particular pretrial supervision program more effective than another. Overall, the research on pretrial supervision is minimal and dated. The current study seeks to investigate the effect of pretrial supervision on the likelihood of failure to appear (FTA) and new criminal activity (NCA) before case disposition. First, drawing on data from two states, this research isolates two groups of defendants: those released pending case disposition with supervision and those released without supervision. Second, this research compares the two groups across several descriptive factors regarding likelihood of FTA and NCA while in the community pending case disposition. Using data on 3,925 defendants (2,437 released with pretrial supervision and 1,488 released without supervision), this research constructed a series of bivariate and multivariate models to test the impact of pretrial supervision. When the effects of time at risk in the community, demographic characteristics and defendant risk level (as measured by an established risk assessment) were accounted for, this research indicated: 1. Defendants who received supervision were significantly more likely to appear for an assigned court date. The most complex multivariate models that controlled for gender, race, time at risk in the community and defendant risk level all revealed that supervision significantly reduced the likelihood of FTA. 2. When using a five-level risk scale (level I being the lowest risk and level V being the highest), the differences between those who received pretrial supervision and those who did not was most pronounced for higher-risk defendants. Thirteen percent of level III defendants with no supervision failed to appear, compared with 8% for those who were supervised. For levels IV and V, 18% of unsupervised defendants failed to appear, compared with 12% of supervised defendants. These differences equate to relative risk reductions of 38% and 33%, which means supervised level III defendants were 38% less likely to FTA and supervised level IV and V defendants were 33% less likely to FTA than their unsupervised counterparts. The research also investigated the impact of supervision length on defendant outcomes. It was hypothesized that the effects of pretrial supervision on FTA would not vary with the length of the supervision period. It was also hypothesized that longer periods of supervision would be associated with lower levels of NCA, whereas shorter periods of supervision would have minimal or no effect on NCA. To test these hypotheses, multivariate models were created for defendants whose cases lasted 90 days or less, 91-180 days, and more than 180 days. The results indicated: 1. The effects of pretrial supervision on FTA are fairly consistent over the differing time-to-disposition periods (time at risk in the community). 2. When the time to disposition was more than 180 days, two of the three multivariate models identified statistically significant differences in the likelihood of NCA between those who received pretrial supervision and those who did not. 3. Defendants supervised pretrial for more than 180 days were 12% to 36% less likely to commit new crimes before case disposition. Some of these reductions were statistically significant while some merely approached statistical significance. While these are observational findings, pretrial supervision of any length seems to make FTA less likely, and pretrial supervision of more than 180 days seems to make NCA less likely. This last finding is tentative because pretrial supervision, while statistically significant in relation to NCA in some models, only approaches statistical significance in other models. Ideally, future studies will control for various forms of pretrial supervision and conditions (e.g., home confinement, electronic monitoring, etc.) as well as demographics and defendant risk levels. In addition, future research should use an experimental design to definitively assess the impact of pretrial supervision on failure to appear and new criminal activity pending case disposition. Details: Houston, TX: Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2013. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 14, 2014 at: http://arnoldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/pdf/LJAF_Report_Supervision_FNL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://arnoldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/pdf/LJAF_Report_Supervision_FNL.pdf Shelf Number: 131919 Keywords: Failure to Appear Pretrial ReleasePretrial Supervision |
Author: Brooker, Claire M.B. Title: The Jefferson County Bail Project: Impact study found better cost effectiveness for unsecured recognizance bonds over cash and surety bonds Summary: In early 2010, Jefferson County, Colorado, conducted a Bail Impact Study, which was a pilot project to determine, among other things, the impact of using fewer secured money bonds on four bail outcomes: (1) public safety; (2) court appearance; (3) compliance with supervision; and (4) pretrial jail use. This study was part of the larger Jefferson County Bail Project, a comprehensive undertaking to understand and improve the County's bail administration. Results showed that the increased use of secured financial conditions of bond did not enhance court appearance, public safety, or compliance with other conditions of supervision. Secured bonds did, however, increase pretrial jail bed use. These findings suggest that when secured money bonds are set, it results in higher taxpayer cost with no public safety, court appearance, or compliance with supervision benefits. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2014. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2014 at: http://www.pretrial.org/download/pji-reports/Jeffersion%20County%20Bail%20Project-%20Impact%20Study%20-%20PJI%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/download/pji-reports/Jeffersion%20County%20Bail%20Project-%20Impact%20Study%20-%20PJI%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 133074 Keywords: Bail (Colorado)Bail BondsPretrial Release |
Author: Schnacke, Timothy R. Title: The Jefferson County Bail Project: Lessons learned from a process of pretrial change at the local level Summary: Beginning in 2007, at the advent of the current pretrial justice reform movement, the Jefferson County, Colorado, criminal justice system initiated a process of: (1) educating itself on legal and evidence-based practices at bail; (2) describing existing issues, desired outcomes, and options for improvements to the administration of bail; and (3) periodically testing its hypotheses based on shared goals. That process involved extensive background research, consideration of that research by a committee having diverse criminal justice membership, the creation of an ambitious pilot project, data analysis, and ultimately a vote by the key justice system decision-makers to implement several recommended changes. Overall, the criminal justice system in Jefferson County has changed from one accustomed to the traditional money bail system to one that has moved away from that system in several meaningful ways. The system changed its practices, its mindset, and even its vocabulary. It furthered pretrial justice without changes in state law, and it did so while maintaining acceptable public safety and court appearance rates. While Jefferson County has not fully implemented all of the practices it envisioned and tested, it laid a solid foundation for further incremental improvement. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2014. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2014 at: http://www.pretrial.org/download/pji-reports/Jefferson%20County%20Bail%20Project-%20Lessons%20Learned%20-%20PJI%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/download/pji-reports/Jefferson%20County%20Bail%20Project-%20Lessons%20Learned%20-%20PJI%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 133075 Keywords: Bail (Colorado) Pretrial Release |
Author: Phillips, Mary T. Title: New York's Credit Card Bail Experiment Summary: On March 26, 2012, the New York County Criminal Court began a six-month pilot program for accepting bail by credit card. After the six-month period, the program was extended and was subsequently expanded to all five counties of New York City starting January 28, 2013. The maximum amount of credit card bail that the Court may set is $2,500, payable by Visa or Mastercard (a third credit card, Discover, was added at the time of expansion Citywide). In order for a credit card to be accepted for bail, the judge must specifically designate that a credit card is an acceptable form of bail in the case and the amount of bail that may be paid by credit card. The person posting bail must provide a government-issued photo identification and may use only one credit card for each bail transaction (Barry 2012, 2013). For decades the Criminal Procedure Law has authorized the use of credit cards for bail, along with cash and various types of bonds (CPL 520.10(1)(i)), but no directives had been issued prior to this program to enable cashiers to accept credit card bail payments. One hurdle was that the law provided for a reasonable administrative fee, which had never been fixed. The Office of Court Administration (OCA) resolved that problem at the outset of the program with the decision to absorb the fees charged to OCA by credit card companies, so that clients would not be charged a fee. In his memorandum announcing the pilot program, Criminal Court Administrative Judge Barry Kamins cited the significant fees incurred by the Court in accepting credit cards as the reason for limiting credit card bail amounts to $2,500 (Kamins 2012). Bail posted by credit card is treated like any other bail paid directly to the Court (i.e., cash bail) in that a full refund is made when the case is terminated by acquittal or dismissal and a 3% fee is imposed upon conviction. No additional fee is imposed for using a credit card, but the 3% administrative fee still applies where appropriate. Only court cashiers accept bail payment by credit card, and the defendant must be physically present in the courthouse. The Department of Correction (DOC) does not accept credit card payments under this program, although DOC inmates continue to have the option of using a credit card to post cash bail in low amounts at one of the jails automated kiosks or through a telephone payment system. These options have disadvantages, including the fee charged by the third-party vendor used by DOC. The major drawback, however, is the length of time it takes to gain release. Many hours may pass while processing is completed for the transfer to DOC custody and the defendant is taken to Rikers Island or another of the City jails. There is a further delay while the facility waits to receive payment from the vendor. The defendant is not released until the money is received at the facility, which can take 24 hours or longer from the time the credit card transaction is completed. By contrast, the defendant is released immediately at the courthouse upon payment of credit card bail under the new program. The current research provides a preliminary assessment of the success of the program. We examined the extent to which it was used by the Courts and by defendants during its first year of Citywide implementation, and asked whether the program is accomplishing its goals of helping defendants gain release and decreasing the time they spend in detention, without raising failure-to-appear (FTA) rates. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2014. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2014 at: http://www.nycja.org/ Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.nycja.org/ Shelf Number: 133813 Keywords: Bail (New York City) Credit Cards Pretrial Release |
Author: Schnacke, Timothy R. Title: Money as a Criminal Justice Stakeholder: The Judge's Decision to Release or Detain a Defendant Pretrial Summary: Our best understanding of how to make meaningful improvements to criminal justice systems points to justice stakeholders cultivating a shared vision, using a collaborative policy process, and enhancing individual decision making with evidence-based practices. Unfortunately, however, using secured money to determine release at bail threatens to erode each of these ingredients. Money cares not for systemwide improvement, and those who buy their stakeholder status from money have little interest in coming together to work on evidence-based solutions to systemwide issues. Like virtually no other area of the law, when judges set secured financial conditions at bail, they are essentially abdicating their decision-making authority to the money itself, which in many ways then becomes a criminal justice stakeholder, with influence and control over such pressing issues as jail populations, court dockets, county budgets, and community safety. Money takes this decision-making authority and sells it to whoever will pay for the transfer, ultimately resulting in "decisions" that run counter to justice system goals as well as the intentions of bail-setting judges. The solution to this dilemma - a dilemma created and blossoming in only the last century in America - is for judges to fully understand the essence of their decision-making duty at bail, and in their adhering to a process in which they reclaim their roles as decision makers fully responsible for the pretrial release or detention of any particular defendant. Judges can achieve this understanding through a thorough knowledge of history, which illustrates that bail has always been a process in which bail-setting officials were expected to make "bail/no bail," or in-or-out decisions, immediately effectuated so that bailable defendants were released and unbailable defendants were detained. The history of bail shows that when bailable defendants (or those whom we feel should be bailable defendants) are detained or unbailable defendants (or those whom we feel should be unbailable defendants) are released, some correction is necessary to right the balance. Moreover, the history shows that America's switch from a personal surety system using primarily unsecured bonds to a commercial surety system using primarily secured bonds (along with other factors) has led to abuses to both the "bail" and "no bail" sides of our current dichotomies, thus leading to three generations of bail reform in America in the last 100 years. Judges can also achieve this understanding through a thorough knowledge of the pretrial legal foundations. These foundations follow the history in equating "bail" with release, and "no bail" with detention, suggesting, if not demanding an in-or-out decision by judicial officials who are tasked with embracing the risk associated with release and then mitigating that risk only to reasonable levels. Indeed, the history of bail, the legal foundations underlying bail, the pretrial research, the national standards on pretrial release, and the model federal and District of Columbia statutes are all premised on a "release/detain" decision-making process that is unobstructed by secured money at bail. Understanding the nuances of each of these bail fundamentals can help judges also to avoid that obstruction. Nevertheless, it is knowledge of the current pretrial research that perhaps provides judges with the necessary tools to avoid the obstruction of money and to make effective pretrial decisions. First, current pretrial research illustrates that not making an immediately effectuated release decision for low and moderate risk defendants can have both short- and long-term harmful effects for both defendants and society. It is important for judges to make effective bail decisions, but it is especially important that those decisions not frustrate the very purposes underlying the bail process, such as to avoid threats to public safety. Therefore, judges should be guided by recent research demonstrating that a decision to release that is immediately effectuated (and not delayed through the use of secured financial conditions) can increase release rates while not increasing the risk of failure to appear or the danger to the community to intolerable levels. Second, the use of pretrial risk assessment instruments can help judges determine which defendants should be kept in or let out of jail. Those instruments, coupled with research illustrating that using unsecured rather than secured bonds can facilitate the release of bailable defendants without increasing either the risk of failure to appear or the danger to the public, can be crucial in giving judges who still insist on using money at bail the comfort of knowing that their in-or-out decisions will cause the least possible harm. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2014. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2014 at: http://www.clebp.org/images/2014-11-05_final_nic_money_as_a_stakeholder_september_8,_2014_ii.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.clebp.org/images/2014-11-05_final_nic_money_as_a_stakeholder_september_8,_2014_ii.pdf Shelf Number: 134015 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Decision MakingJudgesPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Schnacke, Timothy R. Title: Fundamentals of Bail: A Resource Guide for Pretrial Practitioners and a Framework for American Pretrial Reform Summary: Pretrial justice in America requires a common understanding and agreement on all of the component parts of bail. Those parts include the need for pretrial justice, the history of bail, the fundamental legal principles underlying bail, the pretrial research, the national standards on pretrial release and detention, and how we define our basic terms and phrases. Why Do We Need Pretrial Improvements? If we can agree on why we need pretrial improvements in America, we are halfway toward implementing those improvements. As recently as 2007, one of the most frequently heard objections to bail reform was the ubiquitous utterance, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' That has changed. While various documents over the last 90 years have consistently pointed toward the need to improve the administration of bail, literature from this current generation of pretrial reform gives us powerful new information from which we can articulate exactly why we need to make changes, which, in turn, frames our vision of pretrial justice designed to fix what is most certainly broken. Knowing that our understanding of pretrial risk is flawed, we can begin to educate judges and others on how to embrace risk first and mitigate risk second so that our foundational American precept of equal justice remains strong. Knowing that the traditional money-based bail system leads both to unnecessary pretrial detention of lower risk persons and the unwise release of many higher risk persons, we can begin to craft processes that are designed to correct this illogical imbalance. Knowing and agreeing on each issue of pretrial justice, from infusing risk into police officer stops and first advisements to the need for risk-based bail statutes and constitutional right-to-bail language, allows us as a field to look at each state (or even at all states) with a discerning eye to begin crafting solutions to seemingly insoluble problems. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2014. 128p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2014 at: http://www.clebp.org/images/2014-11-05_final_bail_fundamentals_september_8,_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.clebp.org/images/2014-11-05_final_bail_fundamentals_september_8,_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 134016 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Criminal Justice ReformPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Maryland. Commission to Reform Maryland's Pretrial System Title: Commission to Reform Maryland's Pretrial System: Final Report Summary: The Governor's Commission to Reform Maryland's Pretrial System ("the Commission") was established by Executive Order on May 27, 2014 to gather experts and interested parties, with the goal of developing recommendations to ensure that Maryland operates the best possible statewide pretrial system. The Commission was preceded by the Task Force to Study the Laws and Policies Relating to Representation of Indigent Criminal Defendants by the Public Defender. The work of the Commission was also informed by legislative deliberations during the 2014 Session of the Maryland General Assembly. On July 1, 2014, the State of Maryland began to implement a Court of Appeals decision that requires state-furnished counsel for indigent defendants at initial appearances before a District Court Commissioner. The Commission studied characteristics of the current pretrial system, including outcomes associated with the provision of counsel at the initial appearance phase. The Commission met five times and also formed three subcommittees related to Managing Public Safety through Risk-Based Decision Making, Pretrial System Improvement, and Individual Rights and Collateral Consequences. These three subcommittees held five additional meetings. The Commission ultimately voted to approve the following 14 recommendations: - Recommendation One: Create a uniform pretrial services agency which mandates a process that will ensure continuity and consistency across all 24 jurisdictions. Pretrial services will be responsible for gathering criminal records, administering a statewide risk assessment tool and other relevant information that will be beneficial in determining the initial appearance and to avoid the redundancy of various agencies pulling the same information. Pretrial services will also be responsible for supervision of those released under pretrial supervision and provide referrals for treatment, counseling and other services, particularly for those individuals with limited means, to address the underlying needs that may have caused the criminal behavior. - Recommendation Two: Provide adequate funding and/or personnel to implement a validated risk assessment tool modeled after best practices to pilot in jurisdictions to be utilized by the Court Commissioners after the data has been analyzed. - Recommendation Three: The Judiciary should evaluate the current pretrial system to determine whether it has the capacity to implement best practices in pretrial justice. This evaluation should consider the re-purposing of District Court Commissioners from their current duties to conducting risk assessments on defendants and supervising defendants pretrial. - Recommendation Four: The use of secured, financial conditions of pretrial release (cash, property, or surety bond) that require a low-risk defendant to pay some amount of money in order to obtain release, while permitting high-risk defendants with the resources to pay their bonds to leave jail unsupervised, be completely eliminated. - Recommendation Five: Cash bail, and its associated impact, should be monitored by the Maryland Insurance Administration to determine if changes need to be developed and implemented including a comparison between secured and unsecured bond. - Recommendation Six: The Commission recommends that under no circumstances should we institutionalize the Judicial Branch of Government as the line manager of what amounts to the Lawyer-Referral Service Program for Attorneys to represent indigent criminally accused in their First Appearance before a Commissioner. The Office of the Public Defender was created by statute to represent indigent criminally accused. It is an Executive Branch Agency of State Government and should have that responsibility from the initial appearance through appeals. - Recommendation Seven: The Commission recommends earlier and enhanced prosecutorial screening, particularly of citizens' complaints, by way of Maryland rule, prior to the issuance of a summons or warrant, except for domestically related crimes. - Recommendation Eight: Maximize and expand the use of the criminal citation process by law enforcement. - Recommendation Nine: Create a system so that only one entity in the pretrial process has to pull and summarize the arrestee's record, consistent with and in accordance with state and federal law and the independent needs of the system in order to operate efficiently. - Recommendation Ten: Provide state funding to create a shared jail management system, possibly through the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services' Offender Case Management System (OCMS), to allow for data collection on the pretrial population statewide. - Recommendation Eleven: It is recommended that funding be provided for court and public safety-designated facilities to be outfitted with audio/visual equipment to optimize court hearing efficiencies. - Recommendation Twelve: That whatever pretrial system is contemplated, the critical principle of prompt presentment no later than 24 hours of arrest remain. - Recommendation Thirteen: Data are needed in order to effectively determine impact of process and procedures on various demographics (race, gender, non-English speaking, and indigence defined as eligibility for representation by the Office of the Public Defender or appointed attorney). Additionally, timeliness factors such as rates of waiver to arrests and time between arrest and presentment, by jurisdiction, should be compared and measured. - Recommendation Fourteen: A Commission to Study the Maryland Criminal Justice System shall be created. The purpose of the Commission shall be to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of state and local criminal justice systems by providing a centralized and impartial forum for statewide policy development and planning with a focus on evidence-based decision making. The primary duty of the Commission shall be to develop and maintain a state criminal justice policy and comprehensive, long-range plan for a coordinated and cost-effective state criminal justice system that encompasses public safety, defendant and offender accountability, crime reduction and prevention, and defendant and offender treatment and rehabilitation. Details: Baltimore: The Commission, 2014. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2015 at: http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/pretrial/documents/2014-pretrial-commission-final-report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/pretrial/documents/2014-pretrial-commission-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 134944 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice PolicyPretrial Detention (Maryland)Pretrial ReleasePretrial ServicesRisk Assessment |
Author: Illinois. Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts Title: Circuit Court of Cook County Pretrial Operational Review Summary: For decades, the highly publicized issue of jail over-crowding has plagued Cook County. Through the years, experts have examined Cook County's pretrial and bond court operations, studied crime statistical data, and recorded remedies, some of which resulted in operational, environmental, programmatic, and policy changes with varying effects. From the point of arrest through the pretrial and bond court process, there is a critical dilemma that persists: whether to allow the defendant to remain in the community and continue to work and attend school, or to detain the defendant and alleviate any risk of failing to appear or committing another crime while awaiting trial. Ultimately, judicial discretion determines such decisions based upon the facts presented to the judge during bond court. The Illinois Pretrial Services Act provides the legal framework for this process. In practice, it has become largely aspirational, rather than a model for everyday procedure. Under the Act, pretrial services would provide a pivotal function in collecting and verifying information to be used by the judge to determine bond and release conditions, and in providing post-release supervision as a means to respond to non-compliance with court conditions while awaiting trial. In 2013, Cook County pretrial services staff conducted 24,977 interviews/assessments and conducted 7,164 intakes on defendants ordered to pretrial supervision as reported through monthly statistical reports submitted to the Administrative Office. Unfortunately, however, the reliance upon the work of pretrial services is generally dismissed or minimized because of a lack of confidence in the credibility of the risk assessment and community living information. During this operational review, it was evident that much of the information obtained by pretrial services officers was not verified, so the response from stakeholders and judges was understandable. Though a series of technological, managerial, interpersonal, and operational factors were substantiated during the review process and described in this document, there is no single group, program or "fix" that accounts for the fracture of the process. Notwithstanding, while there was non-reliance upon the risk assessment and other information and a limited number of cases placed under pretrial supervision, this was juxtaposed by judges overwhelmingly voicing support for pretrial services personnel and the need for the program. Further, collection of statistical reports and other data has been cumbersome and inconsistent due to antiquated technology, unfamiliarity with the scope of data collected by respective stakeholder groups, absence of a coordinated data sharing process, and to a degree, data request protocols. Therefore, the data presented in this report is limited to that reported to the Administrative Office through the Adult Probation Department monthly statistical pretrial reports, data reported by the Cook County Circuit Court Clerk as contained in the Annual Statistical Reports to the Supreme Court, and publications prepared by Loyola University professor/researcher on the jail population for the Cook County Sheriff's Reentry Council Research Bulletin. Data requests submitted to the Circuit Clerk's office, Pretrial Services and the Sheriff's department have been submitted by the Administrative Office and are pending. While the impetus to conduct this review was a request by Chief Judge Evans for the funding of additional pretrial positions, such consideration must also be accompanied by systemic change. The two must not be separate. Unless there is a commitment amongst stakeholders to delve into these issues, reach consensus of resolutions and act to implement collaborative organizational and operational policies and practices in the pretrial and the bond court process, strictly adding positions will be minimally effective. While challenges exist, this is also a time of great opportunity. Many positive partnerships and activities are underway in Cook County that foster institutionalizing change and favorable outcomes. These include the Cook County Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems Committee (CCICJIS) and the plan to move from a paper-based to electronic systems of data exchange and sharing among stakeholders; the joint meetings of Cook County elected officials that are fleshing out issues and solutions to the process; the planned evaluation of the bond court process that will provide baseline performance data in Central Bond Court (CBC); and the Administrative Office's initiative, in conjunction with a notable national research team, to validate a statewide pretrial risk assessment tool. Details: Chicago, IL: Illinois Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, 2014. 138p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2015 at: https://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Reports/Pretrial/Pretrial_Operational_Review_Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Reports/Pretrial/Pretrial_Operational_Review_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134952 Keywords: Bail BondsCourts (U.S.)Judicial DiscretionPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleasePretrial Services (Illinois)Risk Assessment |
Author: Levin, Marc Title: Bringing Balance to Pretrial Proceedings: Solutions for Early Representation of Indigent Defendants Summary: Key Points - Defendants in cases that could result in jail time are constitutionally entitled to legal representation if they cannot afford it. - The conditions set at the initial hearing, including posting a money bond, often determine whether defendants are able to obtain release prior to trial, but typically indigent defendants are not represented by counsel until at least several days later. - Making representation available earlier in the pretrial process could provide greater balance in pretrial proceedings. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, Center for Effective Justice, 2015. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective PP17-2015: Accessed May 20, 2015 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/PP-Solutions-for-Early-Representation-of-Indigent-Defendants.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/PP-Solutions-for-Early-Representation-of-Indigent-Defendants.pdf Shelf Number: 135720 Keywords: Indigent DefenseLegal AidPretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Solomon, Freda F. Title: CJA's Queens County Supervised Release Program: Impact on Court Processing and Outcomes Summary: This report by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) presents the results of an examination of CJA's Queens County (NY) Supervised Release Program. The supervised release program is offered by judges at arraignment to selected offenders arrested for certain non-violent felonies who have satisfied a number of conditions during a rigorous pre-arraignment screening process. This report provides an overview of the program as well as data on completed program cases, case and defendant characteristics, court outcomes in completed program cases, comparison of exited program and pre-program groups of cases, and comparison of baseline and program cases arraigned on felony drug and property crime charges. The evaluation found that to date, the majority of the program's clients (87.4 percent) have left the program under successful conditions of participation. The evaluation also found that defendants sentenced to pretrial release were less likely to receive a conditional discharge sentence compared to defendants not released before trial. In addition, those defendants that were received pretrial release were more likely to have shorter case processing times with prosecutors still able to successfully obtain convictions in these cases. Program limitations are discussed. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2013. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2015 at: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Queens%20County%20Supervised%20Release%20Program-%20Impact%20on%20Court%20Processing%20ad%20Outcomes%20-%20CJA%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Queens%20County%20Supervised%20Release%20Program-%20Impact%20on%20Court%20Processing%20ad%20Outcomes%20-%20CJA%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 129686 Keywords: Case ManagementCommunity SupervisionPretrial ReleaseSupervised Release |
Author: Ortiz, Natalie Rose Title: County Jails at a Crossroads: An Examination of the Jail Population and Pretrial Release Summary: County governments provide essential services to create healthy, safe, vibrant and economically resilient communities. Maintaining safe and secure communities is one of the most important functions of county governments. Most counties are involved in almost every aspect of law enforcement and crime prevention, including policing, judicial and legal services and corrections. Counties own 87 percent of all jails in the United States through which they provide supervision, detention and other correctional services to more than 700,000 persons in an effort to protect public safety and reduce recidivism. Effective jail management along with fair justice system policies and practices results in strategic management of the jail population and prudent county spending on the corrections system. One way to effectively manage the jail population is to improve the pretrial release process. Pretrial policies and practices involve defendants awaiting resolution to their case. Using the results of a 2015 NACo survey of county jails, an examination of the pretrial population in jail and policies impacting pretrial release in county jails finds: THE MAJORITY OF THE CONFINED COUNTY JAIL POPULATION IS PRETRIAL AND LOW RISK. Two-thirds of the confined population in county jails is pretrial and the proportion reaches three-quarters in almost half of county jails. This trend is more pronounced in jails located in small counties - with less than 50,000 residents - and medium-sized counties - with populations between 50,000 and 250,000 residents. Forty (40) percent of responding county jails use a validated risk assessment at booking. Most often, these jails identify a majority of their confined jail population as low risk. Because these tools are used at booking, when defendants are admitted to jail after arrest, jails are identifying most of their pretrial population as low risk. COUNTY JAILS ARE CAUGHT BETWEEN COURTS' DECISION-MAKING AND INCREASES IN THE JAIL POPULATION AND JAIL COSTS. Pretrial release decision-making is a product of the court. Understanding the impact of courts' decision-making, especially during pretrial, on the jail population is important for counties with rapidly rising jail populations and costs. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the jail population increased by 20 percent between 2000 and 2012 with the pretrial population comprising a rising share, while county corrections costs soared by 74 percent. Forty-four (44) percent of responding county jails to the 2015 NACo survey report that managing jail costs is one of their top challenges. Reducing the jail population - especially the number of people with mental illnesses - is a priority for almost three quarters of responding jails. More than 65 percent of county jails report that their county boards are willing to collaborate on reducing the jail population and jail costs. Counties can act as conveners, bringing together the court and jail to discuss and implement strategies that may effectively address the pretrial population in jail. SOME COUNTY JAILS SUPERVISE PRETRIAL DETAINEES OUTSIDE OF CONFINEMENT. A third of responding county jails to the 2015 NACo survey release pretrial detainees from custody and supervise them in the community through different types of community based programs, depending on the needs of the detainees. These programs may be focused specifically on pretrial supervision - where the type of supervision used varies on a case-by-case basis - or deal with both pretrial and convicted populations through health treatment, electronic monitoring, home arrest and work release. Most county jails have more than one type of program. Pretrial supervision programs focus overwhelmingly on the pretrial population (95 percent of their population), followed by physical health care and behavioral health treatment programs in which close to half of the supervised population is pretrial. Overall, few pretrial detainees are placed in these programs. Only 28 percent of the detainees released by respondent jails in 2014 were pretrial. The county jail programs that supervise pretrial persons are just one part of the larger county pretrial system that includes formal pretrial services agencies that provide information on defendants to judges for the pretrial release decision; policies that force release pretrial detainees when the jail population reaches a certain capacity; and bond review practices. County jails are at a crossroads, confronting increasing pressure on their physical capacity and rising jail costs, while lacking the decision-making for pretrial release. The courts decide who is released pretrial, affecting the size of county jail population and, consequently, jail costs. Reducing the jail population and costs is a priority for jail administrators and county boards. Some counties fund programs that would release pretrial detainees from confinement and supervise them in the community, but the pretrial population accounts for a small share of who is released and supervised in the community. Through coordination and collaboration across the county justice system, counties are in a strong position to lead the way in pretrial release, developing strategies and leveraging resources that assist in managing the county jail population and safeguarding public safety. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Counties, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2015 at: http://www.naco.org/resources/county-jails-crossroads Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.naco.org/resources/county-jails-crossroads Shelf Number: 136139 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsJail AdministrationJail PopulationJailsOffender SupervisionPretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Weatherburn, Don Title: The impact of the NSW Bail Act (2013) on trends in bail and remand in New South Wales Summary: Aim: To consider trends in bail and remand prior to and immediately following the implementation of the Bail Act (2013) on 20 May 2014 and the 'show cause' amendments on 28 January 2015. Method: Descriptive analysis of trends in police use of Bail CANs, police bail refusal, court bail refusal and the remand population. Results: The NSW Bail Act (2013) and the 'show cause' amendments subsequently made to it have not increased the police or court bail refusal rate above the level that prevailed in the two years prior to the introduction of the Act. This is despite the bail refusal rate for persons charged with 'show cause' offences being very high. It is not known whether the 'show cause' amendments have increased the likelihood of bail refusal for offences to which they apply or whether persons charged with these offences were always highly likely to be refused bail. The level of agreement between police and courts in relation to bail refusal has increased. Following the introduction of the NSW Bail Act 2013, there was a sharp transient fall in the percentage of defendants refused bail by police and courts. The police bail refusal rate is now around two percentage points lower than it was in 2012 and 2013. The court bail refusal rate has returned to the level that prevailed in 2012 and 2013. The remand population is much higher now than it was prior to the introduction of the NSW Bail Act (2013). The bail reforms at this stage appear to have made little if any contribution to this increase. Instead, it would appear to be due to two factors: (a) a sharp increase in January 2015 in the number of bail breaches that resulted in bail refusal (not the proportion) and (b) an increase in the total number of people with court proceedings commenced against them between December 2014 and March 2015. Conclusion: The NSW Bail Act (2013) (as amended) does not appear at this stage to have increased the percentage of persons refused bail or the size of the remand population. Further monitoring and analysis will be necessary to confirm this. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Research and Crime Statistics, 2015. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Paper No. 106: Accessed August 19, 2015 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/Report_2015_Bail_and_Remand_bb106.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/Report_2015_Bail_and_Remand_bb106.pdf Shelf Number: 136453 Keywords: BailPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRemand |
Author: Davis, Robin Title: Research on Videoconferencing at Post-Arraignment Release Hearings: Phase 1 Final Report Summary: As local governments continue to contend with growing budget constraints and expanding criminal justice costs, they are increasingly turning to technological solutions and alternatives in an effort to mitigate criminal justice expenditures, maintain efficiency, and promote public safety. The use of videoconferencing technology in criminal justice settings has served as a powerful asset to criminal justice stakeholders; however, there is still much to learn regarding the mechanics of these systems and their broader implications. Recognizing the complex challenges and nuances of implementing such technology, as well as the diverse interests at stake, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the Research on Videoconferencing at Post-Arraignment Release Hearings project (NIJ Videoconferencing Project). The project is jointly supported by NIJ's Office of Research and Evaluation and the Office of Science and Technology. NIJ seeks to identify protocols that improve practices and maximize return on investment using videoconferencing to expedite judicial decision-making concerning whether to release a defendant from custody and the appropriate conditions of release, including bail. NIJ anticipates three phases of study: - Phase I: Blueprint-Compile information on past and current videoconferencing applications via interviews and court/jail observation to identify key concerns and solutions (court rules) for protocol. - Phase II: Field Test-Conduct implementation and assessment studies in two pilot sites (one rural), and modify protocol per field experience over a relatively short period via qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. - Phase III: Evaluation-Submit final protocol to multiple new sites for self-implementation and support an objective cost-efficiency study over an extended period. Details: Fairfax, VA: ICF International, 2015. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 19, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248902.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248902.pdf Shelf Number: 136493 Keywords: Decision-MakingPretrial ReleaseVideo RecordingsVideoconferencing |
Author: Western Australia. Office of the Auditor General Title: Management of Adults on Bail Summary: This report assessed the effectiveness of the administration and management of adults on bail. It focused on whether bail management results in benefits being maximised and risks to the community minimised. Bail maintains the presumption of innocence by allowing persons arrested and charged with an offence to stay in the community and continue with their lives while they wait for their Court hearing. Bail also reduces the pressure and cost on the State prison system. A 2005 'Observational Study of Bail Decision Making' by Edith Cowan University commented that bail can allow a defendant to: - keep their job, home and stay in contact with people who can support them - reintegrate back into the community once released from prison - be protected from the negative impacts of remand which can influence them to commit more serious offences. The granting of bail is made on the understanding that the defendant will appear at their Court hearing. Bail conditions can be imposed to give greater assurance that the defendant will return to Court or to address concerns about the safety of the community whilst the defendant is on bail. In Western Australia, any arrested person has the right to have bail considered. The bail process starts upon arrest (Figure 1 on page 6). Following an arrest, Police decide whether to release the defendant on bail while they wait for their Court hearing. If denied bail, the defendant stays in Police custody until the initial Court hearing, usually within 24 hours. Regardless of whether they are released on bail or held in custody, the defendant must appear at the initial Court hearing. The Magistrate or Judge then makes a decision on whether to release the defendant on bail while they wait for their next Court hearing and the need for any bail conditions. In 2014, nearly 81 000 bail decisions were made by the Western Australia Police (Police) and the Courts of which just over 43 000 people were granted bail (15 630 by the Police). Around 38 000 people were denied bail because of a significant risk that they might not attend Court or because of a high safety risk to the community. Some bail conditions must be confirmed or met before a defendant will be released. For example, providing the address for where they will be living whilst on bail and provision of a surety. A surety is a person who agrees in writing to pay a specific amount of money if the accused fails to appear in Court. Some defendants find it difficult to meet these bail release conditions. The Department of Corrective Services (Corrective Services) employs a small number of Bail Coordinators to help defendants meet their bail conditions. Surety approval officers then assess if the surety conditions are met. If the bail conditions are not met, then the defendant is held in remand until their next Court hearing. Bail conditions can be protective or non-protective. Protective conditions can prohibit the defendant from contacting a specific person or approaching them at places where they work or live. Non-protective conditions, such as drug analysis, providing an address or surety aim to ensure that defendants are more likely to return to Court and less likely to reoffend. An important component of the bail process is the monitoring and enforcing of bail conditions. Police and Corrective Services are responsible for monitoring most bail conditions. Multiple bail periods for defendants and simultaneous court orders makes managing and enforcing bail a complex process. The Department of the Attorney General (DotAG) is responsible for the administration of the Bail Act 1982 (the Bail Act) and the collection of forfeited sureties and personal bail. In 2013, DotAG developed a software program called the Bail Module as a way of electronically recording all bail decisions and for sharing this information across all three agencies. DotAG is currently reviewing the Act. Details: Perth: Western Australia Auditor General, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Report 10: Accessed August 26, 2015 at: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/report2015_10-Bail.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/report2015_10-Bail.pdf Shelf Number: 136594 Keywords: BailPretrial Release |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Improving Responses to People with Mental Illnesses at the Pretrial Stage: Essential Elements Summary: The period between a person's arrest and his or her case being adjudicated presents a significant opportunity to safely minimize future criminal justice involvement and make needed connections to behavioral health care. Nationally, about 17 percent of people entering jails pretrial meet criteria for a serious mental illness. In addition, about three-quarters of people with serious mental illnesses in jails have a co-occurring substance use disorder. These are individuals who, by and large, are eligible to receive publicly funded health care. Many communities have found ways to make effective connections to treatment for some individuals as part of pretrial release or diversion programs, but policymakers and practitioners continue to struggle to identify and implement research-based policies and practices at this stage of the criminal justice system. This report introduces essential elements for responding to people with mental illnesses at the pretrial stage, including decisions about pretrial release and diversion. These elements encourage data collection not only to help individual communities, but also for future researchers who are dedicated to these important questions. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2015 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Improving_Responses_to_People_with_Mental_Illnesses_at_the_Pretrial_Stage_Essential_Elements.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Improving_Responses_to_People_with_Mental_Illnesses_at_the_Pretrial_Stage_Essential_Elements.pdf Shelf Number: 137181 Keywords: Mental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersPretrial InterventionPretrial Release |
Author: Utah Judicial Council. Pretrial Release Committee Title: Report to the Utah Judicial Council on Pretrial Release and Supervision Practices Summary: In fall 2014, the Judicial Council chose pretrial release practices and alternatives as its 2015 study item. A committee was formed and was charged with conducting a thorough assessment of existing pretrial release practices used in Utah's courts and determining if there are alternatives that should be considered. Specifically, the committee was asked to: (i) determine what constitutes "best practices" in the field of pretrial release; (ii) conduct an inventory of current practices and assess both their effectiveness and the extent to which they are consistent with best practices in this field; (iii) determine how best to improve the information needed by judges when making a release decision, including evaluating evidence-based assessment tools and instruments; (iv) review the statutory history of release and bail legislation; and, (v) evaluate pretrial release alternatives in terms of public protection, the integrity of the court process, the ability to guard against punishment prior to conviction, and cost implications or savings potential. The Council asked the committee to complete its work and report its findings at the November 2015 Council meeting. The Committee met monthly from March through October and heard from local and national experts on pretrial release issues. These included presentations from, among others, Professor Shima Baradaran of the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, Rob Butters of the Utah Criminal Justice Center at the University of Utah, David Litvak and Pat Kimball from Salt Lake County Pretrial Services, national experts Timothy Schnacke, Executive Director of the Center on Legal and Evidence-Based Practices, and Michael R. Jones, Director of Implementation at the Pretrial Justice Institute, as well as committee members Brett Barrett, Deputy Insurance Commissioner at the Utah Department of Insurance, Judge James Brady of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Judge Brendan McCullagh of the West Valley City Justice Court, Brent Johnson, General Counsel for the Utah State Courts, and Gary Walton, owner of Beehive Bail Bonds. In addition to gathering data from court databases, the committee surveyed district and justice court judges and compiled data from county jails. The committee divided its work into three parts and formed subcommittees to address the following: (i) legal frameworks as they currently exist both nationally and locally and possible changes to local frameworks; (ii) monetary bail or financial conditions to pretrial release; and (iii) non-financial conditions to pretrial release. These subcommittees met between committee meetings to gather information and prepare recommendations. As part of this process, the committee conferred with representatives from Arizona and Colorado concerning pretrial reform efforts underway in those states, and with the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (Arnold Foundation), a non-profit foundation that has funded research and developed tools to improve pretrial release systems. Committee members also spent many hours researching their assigned topics and reviewing the substantial literature in this area. Although this report is intended to be comprehensive, due to the volume of research done, only a fraction of the information members gathered and considered is included in this report. Many of the materials cited in this report have been compiled in an electronic database, which will be made available upon request. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah State Courts, 2015. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2015 at: https://www.utcourts.gov/resources/reports/docs/Pretrial%20Release%20and%20Supervision%20Practices%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.utcourts.gov/resources/reports/docs/Pretrial%20Release%20and%20Supervision%20Practices%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 137355 Keywords: BailOffender SupervisionPretrial Release |
Author: Hillier, Joe Title: The Police Use of Pre-Charge Bail: An Exploratory Study Summary: The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Reducing Bureaucracy Programme Board and ACPO Criminal Justice Business Area commissioned exploratory research on the use of pre-charge bail by police in England and Wales. The research was undertaken by NPIA Research, Analysis and Information (RAI) with support from ACPO and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The purpose of the research was to help identify and explain sources of variation in processes relating to the use of pre-charge bail, in particular those leading to unnecessary work, and inform the development of force initiatives intended to improve the process. Findings are based on opinions of officers and staff involved in the bail management process, including the CPS. Due to the timescale and available resources, the scope of the study was limited to the general use of pre-charge bail in the custody suite. It does not attempt to cover issues such as youth bail, street bail, ethics and the impact of bail on suspects. Key findings Overall, there were difficulties in obtaining a clear overview of the pattern of pre-charge bail use across the policing areas. No single aspect of the bail process in particular was seen to be overly bureaucratic or inefficient, however officers did question potential over-use of bail. The research identified four aspects of the bail process that were perceived to be driving the use of precharge bail, and were potentially sources of unnecessary use: unplanned arrests, insufficient quality in initial investigations, demands on limited custody space and differing perceptions on levels of evidence required for charge leading to delays in the process. Four broad themes identified in the research which help to explain variations and potential avoidable use are set out below. Details: London: NPIA (National Policing Improvement Agency) 2012. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2015 at: http://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Documents/Pre_charge_bail.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Documents/Pre_charge_bail.pdf Shelf Number: 131143 Keywords: Bail Pretrial Release |
Author: Hahn, Josephine Wonsun Title: An Experiment in Bail Reform: Examining the Impact of the Brooklyn Supervised Release Program Summary: This report presents findings from a study examining the impact of the Brooklyn Supervised Release Program, which engages misdemeanants who cannot afford relatively low bail amounts. When compared to a matched sample arraigned in the year before program launch, Supervised Release participants were significantly more likely to be released; spent fewer days in detention and were significantly less likely to receive a criminal conviction or jail sentence. Qualitative findings showed that participants held positive views of the Supervised Release staff and program model. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2016. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2016 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/BK%20SRP_Research%20Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/BK%20SRP_Research%20Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 137882 Keywords: Bail Bail Reform Pretrial ReleaseSupervised Release |
Author: Pierce-Danford, Kristy Title: Creating an Effective Pretrial Program: A Toolkit for Practitioners Summary: These are times of significant change for county jails and justice systems. Public Safety Realignment, the 2011 law that shifted management of people convicted of certain nonviolent, non-serious, non-sex offenses from state prisons and parole to county jails and probation, has had a major impact. More individuals are being sentenced to county jail instead of state prison, including people who violate conditions of their parole. Some county jails face limited capacity or strained resources. Combined with ongoing county budget challenges, more than ever, local leaders need effective strategies to safely manage their justice populations and reduce costs at the same time. On average, more than 60 percent of those in local jails in California are awaiting trial. They are being detained "pretrial" while their case goes through criminal proceedings. There are models of pretrial diversion and supervision programs that can effectively manage these individuals in a community setting. Reducing the number of pretrial detainees in jails or the length of their stay can conserve considerable resources and allow the jail to meet other public safety needs. In a post-Realignment California, assessing pretrial program options is both an opportunity and a necessity. Fortunately, pretrial program models have evolved considerably in recent decades, and there is evidence to show that they can be more successful than the money bail system at ensuring public safety and court appearance. There are many evidence-based options available to communities seeking to implement or strengthen pretrial programs. There is not one "correct" model for pretrial programs, and they can be successfully administered through the courts, probation departments, sheriff departments, county administration, independent agencies or any combination of these. Many counties are now exploring such programs, asking critical questions about whom among those awaiting trial needs to be in jail and who can be managed successfully in the community. This toolkit offers guidance to county officials on how to develop and operate these programs at the local level, building upon available literature on effective pretrial policies and practices. Specifically, officials will find: - Key information about the legal framework and national standards for pretrial programs; - How to implement a pretrial risk assessment; - Pretrial diversion and supervision advice; - How to assess your current system; and - Recommendations on using data to measure and enhance pretrial programs. Details: Oakland, CA: Californians for Safety and Justice, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 23, 2016 at: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/211/9f/a/223/CSJ_pretrial_toolkit.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/211/9f/a/223/CSJ_pretrial_toolkit.pdf Shelf Number: 137944 Keywords: BailJailsPretrial DetentionPretrial DiversionPretrial InterventionsPretrial ReleasePretrial SupervisionRisk Assessment |
Author: Bechtel, Kristin Title: A Meta-Analytic Review of Pretrial Research: Risk Assessment, Bond Type, and Interventions Summary: This study makes an attempt to aggregate, via meta-analysis, what we currently know about pretrial decision making and jurisdictions' responses to the pretrial population. This meta-analysis began with an exhaustive search for pretrial research which may have revealed the most prominent finding - that being a distinct lack of research that utilizes any amount of methodological rigor. We identified a large number of studies that met our most general criteria (i.e., research about pretrial decision making) but mainly dealt with legal and/or philosophical issues regarding pretrial detention and due process. Studies that utilized empirical data and strong methodological designs were distinctly lacking. Of the studies that could be included, effect sizes were generated that may show some promise for court notification programs, pretrial supervision practices, and the potential effect of restrictive bond schedules. However, strong conclusions cannot be made as the quality of the pretrial research, overall, is weak at best. The findings of this study hold several policy implications for the field of pretrial research and practice. First, future research studies in the field of pretrial need to focus on methodological quality and rigor. Second, it appears that some conditions of release may be related to a defendant's likelihood of failure to appear. Third, it appears that none of the conditions of release reviewed in this study are related to a defendant's likelihood of re-arrest while on pretrial release. Finally, it is recommended that the field of pretrial develop a sound research agenda and execute that plan with rigor, transparency, and an approach that favors the continued cumulation of knowledge. Details: Unpublished Paper, 2016. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2741635 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2741635 Shelf Number: 134249 Keywords: BailDecision-MakingPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts Title: Pretrial Reform in Kentucky Summary: Kentucky Pretrial Services was created in 1976 as part of the Bail Bond Reform Act when commercial bail bonding for profit was abolished. Pretrial Services is a statewide agency housed under Kentucky's Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), the operations arm for Kentucky's judicial branch, also known as the Court of Justice. Kentucky courts are a unified, four-tiered system consisting of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court and District Court. District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and handles misdemeanors, violations, traffic offenses, city and county ordinances, felony probable cause hearings, juvenile matters, and a variety of civil cases. Circuit Court is a court of general jurisdiction and hears felony and capital offenses, appeals from District Court, and various other civil matters. The Supreme Court is the state court of last resort and the final interpreter of Kentucky law. Court unification means that all courts operate under the same administrative rule, while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as the administrative head of the entire court system. Pretrial Services has 294 employees divided into forty-nine (49) local program districts, including a Central Office, which includes the Chief Operating Officer, the Manager, eight (8) Regional Supervisors, a Project Specialist and support staff. Local programs consist of a Program Supervisor and frontline Pretrial Officers. Louisville, Lexington and the Northern Kentucky district also employ an Urban Supervisor. Many rural districts cover multiple counties, and thereby multiple courts, and sometimes, multiple jails. Pretrial Services operates in all 120 Kentucky counties and provides services seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Per court rule, pretrial officers are mandated to conduct an interview and investigation of all persons arrested on bailable offenses within 24 hours of his or her arrest, although many jurisdictions strive to provide their services within 12 hours of the defendant's initial incarceration. The interviews and investigations are voluntary and confidential, and are conducted in person at the local, incarcerating jail. As a part of the interview and investigation process, officers also screen defendants for alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health issues. Pretrial officers then verify the information provided by the defendant during the interview, conduct a thorough criminal history check and utilize a validated risk assessment that measures flight risk and anticipated criminal conduct. This information is used to make appropriate recommendations to the court regarding pretrial release. The risk assessment classifies defendants as low, moderate or high risk. Pretrial officers present the findings and make recommendations for release to their local district or circuit court judge - or in some rural areas, a specially appointed Trial Commissioner - who make the actual release decision. Details: Frankfort, KY: Administrative Office of the Courts, 2013. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2016 at: http://www.apainc.org/wp-content/uploads/Pretrial-Reform-in-Kentucky-Implementation-Guide-Final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.apainc.org/wp-content/uploads/Pretrial-Reform-in-Kentucky-Implementation-Guide-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 138600 Keywords: BailPretrial ReleasePretrial ServicesPretrial Supervision |
Author: Solomon, Freda F. Title: Community Supervision as a Money Bail Alternative: The Impact of CJA's Manhattan Supervised Release Program On Legal Outcomes and Pretrial Misconduct Summary: The New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA), Inc., is a non-profit organization, working under a contract with the City of New York to provide pretrial services to defendants prosecuted in the City's Criminal Court system. The Agency's primary mission is to reduce unnecessary pretrial detention in New York City. As part of that mission, CJA has advocated for community supervision as an alternative to money bail for defendants posing a medium risk of failure to appear (FTA) if released on unsupervised personal recognizance. CJA created a pilot program after extensive consultation with, and the support of, the New York City Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator (since renamed the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice). The program was designed to offer judges at Criminal Court arraignment the option of supervised release as a bail alternative in selected non-violent felony cases with a high likelihood of having bail set. In August 2009, CJA introduced its first Supervised Release (SR) program in the Queens Criminal Court. Based on the success of that program, the City contracted with CJA to develop a similar three-year demonstration project in the New York County (Manhattan) Criminal Court, which was implemented in April 2013. Owing to the success of the CJA programs the City, through the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice, developed a proposal to introduce a more expansive program of pretrial release under supervision citywide. In March 2016, CJA's program was replaced in Manhattan by this new City initiative. CJA's Manhattan Supervised Release (MSR) program, like its Queens counterpart, offered judges a pretrial community-based supervision program as an alternative to setting bail at the Criminal Court arraignment in cases arraigned on selected non-violent felony charges. In Manhattan, these have been felony charges involving drug, property, or fraud/theft crimes, plus a comparatively small number of other types of non-Violent Felony Offense (VFO) crimes (e.g., D-felony robbery). Cases involving domestic violence, or where the defendant was scheduled for a hospital arraignment, were excluded even if charge eligible. Beyond the charge criteria, the program had additional restrictions used to screen potentially eligible cases and defendants that could be actively pursued by program staff. These included a review of adult criminal conviction histories, factors affecting risk of pretrial failure to appear (FTA) based on criteria used in CJA's release recommendation system, and supplemental criminal history information. Program court staff also was required to collect and verify community ties information necessary to maintain contact with defendants if released to the program. This has been an essential program component for ensuring that clients released under supervision in lieu of bail and pretrial detention would appear at all regularly scheduled court dates and comply with program requirements. In this research study we analyze case processing and court outcomes, and investigate the pretrial misconduct - failure to appear and in-program re-arrests - of MSR clients. We also examine the jail displacement effect of community supervision as an alternative to money bail and pretrial detention. In order to assess the potential impact of the MSR program on these activities, we create for comparison purposes a data set of felony cases arraigned in the downtown Manhattan Criminal Court during the first twenty-one months of the MSR program (April 2013 - December 2014) in which defendants appeared to be eligible for MSR, to the extent that could be determined, but were not screened by MSR court staff. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2016 at: http://www.nycja.org/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nycja.org/ Shelf Number: 139073 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationBailCommunity SupervisionPretrial ReleaseSupervised Release |
Author: Fennell, Nathan Title: Risk, Not Resources. Improving the Pretrial Release Process in Texas Summary: Texas' resource-based bail system keeps low-risk individuals unnecessarily detained before trial and allows risky defendants to buy their freedom with limited oversight. This practice undermines public safety, disproportionately harms low-income defendants, and costs counties millions of dollars every year. By adopting pretrial reform in line with national standards, Texas can reduce its jail population while making communities safer. Details: Austin: Lyndon B. Johnson school of Public Affairs, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed July 19, 2016 at: http://lbj.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/file/Risk,%20Not%20Resources-%20Improving%20the%20Pretrial%20Release%20Process%20in%20Texas--FINAL.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://lbj.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/file/Risk,%20Not%20Resources-%20Improving%20the%20Pretrial%20Release%20Process%20in%20Texas--FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 139666 Keywords: BailPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Danner, Mona J.E. Title: Risk-Based Pretrial Release Recommendation and Supervision Guidelines: Exploring the Effect on Officer Recommendations, Judicial Decision-Making, and Pretrial Outcome Summary: The Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI), known nationally as the "Virginia Model," was the first research-based statewide pretrial risk assessment in the country. The VPRAI examines eight risk factors that are weighted to create a risk score, and defendants are assigned to one of five risk levels ranging from low to high that represent the likelihood of pretrial failure. Although Pretrial Services staff consider the results of the VPRAI, there was previously no guidance for making pretrial release recommendations to the court or determining appropriate levels of pretrial supervision until the development of the Praxis. The Praxis is a decision grid that uses the VPRAI risk level and the charge category to determine the appropriate release type and level of supervision. Further, recent research indicates that the administration of evidence-based supervision techniques to pretrial defendants is associated with reductions in failure to appear and re-arrest. The Strategies for Effective Pretrial Supervision (STEPS) program was developed to shift the focus of typical staff/defendant interaction from conditions compliance to criminogenic needs and eliciting prosocial behavior. The current research project tested the use of both the Praxis release recommendation and supervision guidelines, and the STEPS evidence-based supervision techniques in an agency random assignment study. The research examined the effect of the Praxis on pretrial officer release recommendations, judicial release decisions, and pretrial supervision practices, and the effect of the Praxis and STEPS supervision techniques on pretrial outcomes" (p. 1). Seven research questions are organized into three research objectives: what the underlying assumptions of the Praxis are in relation to VPRAI and charge category; the impact of Praxis on pretrial officer release recommendations, judicial released decision, and differential pretrial supervision practices; and the influence of Praxis and evidence-based supervision techniques on pretrial outcomes (court appearance, public safety, and compliance with release conditions). Details: St Petersburg, FL: Luminosity, 2015. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Risk%20Based%20Pretrial%20Release%20Rec%20&%20Superv%20Guidelines%20-%20Danner,%20VanNostrand,%20&%20Spruance%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Risk%20Based%20Pretrial%20Release%20Rec%20&%20Superv%20Guidelines%20-%20Danner,%20VanNostrand,%20&%20Spruance%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 139855 Keywords: BailJudicial Decision-MakingPretrial ReleaseRisk-Assessment |
Author: Mayson, Sandra G. Title: Dangerous Defendants Summary: Bail reform is underway - but it is proceeding on shaky ground. The reform model, which deploys actuarial risk assessment to identify "high-risk" defendants, assumes that the state has the prerogative to detain or control dangerous defendants. This assumption is not new. But it is anomalous. In general, we do not permit the state to restrain sane, responsible adults solely to stop them from committing hypothetical future crimes, even those who are high-risk. The reform movement's focus on danger thus crystallizes a fundamental question about pretrial policy: What justifies the state in restraining defendants for dangerousness before trial if we would prohibit the same restraint for equally dangerous members of the public? Although there is an extensive literature on preventive detention, neither the Supreme Court nor prior scholarship has focused on this comparative question. This Article endeavors to answer it. It makes the first effort to articulate and evaluate potential justifications for subjecting defendants to restraint that we would forbid for non-defendants who pose an equal risk. The Article explores doctrinal, deontological and instrumentalist justifications, but ultimately rejects them. It contends that pretrial restraint for dangerousness can only be justified at the risk threshold where we would authorize equivalent restraint of a member of the population at large. Communities, policymakers and courts should therefore determine what they believe this threshold to be, then ensure that pretrial risk assessment and management are tailored to it. Details: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, School of Law, 2016. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 16-30 : Accessed August 30, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2826600 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2826600 Shelf Number: 140086 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Jannetta, Jesse Title: Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) Initiative: Phase 2 Summary Implementation Findings Summary: "TJC [Transition from Jail to Community] represents an integrated approach spanning organizational boundaries to deliver needed information, services, and case management to people released from jail. Boundary-spanning collaborative partnerships are necessary because transition from jail to the community is neither the sole responsibility of the jail nor of the community. Accordingly, effective transition strategies rely on collaboration among jail- and community-based partners and joint ownership of the problems associated with jail transition and their solutions. The TJC model includes the components necessary to carry out systems change to facilitate successful transition from jail, and it is intended be sufficiently adaptable that it can be implemented in any of the 2,860 jail jurisdictions in the United States ... despite how greatly they vary in terms of size, resources, and priorities ... One of NIC's goals for Phase 2 of the TJC Initiative was to enhance the TJC model and approach to pay greater attention to pretrial practices ... Findings from the Phase 2 process and systems change evaluation are provided in individual site-specific case study reports that focus on how TJC implementation unfolded in the specific context of each participating jurisdiction ... While the TJC Model provides a common framework for TJC work, site priorities, preexisting collaborative relationships, capacity to carry out reentry activities (and where that capacity resides), and site starting points condition how TJC proceeds. However, common themes emerged across the Phase 2 sites, as well as insight into why greater progress was realized in some places more than others. The purpose of this brief is to summarize these themes and relevant information about the sites' implementation experiences-what worked well, what was notable, and what was challenging (p. 3, 5-6, Phase 2 Summary). Seven reports comprise the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) Initiative Phase 2 Site Reports series: Phase 2 Summary Implementation Findings by Jesse Jannetta, Janeen Buck Willison, and Emma Kurs has these sections: glossary; site implementation themes-leadership and collaboration; targeted intervention strategies; self-evaluation and sustainability; and lessons for changing systems. Implementation Success and Challenges in Ada County, Idaho by Shebani Rao, Kevin Warwick, Gary Christensen, and Colleen Owens; Implementation Success and Challenges in Franklin County, Massachusetts by Willison, Warwick, and Rao; Implementation Success and Challenges in Fresno County, California by Jannetta, Rao, Owens, and Christensen; Implementation Success and Challenges in Hennepin County, Minnesota by Willison, Warwick, and Kurs; Implementation Success and Challenges in Howard County, Maryland by Jannetta, Kurs, and Owens; and Implementation Success and Challenges in Jacksonville, Florida by Willison, Warwick, Kurs, and Christensen. Each of the above six Site Reports contain these sections ; glossary; introduction; TJC structure, leadership, and collaboration; targeted intervention strategies; self-evaluation and sustainability; and conclusion. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016. 7 reports Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: http://nicic.gov/library/032726 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://nicic.gov/library/032726 Shelf Number: 147472 Keywords: JailsPretrial ReleaseReentryReintegration |
Author: Zambia. Human Rights Commission Title: A Survey Report on the Application of Bond and Bail Legislation in Zambia Summary: This survey was conducted to collect information on factors affecting access and conditions regarding bail among people found to be in conflict with the law in Zambia. The survey was conducted for a period of six months in all ten provinces of the country. The findings of this study are meant to provide a basis for the review of current bail legislation relating to bail conditions in Zambia by promoting easy access for suspects or inmates to bail regardless of their social and economic conditions. The target respondents for the surveys were inmates in prisons, police officers in charge of a police station, magistrates and public prosecutors. The survey also examined the current committal process of matters to the High Court and the transfer process of matters to other courts so as to determine causes of delays in the two processes. A total of 2,168 respondents were interviewed in this survey. The findings reveal that on average suspects in Zambia are kept in police custody for fourteen days before they are made to appear before the court. The survey has shown that in Lusaka suspects were kept in police custody for about 22 days. Eastern province had the least detention days of 6 days. Another key finding is that about 30% of the remandees indicated that they have been awaiting judgment for a period of over one year. Two- thirds said they have been awaiting judgment for a period of less than one month. Nearly 6% have been waiting for judgment for at least 9 months. The survey also revealed several reasons explaining why few suspects attempted applying for bail. The reasons brought forward included suspects lack of knowledge that they can apply for police bond or bail and; suspects having no working sureties to sign police bond for them. The survey revealed that bail conditions in Zambia are stringent, requiring suspects to provide two working sureties as a condition for granting of bail. Findings also showed that time taken for cases to be committed to the High Court can be inordinately long as can be the rendering of judgments. The survey thus revealed that there were challenges at every stage of the criminal justice process that hindered accused persons' enjoyment of their due process rights. In this regard, the Commission found that the criminal justice system has more often than not failed in its function of ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected with the country falling short of the principles enunciated in the international standards to which it is a party. There is therefore need for a thorough review of the existing law regarding the bail and police bond conditions in Zambia as well as the law and processes that regulate the committal of cases to the High Court. In addition to this is the need for sensitisation of the citizenry on the rights to bond and bail in Zambia. Chapter 1 focuses on the problem statement and situational analysis. It further speaks to the survey objectives and methodology used. Chapter 2 focuses on the law relating to bail and committal in Zambia. It demonstrates the relationship between human rights and criminal justice; the law relating to bail and committal; preliminary inquires; survey procedures and committal sentencing. In Chapter 3 of the report, the findings of the survey are discussed. These relate to the demographic characteristics of the respondents, arbitrary and over detention of suspects, the issue of legal representation and judgement. The findings reveal the bail and bond conditions, bail during trial, reasons for the court not granting bail and the process of transfer of cases from the lower court for committal to the high court. Finally Chapter 4 concludes with recommendations from the Human Rights Commission regarding the need for reform in the legal and justice system and specifically regarding bail and police bond and the committal process. Details: Lusaka: Human Rights Commission, 2014. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: http://www.osisa.org/sites/default/files/survey_report_hrc_zambia_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Zambia URL: http://www.osisa.org/sites/default/files/survey_report_hrc_zambia_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 145587 Keywords: Bail BondsCriminal CourtCriminal Justice SystemCriminal ProcedureDue ProcessHuman RightsPretrial Release |
Author: Thorburn, Hamish Title: A follow-up on the impact of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) on trends in bail Summary: Aim: To examine the effect of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) and subsequent 'show-cause' amendments on trends in the number and proportion of defendants being refused bail. Method: Descriptive analysis of the number of defendants, proportion of all defendants and proportion of 'bail eligible' defendants refused bail each month in all NSW courts between February 2011 and May 2016. Kendall's tau is used to test for significance in trends in the pre- and post-intervention periods (i.e. before and after the Bail Act reforms). Results: The number of defendants refused bail showed a significant increasing trend of 2.95 defendants per month (p < .01) for the pre-intervention period of February 2011 to May 2014, and a mean number of defendants of 1,042.57. The mean number of defendants rose to 1,264.19 defendants for the post-intervention period of January 2015 to May 2016. No significant trend was found for the post-intervention period (p =.06). The rise in mean post- intervention was higher than what would have been expected due to the increasing trend pre-intervention. The proportion of all defendants being refused bail showed no significant trend either pre- or post-intervention (p =.06 pre-intervention and p =.23 post-intervention). There was a slight difference in mean proportion between the two periods (.098 pre-intervention vs .108 post-intervention). However, it seems likely that this slight difference can be attributed to the very slight (although statistically insignificant) trend pre-intervention. Taking both periods together, there appears to be a very slight but significant increasing trend (p < .01) across the whole period, with a mean rise of .0002 per month. The proportion of 'bail eligible' defendants also showed a significant increasing trend pre-intervention by .001 per month (p <.01). However, the post-intervention proportion showed no significant trend (p = .84). The mean proportion per month increased from .276 to .326 between the pre- and post-intervention periods. Again, the increase in mean proportion between the two periods is higher than what would have been expected given the pre-intervention trend. Conclusion: The Bail Act 2013 (NSW) and subsequent amendments appeared to have an effect on the number and proportion of bail eligible defendants refused bail. However, they appear to have had little to no effect on the proportion of all defendants refused bail. This suggests that defendants who had previously been released on bail are now having bail dispensed with or bail refused. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2016. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue paper no. 116: Accessed September 27, 2016 at: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/bocsar_theimpactofthenswbailact2013ontrendsinbail_sep_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/bocsar_theimpactofthenswbailact2013ontrendsinbail_sep_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 146116 Keywords: BailPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRemand |
Author: Tiry, Emily Title: Road Map to Pretrial Reforms: Profile Analysis of New Hampshire's Pretrial Defendant Population Summary: This report details an effort in New Hampshire to adopt evidence-based policy and practice for pretrial release decision-making. Many states have introduced changes to improve pretrial release decision-making in recent decades. As the first step toward implementing pretrial reforms in New Hampshire, the current study examines the characteristics of the pretrial defendant population, identifies data gaps and limitations, and presents a road map for developing a validated pretrial risk assessment tool. The population analysis findings suggest that the pretrial defendant population in New Hampshire is largely demographically homogenous across counties, but counties vary in their charging, bail-setting, and data collection practices. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/road-map-pretrial-reforms/view/full_report Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/road-map-pretrial-reforms/view/full_report Shelf Number: 144886 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Maryland. Office of the Public Defender Title: The High Cost of Bail: How Maryland's Reliance on Money Bail Jails the Poor and Costs the Community Millions Summary: In Maryland, District Court commissioners and judges routinely require defendants to post bail in order to be released before trial. In practice, this system jails the poor and allows the rich to go free. Multiple studies, in Maryland and across the United States, have demonstrated that the key factor in the incarceration of people awaiting trial is not the risk they pose to society, or their risk of failing to appear in court, but simply whether they have enough money to pay bail. Even more, studies show that the widespread use of "secured bail" which requires payment or security, such as a property title, posted directly to the court, or posting of corporate bond to obtain release - causes new crime, coerces convictions, and has little or no impact on defendants' return to court. Relying on these studies and legal analysis, the United States Department of Justice, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, and the American Bar Association, among others, have all concluded that a pretrial detention system that jails people because they are too poor to pay bail is irrational and unconstitutional. Details: Baltimore: Maryland Office of the Public Defender, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: http://www.opd.state.md.us/Portals/0/Downloads/High%20Cost%20of%20Bail.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.opd.state.md.us/Portals/0/Downloads/High%20Cost%20of%20Bail.pdf Shelf Number: 150554 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Cape, Ed Title: The Practice of Pre-trial Detention in England and Wales: Research Report Summary: This study of pre-trial detention (PTD) decision-making in England and Wales is part of a 10 country study funded by the European Commission, and managed by Fair Trials. The authors conducted a defence lawyer survey, observed PTD hearings, examined CPS files, and interviewed judges, magistrates and Crown prosecutors, between November 2014 and June 2015. The information obtained provides important insights into the way in which PTD is regulated and how that works in practice, and the authors make a number of significant recommendations designed to improve the decision-making process and reduce the inappropriate use of PTD. Details: Brighton, UK: University of the West of England, Centre for Legal Research, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/Country-Report-England-and-Wales-MASTER-Final-PRINT.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/Country-Report-England-and-Wales-MASTER-Final-PRINT.pdf Shelf Number: 140679 Keywords: Pretrial Detention Pretrial Release Risk Assessment |
Author: Open Society Foundations Title: Improving Pretrial Justice: The Roles of Lawyers and Paralegals Summary: On any given day, some three million people are held in pretrial detention around the world. Countless millions are unnecessarily arrested and detained by law enforcement agencies annually. Those in pretrial detention are often held in conditions and subject to treatment that is far worse than that experienced by sentenced prisoners. Pretrial detainees—who have not been tried or found guilty—can languish behind bars for years. Some detainees may literally be lost in the system. Early intervention by lawyers and paralegals can have a positive impact on pretrial justice in general and pretrial detention in particular. Examples from across the globe show that early intervention schemes can reduce the use of pretrial detention, improve the performance of criminal justice personnel, lead to more rational and effective decision-making, and increase accountability and respect for the rule of law. Lawyers and paralegals have a central role to play in advising, assisting, and representing individuals at the pretrial stage of the criminal process. Ensuring legal assistance is available at the earliest possible time allows for the most effective use of resources, as cases are dealt with at the front end of the criminal justice system. Helping to ensure that appropriate decisions regarding pretrial detention and release are made early on can reduce the use of pretrial detention. This does not just benefit the individual suspect: there are wider benefits for the administration of justice and the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system as a whole. Early intervention can play a key role in educating the public about their rights, and improving transparency, accountability, and confidence in the criminal justice system. International law requires the provision of state funding for legal advice and representation where this is in the interests of justice and the suspect or defendant does not have sufficient means to pay for it. Legal assistance at the early stages of the criminal process is not only an important right for individuals but, when effectively implemented, also produces significant benefits for criminal justice systems and for social integration: it can save money and resources, reduce the use of pretrial detention, encourage diversion from formal criminal justice processes, reduce torture and corruption, improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, and increase transparency and foster confidence in the rule of law. Fortunately, there are replicable models—from developed and developing countries alike—of effective early intervention schemes involving lawyers and paralegals. Recommendations for governments: • Make available sufficient resources to comply with international and national obligations for the provision of legal advice and assistance at the early stages of the criminal process, in particular for those who do not have sufficient means to pay for it. • Develop structures and mechanisms to make the right to legal advice and assistance practical and effective. In particular, establish a legal aid institution that is independent of government and responsible for making the right to legal advice and assistance practical and effective—particularly at the early stages of the criminal process. • Review and update existing laws and procedures concerning: the right to legal advice and assistance at the early stages of the criminal process; access by lawyers and paralegals to police stations, police interviews, and pretrial detention and prison facilities; the recording of police interviews of suspects and witnesses; representation by paralegals where appropriate; the circumstances in which a defendant should be entitled to pretrial release; maximum periods of detention in police custody and pretrial detention; the maximum length of criminal proceedings and maximum number of adjournments; diversion from formal criminal proceedings; and mechanisms for enforcing them. • Ensure that reliable statistical information is routinely collected on critical aspects of the criminal justice system, including: the number of and reasons for arrests, the numbers of people charged and the nature of the charges, the numbers of people in pretrial detention, the length of detention, and the number of people receiving legal advice and representation. Recommendations for legal aid management organizations, NGOs, and professional legal bodies: • Seek to ensure that governments implement the recommendations set out above. • Identify existing mechanisms and resources for providing legal advice and assistance to suspects and defendants, especially at the early stages of the criminal process, including at police stations. Work with existing stakeholders, including bar associations, NGOs, the judiciary, and other criminal justice personnel, to identify the interventions that are most needed and how they may best be provided. • Map existing and potential sources of funding for the provision of legal advice and assistance and seek to match them with schemes designed to have the greatest impact on pretrial detention and pretrial justice generally. • Recognize the range of functions that can be performed through lawyer and paralegal schemes, including: advice, assistance, and representation to individuals; education and training for suspects, defendants, prisoners, communities, and criminal justice personnel; reform of systems, processes, and criminal justice policies. Consider which functions are likely to be the most effective given the local context. • Consider establishing pilot schemes to test the most appropriate structures and mechanisms for providing legal advice and assistance, with a view to evaluating the costs and demonstrating the financial and other benefits. • Document and disseminate promising practices and information about the financial and other benefits of early intervention by lawyers and paralegals. Details: New York: Open Society Foundations, 2012. 109p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2017 at: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/16820/1/improving-pretrial-justice-20120416.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/16820/1/improving-pretrial-justice-20120416.pdf Shelf Number: 144945 Keywords: BailLegal AidPretrial DetentionPretrial InterventionPretrial ReleasePublic Defenders |
Author: Kleinberg, Jon Title: Human Decisions and Machine Predictions Summary: We examine how machine learning can be used to improve and understand human decision-making. In particular, we focus on a decision that has important policy consequences. Millions of times each year, judges must decide where defendants will await trial - at home or in jail. By law, this decision hinges on the judge's prediction of what the defendant would do if released. This is a promising machine learning application because it is a concrete prediction task for which there is a large volume of data available. Yet comparing the algorithm to the judge proves complicated. First, the data are themselves generated by prior judge decisions. We only observe crime outcomes for released defendants, not for those judges detained. This makes it hard to evaluate counterfactual decision rules based on algorithmic predictions. Second, judges may have a broader set of preferences than the single variable that the algorithm focuses on; for instance, judges may care about racial inequities or about specific crimes (such as violent crimes) rather than just overall crime risk. We deal with these problems using different econometric strategies, such as quasi-random assignment of cases to judges. Even accounting for these concerns, our results suggest potentially large welfare gains: a policy simulation shows crime can be reduced by up to 24.8% with no change in jailing rates, or jail populations can be reduced by 42.0% with no increase in crime rates. Moreover, we see reductions in all categories of crime, including violent ones. Importantly, such gains can be had while also significantly reducing the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics in jail. We find similar results in a national dataset as well. In addition, by focusing the algorithm on predicting judges' decisions, rather than defendant behavior, we gain some insight into decision-making: a key problem appears to be that judges to respond to 'noise' as if it were signal. These results suggest that while machine learning can be valuable, realizing this value requires integrating these tools into an economic framework: being clear about the link between predictions and decisions; specifying the scope of payoff functions; and constructing unbiased decision counterfactuals. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper no. 23180: Accessed February 20, 2017 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23180.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23180.pdf Shelf Number: 146686 Keywords: Decision-MakingJudgesJudicial Decision-MakingJudicial DiscretionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Utah. Legislative Auditor General Title: A Performance Audit of Utah's Monetary Bail System Summary: This audit reviews the effectiveness of the two types of monetary bail commonly offered in Utah's district courts: cash bail and surety bond. Cash bail involves a payment to the courts that is refunded to the defendant if not convicted, or if convicted, could be forfeited and applied to court-related fees. Surety bond involves a non-refundable premium, typically 10 percent of the full bail amount, paid to a commercial surety (a.k.a. bail bond agency). Since the primary objectives of bail are to assure court appearance and community safety, this audit compares the effectiveness of the two monetary bail types in assuring court appearances. Court appearance data also led us to review evidence-based pretrial release practices that enhance community safety as well as the surety bond forfeiture process. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Office of the Legislative Auditor General, 2017. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 2017-01: Accessed February 21, 2017 at: https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=ce65ff35-ba9c-77fb-8922-b9417faecd6e Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=ce65ff35-ba9c-77fb-8922-b9417faecd6e Shelf Number: 147376 Keywords: BailBail BondsPretrial Release |
Author: Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights Title: Pre-Trial Detention in Poland Summary: 1. As of 31 October 2015, 4,356 people remain in prisons as pre-trial detainees in Poland. At the same time, the overall prison population in the country amounts to 72 195. This means that pre-trial detainees constitute 6.0 per cent of all detainees. Even though this percentage seems low and the number of motions for pre-trial detention decreased by almost 30% between 2009- 2014, the research revealed that Poland still faces serious challenges with respect to pre-trial detention. 2. As part of an EU funded project, a common research methodology was applied in 10 EU Member States, with research data gathered through the monitoring of PTD hearings, analysing case files, as well as surveying defence lawyers and interviewing judges and prosecutors. In the course of the Polish research, 4 PTD hearings were observed, 70 case-files analysed, 24 defence lawyers surveyed, and 9 judges and 7 prosecutors interviewed. 3. On 1 July 2015, a fundamental reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure and important changes to the Criminal Code entered into force. The reform introduced an adversarial model of proceedings, which places more emphasis on the activity of prosecutors and lawyers, and leaves the judge as an impartial arbitrator. It is important to view the results of the research in the light of these recent legislative changes, which address several of the identified limitations to the fairness of the proceedings. The key findings regarding the pre-trial detention decision-making in Poland were as follows: 4. Decision-making procedure: According to the law, before applying a preventive measure the court or the prosecutor shall hear the defendant. This means that the defendant has to be present at the first pre-trial detention hearing. This obligation does not, however, extend to other pre-trial detention hearings, which is why the equality of arms may not be secured throughout the whole pre-trial detention proceedings. The research showed that the defendant, if not in hiding or otherwise unavailable to the justice system, is present at the first pre-trial detention hearing. The defendant is not always present at other pre-trial detention hearings, especially if he has been appointed a lawyer. Equally, defendants who do attend hearings are often not represented by a lawyer. Additionally, the defence's preparation of the hearing is sometimes limited by insufficient access to the case files. It should, however, be noted that the regulation on access to case files has recently been changed as a result of legislative changes in the European Union and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, The access has been widened for the defendant. Still, the majority of lawyers surveyed explained that they have 30 minutes or less to prepare for the hearing, with access to the case file. 5. The substance of decisions: Case file research revealed that the risk of the suspect perverting the course of justice, the risk of the suspect absconding and the fact that a severe penalty may be imposed on the suspect are the most commonly used justifications for ordering pre-trial detention. The reasoning given is often formulaic and not tailored to the specific case, repeating the arguments raised by the prosecution. This can be partly explained with the swiftness of the proceedings which limits the time for judges to read the case file and forces them to rely on the evidence provided by the prosecution. However, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure were changed in relation to the content of justifications of pre-trial detention orders. The amendments may contribute to a more careful and diligent judicial consideration of matters that involve pre-trial detention, as judges will be obliged to refer in their justifications directly to the circumstances listed in the new provision. We hope that the explicit designation of the assumed line of reasoning which should accompany judicial resolution of pre-trial detention matters will persuade courts to examine more thoroughly whether a need to apply pre-trial detention actually exists. 6. Use of alternatives to detention: The conducted research and official statistics show that police supervision and money bail are the most commonly used non-custodial, preventive measures. At the same time, the interviewed judges and prosecutors do not perceive noncustodial preventive measures as effective and trustworthy alternatives to pre-trial detention. What is more, case file research and surveys conducted among defence practitioners show that judicial consideration of alternatives to detention is limited to a single-sentence argument that such alternatives would not protect the integrity of the proceedings. 7. Review of pre-trial detention: The success rate of complaints against pre-trial detention orders of regional courts was about 3% in 2014. Defence practitioners surveyed complained of the automatism and superficiality of judicial decisions which lack proper justifications based on the facts of the case and substantiated presumptions, even in cases being reviewed and appealed against. The case files research confirmed the notion that courts of higher instance rarely change the decisions of lower level courts. The decisions of higher level courts often repeat previous decisions. Defence practitioners also commented in the survey that reviews are not frequent enough to take account of changed circumstances of the case or other factors. Preparation of review is often also challenged by the defence's insufficient access to the case file. The majority of lawyers surveyed believe that the proceedings and investigations are not conducted more diligently and effectively because a pre-trial detainee is involved. 8. Recommendations The conclusions of the research indicate that the practice of pre-trial detention decision-making in Poland falls short of the European Court of Human Rights standards in a number of areas. In light of these findings, the main recommendations are the following: a. The legislator should consider clarifying the prerequisites for pre-trial detention contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. b. The legislator should introduce a maximum duration of pre-trial detention. Optionally, the authority to extend the duration of pre-trial detention beyond the limit in exceptional circumstances should be vested in the Supreme Court. c. The legislator should introduce the rule that cases of persons in pre-trial detention should take precedence over other cases on a judge's docket. d. The legislator should introduce a provision on the defendant's obligatory presence at all pre-trial detention hearings. e. The legislator should introduce obligatory legal representation in cases where a prosecutor requests pre-trial detention or alternatives to detention. f. The amounts awarded as compensation in cases of unlawful pre-trial detention should be increased. g. The legislator should consider introducing new preventive measures (home detention and electronic monitoring) into the Code of Criminal Procedure. h. The Institute of Justice could undertake further research on non-custodial preventive measures, including their perception among the representatives of the justice system. i. The Ministry of Justice, the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution and the Prosecutor General should conduct more training on pre-trial detention standards. j. The authorities should ensure effective implementation of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to access to case files and guidance on pre-trial decision-making. k. The authorities should also ensure proper implementation of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Details: Warsaw: Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, 2015. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: http://www.hfhr.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/HFHR_PTD_2015_EN.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Poland URL: http://www.hfhr.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/HFHR_PTD_2015_EN.pdf Shelf Number: 144772 Keywords: Criminal DefendantsCriminal ProcedurePretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Redcross, Cindy Title: New York City's Pretrial Supervised Release Program: An Alternative to Bail Summary: Policymakers and practitioners are increasingly raising concerns about the large number of people being held in jails pretrial across the US. The supervised release program (SR) in NYC is an example of a new approach to handling cases pretrial. SR gives judges the option to release some defendants who would otherwise be detained due to their inability to make bail. The City of New York has contracted with MDRC and Vera to conduct an evaluation of the program. This brief gives an overview of the program, how it operates, and initial findings based on interviews with key courtroom stakeholders and program staff. Future reports will provide comprehensive evaluation results. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice; MDRC, 2017. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 18, 2017 at: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/SupervisedRelease%20Brief%202017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/SupervisedRelease%20Brief%202017.pdf Shelf Number: 145056 Keywords: Bail Pretrial ReleaseSupervised Release |
Author: Schnacke, Timothy R. Title: Best Practices in Bond Setting: Colorado's New Pretrial Bail Law Summary: On May 11, 2013, Governor Hickenlooper signed into law H.B. 13-1236, which substantially alters the way judges are to administer bail in Colorado. The new law is the first major overhaul of the pretrial bail statute since 1972, and incorporates three recommendations voted out of the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice's ("CCJJ") Bail Subcommittee. That Subcommittee spent nearly a year studying both federal and state legal and evidence-based criminal pretrial practices, and took advantage of years of local research, decades of national research, and practices already implemented in such counties as Larimer, Jefferson, Mesa, Boulder, and Denver as well as in other places nationally such as Kentucky and Washington D.C. Overall, the new law represents an important step forward in Colorado pretrial justice as well as significant movement toward creating a model bail statute; the process used to create it, and even the compromises contained therein, may also serve as a template for other states struggling to address global issues in bail reform. This article summarizes the new law, factors and events leading to its creation, and the research behind the CCJJ's recommendations underlying the statutory changes. By doing so, the author of this paper hopes to help guide those involved in the administration of bail through the process of moving from a primarily cash-based system toward more rational, transparent, and fair pretrial practices. Details: Golden, CO: Center for Legal and Evidence-Based Practices, 2013. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2017 at: https://www.pretrial.org/download/law-policy/Best%20Practices%20in%20Bond%20Setting%20-%20Colorado.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.pretrial.org/download/law-policy/Best%20Practices%20in%20Bond%20Setting%20-%20Colorado.pdf Shelf Number: 145216 Keywords: Bail Bonds Pretrial Release |
Author: Coghlan, Paul Title: Bail Review: First advice to the Victorian government Summary: The provisions relating to bail in Victoria are already very strict. I do not consider that the Bail Act 1977 (the Bail Act) needs a major overhaul in terms of its theoretical underpinnings. In particular, I consider that there should continue to be a general presumption for bail, subject to the reverse onus and unacceptable risk tests. However, the Bail Act is difficult to follow and apply. In particular, it is often difficult to work out what offences are in the reverse onus categories, and the provisions relating to grant of bail should be clarified. I also consider that greater emphasis should be placed on assessment of risk. My proposed rewrite of section 4 places the assessment of risk upfront, retains two reverse onus categories and clarifies that both those categories involve a two step process. Additional offences would be added to the 'exceptional circumstances' category. The 'show cause' category would become the 'show good reason' category, with new offences added, such as rape and sexual penetration of a child. The offences to which the reverse onus provisions apply would be set out in schedules for clarity. I also consider that more emphasis should be placed on offending whilst on bail, including making it more difficult for further bails to be granted. In relation to who may grant bail, I recommend making it clear that police have power to grant bail in most cases. However, police and bail justices should not have power to grant bail in exceptional circumstances cases. I note that the decisions of bail justices are largely uncontroversial. They consider bail in a very small number of cases and mostly refuse bail. I recommend that bail justices should be retained subject to further review. In the meantime, police should be able to apply to the duty magistrate for a stay of bail granted by a bail justice. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Government, 2017. 115p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2017 at: https://engage.vic.gov.au/application/files/9814/9419/7926/Coghlan-report-1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: https://engage.vic.gov.au/application/files/9814/9419/7926/Coghlan-report-1.pdf Shelf Number: 145368 Keywords: Bail Criminal Justice Reform Pretrial Release |
Author: Coghlan, Paul Title: Bail Review: Second advice to the Victorian Government Summary: My first advice was directed largely to legislative reform in accordance with the Terms of Reference. This advice deals with broader systemic issues that arise directly out of the consideration of the operation of the bail system, including Terms of Reference 4 to 7. It also addresses issues that I indicated in my first advice I would deal with. At the moment, the greatest individual difficulty in the operation of bail and remand matters in the Magistrates' Court is the failure to produce accused at court, either in person or by audio visual link. The simple cause of this situation is that there are not enough custodial places available in Victoria. One of the difficulties which arises is that prisoners are serving sentences in police cells, including in the Custody Centre at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court. The position will be eased somewhat when the new prison at Ravenhall comes into operation towards the end of 2017. However, the issue is unlikely to be completely resolved, particularly as any reforms to the Bail Act 1977 (Bail Act) arising from this Review are likely to increase the number of prisoners on remand. If prisoners are not produced, then their cases are often put off. Costs may be directly incurred and the need to return to court on multiple occasions can be inefficient and costly. If the case had been able to proceed, bail might have been granted or the matter resolved. It has been well understood for many years that much is to be gained in the criminal justice system by early resolution. As I discuss in this advice, a very large number of warrants are issued in the Magistrates' Court each year (about 60,000 in 2016). These warrants are for the arrest of accused who do not answer bail and for those who do not answer summons when the Court is unable to deal with the matter or takes the view that it is inappropriate to do so. It is likely that the predominant majority of those arrested on warrant are either re-bailed or bailed, particularly when the offending is at the lower end of seriousness and would not result in a custodial term. I recommend that a new process be developed for dealing with these less serious offences. The successful operation of this process will depend on amending the law to allow some indictable offences to be dealt with in the absence of the accused. That is not possible now because an indictable offence can only be dealt with by a magistrate in the presence of the accused and with their consent. As noted above, a large number of warrants are also issued for accused who fail to answer a summons. A reasonably high percentage of these are for indictable offences at the lower end of the range. Such offences could properly be dealt with in the absence of the accused. The changes I recommend should reduce the number of people on bail and therefore less warrants may issue as a result of failure to answer bail. Allowing some indictable offences to be dealt with in the absence of the accused should also reduce the number of warrants for cases in which a summons was issued. If less warrants are issued, then less court time and police time will be taken to deal with those warrants, and less custodial places will be required. That should have some positive effect on the numbers in police cells. I have looked at the operation of the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP). Even a moderate increase of about 200-300 extra CISP places would take significant pressure away from the remand system. I make a number of recommendations about CISP. When considering the question of out of hours remand, I discovered that because of the very large numbers involved, there are delays in dealing with cases in the Magistrates' Court in usual hours. The Court sitting hours end at 4pm, but some magistrates have been sitting until 7.30pm to try and deal with their lists. The disadvantages of this are obvious. The trial of the Night Court has been limited because of the available resources, including the lack of prosecutors or legal aid lawyers. There is a strong argument to say that a Bail & Remand Court should ordinarily sit from about 9am to 10pm, and I make a recommendation of how this could be done. The Court could deal with many bail applications during these hours (and also finalise some matters) particularly with an increased use of audio visual links. If that leaves only the period from 10pm to 9am the next morning, it would be possible to give police officers the power to remand adults for that period, and to preserve the bail justice system for children and vulnerable people (who should have immediate access to a bail justice). I received submissions from the Office of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about appeals to the Supreme Court. There are two aspects to this. The first relates to staying a decision of magistrates or judges to grant bail, and the second relates to the test to be applied. Consultation on these issues will be required, particularly in relation to the appeal test. I make recommendations on the information which should be provided to any bail decision maker. Finally, the Bail Act does need to be rewritten. It is not a task within my Terms of Reference, but I discuss some aspects that could be reviewed or improved if a rewrite is conducted. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Government, 2017. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2017 at: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/coghlan-report-2.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/coghlan-report-2.pdf Shelf Number: 145388 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice ReformPretrial Release |
Author: Arnold, David Title: Racial Bias in Bail Decisions Summary: This paper develops a new test for identifying racial bias in the context of bail decisions - a high-stakes setting with large disparities between white and black defendants. We motivate our analysis using Becker's (1957) model of racial bias, which predicts that rates of pre-trial misconduct will be identical for marginal white and marginal black defendants if bail judges are racially unbiased. In contrast, marginal white defendants will have a higher probability of misconduct than marginal black defendants if bail judges are racially biased against blacks. To test the model, we develop a new estimator that uses the release tendencies of quasi-randomly assigned bail judges to identify the relevant race-specific misconduct rates. Estimates from Miami and Philadelphia show that bail judges are racially biased against black defendants, with substantially more racial bias among both inexperienced and part-time judges. We also find that both black and white judges are biased against black defendants. We argue that these results are consistent with bail judges making racially biased prediction errors, rather than being racially prejudiced per se. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper No. 23421: Accessed May 22, 2017 at: https://www.princeton.edu/~wdobbie/files/racialbias.pdf; http://www.nber.org/papers/w23421 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.princeton.edu/~wdobbie/files/racialbias.pdf Shelf Number: 145664 Keywords: BailJudicial Decision-MakingPretrial ReleaseRacial BiasRacial DiscriminationRisk Prediction |
Author: U.S. National Institute of Corrections Title: A Framework for Pretrial Justice: Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial System and Agency Summary: This document highlights the commitment of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to define and support evidence-based practices that improve decision-making at the pretrial stage of our criminal justice system, enhancing the safety of America's communities and fostering the fair administration of pretrial release and detention. With the release of A Framework for Pretrial Justice: Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial System and Agency, NIC and its Pretrial Executive Network helps inform the discussion on bail reform and pretrial justice by presenting and defining the fundamentals of an effective pretrial system and the essential elements of a high functioning pretrial services agency. This publication presents and describes these essential elements - as well as the components of an evidence-based framework for improving pretrial outcomes nationwide. Bail determination is one of the most important decisions in criminal justice. Courts that make evidence-based decisions set the following as goals: (1) Protecting community safety; (2) Ensuring a defendant's return to court; (3) Basing release and detention decisions on an individual defendant's risk and the community's norms for liberty; [and] (4) Providing judicial officers with clear, legal options for appropriate pretrial release and detention decisions. A Framework for Pretrial Justice: Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial System and Agency should serve as a guide for jurisdictions interested in improving their current pretrial systems. By presenting a framework of evidence-based and best practices, NIC supports the equally important concepts of pretrial justice and enhanced public safety in all of America's courts. Details: Washington, DC; NIC, 2017. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2017 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/032831.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/032831.pdf Shelf Number: 146178 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesPretrial DetentionPretrial DiversionPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRisk Needs Assessment |
Author: Wheeler, Gerald R. Title: Harris County's Two-Tier Justice System: Longitudinal Study of Effects of Harris County Felony and Misdemeanor Defendants' Legal and Extralegal Attributes on Pretrial Status and Case Outcome Summary: The preponderance of national evidence-based research findings directly links pretrial release status to harsh sentences. The degree to which legal and extralegal courthouse culture violates "evenhandedness" in criminal proceedings in Harris County is reflected in what happens to statistically comparable "bond" versus "detain" defendants in case outcome and sentence. The reviewer may draw his or her own conclusion as to where courthouse actors: prosecutor', magistrates', judges', legal defense attorneys', and commercial bondsmen's individual philosophy of justice, world view and vested interests lie, political alliances formed, this investigation unequivocally demonstrates, the net effect of pretrial justice system in Texas's largest jurisdiction, tilts the scales of justice against the poor. Details: Themis Research, Project Orange Jumpsuit, 2014. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2017 at: https://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Harris%20County%27s%20Two-tier%20Justice%20System%20%28Project%20Orange%20Jumpsuit%29%20-%20Wheeler%20and%20Fry%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Harris%20County%27s%20Two-tier%20Justice%20System%20%28Project%20Orange%20Jumpsuit%29%20-%20Wheeler%20and%20Fry%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 146484 Keywords: Pretrial DetentionPretrial JusticePretrial Release |
Author: University of California, Los Angeles. School of Law Title: The Devil in the Details: Bail Bond Contracts in California Summary: The California Money Bail Reform Act of 2017 (SB 10 and AB 42) intends to significantly reduce the use of money bail and to increase the number of people who are able to safely return home after arrest. Under the current money bail system, many people accused of crimes lack sufficient financial resources to post bail and must enter into bail bond contracts to avoid unnecessary pretrial detention. This study examines the potential consequences of bail bond contracts for the accused and their families. Our research shows that problems of money bail extend well beyond exorbitant bail amounts and into the commercial bail bond industry. The Devil in the Details: Bail Bond Contracts in California provides an analysis of publicly available bail bond contracts. We found that even the most industrious and sophisticated consumer would be significantly hampered in making an educated choice of bail bond company. We examined more than 400 bail bond company websites across the 58 counties to find that fewer than 15% of companies provide copies of their agreements online for review prior to signing. After analyzing the fine print in more than 100 contract documents online corresponding to 10 sureties, we identified 20 problems with bail bond contracts that violate common notions of fairness and justice. Details: Los Angeles: UCLA School of Law, Criminal Justice Reform Clinic, 2017. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2017 at: https://jessicacobbphddotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/ucla-criminal-justice-reform-clinic-the-devil-in-the-details-may-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://jessicacobbphddotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/ucla-criminal-justice-reform-clinic-the-devil-in-the-details-may-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 146488 Keywords: Bail Bonds Pretrial Justice Pretrial Release |
Author: Amatya, Pranita Title: Bail Reform in California Summary: On December 5, 2016, Assemblymember Rob Bonta, partnering with California State Senator Bob Hertzberg, introduced the California Money Bail Reform Act of 2017, which aims to reform the current commercial surety bail system. Our project will assist our client in evaluating policy alternatives to the commercial surety bail system. In California, defendants who are assigned bail may contract with a bail bonds agency and pay a ten percent nonrefundable fee to be released from jail custody. This system is referred to as commercial surety bail. Because this system uses a financial condition in order to release defendants from jail, a majority of defendants incarcerated pretrial are incarcerated only because they cannot afford bail. According to the Executive Director of Equal Justice Under Law, Phil Telfeyan, "The problem we see with money bail is that it puts a price tag on freedom. Those who are rich get to pay their way out and those who aren't get to languish in jail." This system, which prioritizes a financial condition over a defendant's potential risk to be rearrested or to fail to appear at court, does not ensure public safety. Beginning in the 1960s, a nationwide bail reform trend began took root, resulting in many states either abolishing or reforming this system. In an attempt to investigate how bail reform efforts would impact the state of California, we conducted policy analysis to compare the commercial surety bail system in California to an alternative system. The alternative system we compare to commercial surety bail involves several important elements. The first element is risk assessment tools, which are predictive algorithms that assess the risk of a defendant failing to appear for a court date and of being rearrested. The second is non-bail release methods, which can include release on one's own recognizance, supervised release, and unsecured bonds. We conducted this analysis in two stages. First, we compared the screening process used in commercial surety bail to the screening process used with non-bail release. Under the commercial surety bail system, judges use bail schedules to screen defendants and assign bail amounts. Under non-bail release, judges use risk assessment tools to screen defendants and inform their release decisions. We analyzed how the bail schedule compares to risk assessment tools on two criteria: predictive accuracy and race neutrality. We found that risk assessment tools scored higher on both criteria. Based on this analysis, we recommend the adoption of a risk assessment tool to inform judicial decision-making. The second stage of our analysis compares the commercial surety bail release method to non-bail release methods based on five criteria: effectiveness, economic bias, fiscal impact, social cost, and political feasibility. We employed a variety of methods in our analysis. We operationalized predictive accuracy, race neutrality, economic bias, and effectiveness by undertaking an intensive literature review. We used high-level cost calculations and estimations to analyze fiscal impact and social cost. Finally, we conducted interviews to operationalize political feasibility. We found that non-bail release methods scored higher than commercial surety bail on four out of the five criteria (all except for political feasibility). Therefore, based on this analysis, we recommend that non-bail release replaces the commercial surety bail system Details: Los Angeles: UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, 2017. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2017 at: https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=835f283a-e9fc-9c56-28bb-073a9bcb1dbf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=835f283a-e9fc-9c56-28bb-073a9bcb1dbf Shelf Number: 146497 Keywords: BailBail ReformPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Denman, Kristine Title: Pretrial Detention and Case Processing Measures: A Study of Nine New Mexico Counties Summary: The New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center completed a study of pretrial case processing measures and pretrial detention within nine New Mexico counties. This study addresses multiple objectives. First, this study was intended to explore the feasibility of developing case processing performance measures that are more robust than those currently used. Second, this study is intended to understand the extent of pretrial detention and the factors associated with pretrial detention. Third, we assess the degree to which pretrial detention decisions appear to be accurate. Finally, we explored whether pretrial detention influences case processing and outcomes. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center, 2017. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2017 at: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2017/pretrial-detention-and-case-processing-measures--a-study-of-nine-new-mexico-counties-.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2017/pretrial-detention-and-case-processing-measures--a-study-of-nine-new-mexico-counties-.pdf Shelf Number: 147348 Keywords: BailCase ProcessingJailsPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Needs Assessment |
Author: Dew, Daniel J. Title: "Money Bail"": Making Ohio a More Dangerous Place to Live Summary: In 2015, Dragan Sekulic of Stark County, Ohio used his car as a battering ram attempting to kill his ex-wife. Sekulic's would-be victim survived the crash and Sekulic, who had been charged with domestic violence before, faced charges of felonious assault, domestic violence, and operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Working with a bail-bond agent, Sekulic posted the $100,000 bond set by the court and walked free to await his trial. Two weeks later, free on the posted bail, Sekulic found his ex-wife and finished what he had started, shooting her dead. Though shocking, such tragic stories are remarkably far too common in Ohio and across the United States. Many criminal justice systems throughout the country, for example, foster an outmoded practice of pretrial release that allows accused murderers, child rapists, armed robbers, and dangerous gang members to be arrested and released into our communities to await trial. Meanwhile, many jurisdictions allow otherwise law-abiding, harmless citizens to sit in jail for days, weeks, or even months before trial for jaywalking, violating dress-codes, or failing to pay traffic tickets. These absurd incongruities stem from a pretrial release system rooted in money rather than a careful, scientific assessment of the risks that the accused pose to our neighborhoods. Looking for a fairer, more cost-effective approach to pretrial release, some jurisdictions have transitioned from cash bail to more sophisticated actuarial risk-assessment tools to help courts decide who should go home and who should remain a guest of the state. Jails are not cheap to maintain and taxpayers pay a high price for holding people who have not yet been convicted. Indeed, pretrial detention costs an estimated $14 billion annually in the United States, and Ohio's Cuyahoga County alone spent $42 million in 2013 jailing pretrial defendants. Reform-minded jurisdictions realize that a more scientific approach to pretrial detention should look at more than the size of the accused's bank account to ensure public safety, judicial fairness, and fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, the $2 billion per year bail-bond industry continues to fight for the failed status quo even as some jurisdictions discover the advantages of safer, fairer, and more cost-effective pretrial release policies. In resisting bail reform across the country, the bail-bond industry has been quick to highlight any and all shortcomings of risk-assessment tools utilized by courts. But advocates of money bail ignore the harsher realities of the status quo, its potentially harmful effects on low-level, low-income defendants, and the dangers it continues to create in our communities. Details: Columbus, OH: Buckeye Institute, 2017. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2018 at: https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/library/doclib/2017-12-11-Money-Bail-Making-Ohio-a-More-Dangerous-Place-to-Live-By-Daniel-J-Dew.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/library/doclib/2017-12-11-Money-Bail-Making-Ohio-a-More-Dangerous-Place-to-Live-By-Daniel-J-Dew.pdf Shelf Number: 148784 Keywords: Bail Bail Reform Pretrial Justice Pretrial Release |
Author: California. Courts. Judicial Branch Title: Pretrial Detention Reform: Recommendations to the Chief Justice Summary: The Chief Justice established the Pretrial Detention Reform Workgroup on October 28, 2016, to provide recommendations on how courts may better identify ways to make release decisions that will treat people fairly, protect the public, and ensure court appearances. In establishing the Workgroup, the Chief Justice recognized the central role of the courts. The Chief Justice provided the following guiding principles for the Pretrial Detention Reform Workgroup: Pretrial custody should not occur solely because a defendant cannot afford bail. Public safety is a fundamental consideration in pretrial detention decisions. Defendants should be released from pretrial custody as early as possible based on an assessment of the risk to public safety and the risk for failing to appear in court. Mitigating the impacts of implicit bias on pretrial release decision-making should be considered. Reform recommendations should consider court and justice system partner resources. Nonfinancial release alternatives should be available. Consistent and feasible practices for making pretrial release, detention, and supervision decisions should be established. During the course of its yearlong study, the Workgroup examined the complex issues involved in the current pretrial release and detention system. Members reviewed a wide variety of research and policy materials and heard presentations from state and national experts, justice system partner representatives, the commercial bail industry, state and local regulators, victim and civil rights advocacy organizations, California counties that have experience with pretrial services programs, and jurisdictions outside California that have undertaken pretrial reform efforts. At the conclusion of this process, the Workgroup determined that California's current pretrial release and detention system unnecessarily compromises victim and public safety because it bases a person's liberty on financial resources rather than the likelihood of future criminal behavior and exacerbates socioeconomic disparities and racial bias. Details: Sacramento: Judicial Council of California, 2017. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 20, 2018 at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/PDRReport-20171023.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/PDRReport-20171023.pdf Shelf Number: 149188 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticePretrial ReleasePretrial ServicesRacial DisparitiesRisk Assessment |
Author: Maryland. Office of the Public Defender Title: Bail Reviewed: Report of the Court Observation Project Summary: Whether someone accused of a crime is detained pending trial is among the most critical factors in the outcome of the case and the person's well-being. Pretrial detention impacts the ability to work, care for one's family, and maintain housing - regardless of what ultimately happens in the case. The pretrial status of an accused can also impact the ultimate result in their case. Most criminal cases do not go to trial, and what pleas are offered by the prosecutor and accepted by the defendant are heavily weighted by whether the person is currently in jail. The need to get out of jail and return home is a powerful incentive to accept a plea, regardless of the fairness of the offer and sometimes even the person's culpability. Despite the incredible importance of this phase of the proceedings, the general public knows very little about the pretrial process. Unlike criminal trials, pretrial hearings are rarely covered by the media, portrayed in entertainment, or taught in schools. The Pretrial Court Observation Project was designed to educate community members about the pretrial process, while helping gather important data at the critical time of the recent implementation of a Maryland Court Rule change. This report documents the observations and findings of sixty-four volunteers who observed bail review hearings in Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Frederick County, Howard County and Montgomery County. While their observations show clear progress, particularly with the decreased use of money bail, they also identified areas of concern, including the overuse of holding people without bail. The concerns that were identified have identifiable solutions. Among those were the need for a validated assessment tool and the availability of a sufficient range of pretrial services which are needed to ensure pretrial determinations are consistent, fair, and minimize the extent to which presumptively innocent individuals are jailed. The recommendations in this report come from the Community Court Watch observers and are based on their assessments of what is needed to make pretrial a more fair process: - Recommendation 1: Provide judges with resources that encourage release while helping to ensure defendants return to court. - Recommendation 2: Provide judges with tools that measure risk. - Recommendation 3: Educate judges, commissioners and the community. - Recommendation 4: Accused individuals should be present for their bail review hearing. Details: Baltimore: Office of the Public Defender, 2018. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2018 at: http://www.opd.state.md.us/Portals/0/Downloads/articles/Bail%20Reviewed.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.opd.state.md.us/Portals/0/Downloads/articles/Bail%20Reviewed.pdf Shelf Number: 149711 Keywords: BailPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: New York Civil Liberties Union Title: Presumed Innocent for a Price: The Impact of Cash Bail Across Eight New York Counties Summary: Across New York State tens of thousands of New Yorkers are held in city and county jails, not because they have been convicted of a crime, but because they cannot afford to pay for their release while awaiting trial. The harms of unaffordable cash bail are unequivocal: people lose their jobs, homes and families while detained. People also forfeit their rights to trial when pleading guilty in exchange for release. Yet little has been known about how many people across the state have been locked up because they did not have the means to pay bail, about the charges they faced or how long they were kept in jail. To better understand the impact of bail practices in New York, in 2015 the New York Civil Liberties Union sent Freedom of Information Law requests to a sample of eight small, medium and large counties across the state asking for five years of data. The information we received offers a stark glimpse into what New Yorkers have had to endure. IN JUST EIGHT OF THE STATE'S 62 COUNTIES ALONE, WE FOUND THAT BETWEEN 2010 AND 2014: - more than 90,000 New Yorkers spent a day or longer in custody on bail; - more than 45,000 were held for a week or longer; - black pretrial detainees were twice as likely as white pretrial detainees to spend at least one night in custody on bail; - more than 35,000 New Yorkers spent at least one night in custody on a bail of $1,000 or less, and more than 21,000 on $500 or less; - 60 percent of people held on bail had only a misdemeanor or violation as their most serious charge; - more than 5,000 New Yorkers were held on bail charged only with violations; and - petit larceny and misdemeanor criminal possession of a controlled substance were the most common charges, and the most serious charges against a fifth of all pretrial detainees. Details: New York: NYCLU, 2018. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2018 at: https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/bailreport_20180313_final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/bailreport_20180313_final.pdf Shelf Number: 149712 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticePretrial Release |
Author: Matrix Consulting Group Title: Phase 2 Study of the Community Corrections Division: Orange County, Florida Summary: The objective of this study was to evaluate the management, staffing and operations of various alternatives to incarceration programs operating in Orange County's Department of Corrections' Community Corrections Division. The Phase 1 project examined to Home Confinement Program. In this phase of the study the project team examined the other programs in the Division, namely: - Pre-Trial Release - Pre-Trial Division - Alternative Community Service Program - County Probation - Work Release Program - Central Intake Specific objectives of the Phase 2 study of the Community Corrections Division, then, included the following: 1. Evaluate statutes and administrative orders pertinent to the programs. 2. Review of the organizational structures, program policies and procedures, staff authority and supervisory oversight to determine program effectiveness. 3. Conduct a survey of other corrections alternatives' programs in operation in Florida and elsewhere around the country to compare operational and programmatic features which could be utilized in Orange County. 4. Analyze and assess staffing levels and caseloads of the programs. 5. Assess and analyze the programs' use of technology and its effectiveness as well as opportunities to enhance the technology in use. 6. Evaluate the feasibility of privatizing the programs. 7. Analysis of the potential of discontinuing the programs and the impacts of such closure on the criminal justice system within Orange County. The review also included examining electronic monitoring with other Community Corrections Division programs. Details: Mountain View, CA: Matrix, 2013. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2018 at: https://www.matrixcg.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Orange-County-Phase-2-FR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.matrixcg.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Orange-County-Phase-2-FR.pdf Shelf Number: 149788 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity ServiceElectronic MonitoringOffender SupervisionPretrial ReleaseProbationWork Release |
Author: Luminosity, Inc. Title: Pretrial Case Processing in Maine : A Study of System Efficiency & Effectiveness Summary: The Corrections Alternatives Advisory Committee (CAAC) was created by the Maine Legislature in the spring of 2005 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the state's corrections system and to better manage costs. The objectives of the committee were to increase systemwide efficiencies, enhance state and county coordination, and effectively manage defendants/offenders risk and needs. A portion of the committee's responsibility was to examine the local criminal justice system which is considered the "front end" of the larger criminal justice system. An examination of the "front end" of the system, specifically the pretrial stage (including arrest through case disposition) and how cases are processed in the system was the focus of this study. This in-depth study included an examination of the critical stages of pretrial case processing in all 16 counties in Maine, as well as the policies and practices of the key participants involved. The assessment was completed by conducting extensive research, onsite visits, interviews with nearly 250 key stakeholders, and observations of the critical stages of pretrial case processing. The results of the study led to findings and recommendations for improvements related to system efficiencies, system effectiveness, and risk management of pretrial defendants. Great care was taken to ensure that the recommendations were consistent with maintaining judicial system integrity, protecting the presumption of innocence, and ensuring the highest level of protection to our communities. The report begins with an overview of Maine's pretrial case processing system, including the identification of seven critical stages and eight key system participants. Details: St. Petersburg, FL: Luminosity, 2006. 162p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2018 at: http://digitalmaine.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=doc_docs Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://digitalmaine.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=doc_docs Shelf Number: 149868 Keywords: BailCase ProcessingPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Clark, John Title: Upgrading North Carolina's Bail System: A Balances Approach to Pretrial Justice Using Legal and Evidence-Based Practices Summary: This report focuses on helping North Carolina officials work toward a balanced approach to achieving the three goals of the pretrial release decision-making process: to provide reasonable assurance of the safety of the community; to provide reasonable assurance of appearance in court; and to maximize pretrial release. It does so by focusing on legal and evidence-based practices-ones that fully comport with the law and that are driven by research. The use of such practices has been fully endorsed by all the key justice system stakeholder groups, including: the Conference of Chief Justices; the Conference of State Court Administrators; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the National Sheriffs' Association; the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; the National Legal Aid and Defenders Association; the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; the National Association of Counties; and the American Bar Association. And the use of such practices has been shown to produce excellent results. Except for very promising work being done in Mecklenburg County, legal and evidence-based pretrial justice practices are not in place in North Carolina. Magistrates and judges in the state place significant emphasis on an antiquated tool-bond guidelines-which several federal courts around the country have recently called unconstitutional. Courts also rely heavily on a release option-the secured bond-that was established in the 19th Century to address a problem that was unique to that time; the ability of a criminal defendant to flee into the vast wilderness of America's growing frontier and simply disappear, never to face prosecution. And only 40 of the state's 100 counties are served by pretrial services programs that can provide supervision of defendants released by the court with conditions of pretrial release. Many of these programs have very limited supervision capacity. The model for legal and evidence-based pretrial release practices in North Carolina includes the use of an empirically-derived pretrial risk assessment tool, the development of a decision matrix that would help magistrates and judges make pretrial release decisions, the implementation of risk management strategies aimed at matching risk levels with the most appropriate level of support or supervision, the expanded use of citation releases by law enforcement, the very early involvement of the prosecutor and defense, and the initiation of automatic bond reviews for in-custody misdemeanor defendants. Implementing such a model of legal and evidence-based practices in North Carolina would be greatly facilitated by changes in the state's laws. Current North Carolina law does not expressly provide for a right to actual pretrial release-it is crafted only in terms of setting or not setting conditions-nor does it articulate a procedure for preventive detention of high risk defendants. A right merely to have conditions set, coupled with the statutory provisions discussing those conditions as well as no decent process for risk-based detention, naturally moves North Carolina magistrates and judges toward using secured money conditions to address risk for both court appearance and public safety, and toward attempting to use unattainable money conditions to detain defendants posing extremely high pretrial risk. In addition, although the statute speaks of pretrial risk, it makes determinations of who is entitled to having release conditions set based primarily on charge as a proxy for risk, and subtly points judicial officials toward using the money condition to address risk. The better practice would be to set forth a right to release for all except extremely high-risk defendants (or defendants who are not as risky but who also face extremely serious charges, or both), provide for a lawful and transparent detention provision based on risk to allow pretrial detention with no conditions, and then create mechanisms so that persons released pretrial are released immediately. Details: Gaithersburg, MD: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2016. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2018 at: https://nccalj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Upgrading-NCs-Bail-System-PJI-2016-003.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://nccalj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Upgrading-NCs-Bail-System-PJI-2016-003.pdf Shelf Number: 150052 Keywords: BailEvidence-Based PracticesPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Daniels, Flozell, Jr. Title: From Bondage to Bail Bonds: Putting a Price on Freedom in New Orleans Summary: Bail in Louisiana was once a system that enforced a constitutional right to be free after arrest and before a determination of guilt or innocence. Over time, it has been transformed into a money bail system in which that freedom is conditioned on the ability to pay money up front. What was originally designed as a right to pretrial freedom has become a means of control and extracting money from people who are arrested, and jailing those who cannot pay. The money bail system takes $6.4 million from New Orleans families each year, with over $1 million going to the court, $227,000 to each of three other agencies (the sheriff, district attorney, and public defender offices), and $4.7 million to commercial bail bond companies.1 For those whose families cannot afford to pay the price of pretrial freedom, the non-financial costs are even greater. Many poor and low income people stay in jail until their cases are resolved, regardless of the seriousness of the charges or the likely outcome of the case. In fact, most arrests and detention do not lead to a conviction with a sentence of incarceration; most plead guilty and are sentenced to probation or to the time they've already served before conviction. As a result, the only incarceration most people end up serving is the pretrial detention they suffer because of the requirement that they pay to gain their freedom, despite being legally innocent. Once their cases are resolved, most are released. The length of this money-based detention can be devastating. Those who cannot afford to pay bail stay in jail nearly four months while facing a felony charge and nearly one month for a municipal or state misdemeanor charge until their case is resolved. Even those who were able to pay bail were jailed an average of 11 days for a felony and three days for a misdemeanor before being freed. More than 500 people were in jail on any given day in 2015 for no other reason than that they could not afford to pay cash or purchase a bail bond. There are also enormous costs to the city's taxpayers, who pay more than $6 million each year to subsidize the cost of unnecessarily jailing these 500 people. People who are arrested in New Orleans are often poor-85 percent are too poor to hire a lawyer. They are also disproportionately black; black people are arrested at two and a half times the rate of white people. Fully 84 percent of the $6.3 million paid in money bail is paid by black people. Worse yet, black people are less likely to be able to pay the price set for their freedom; average income for black households is $25,324 while for white households it is $67,884.9 Consequently, most of the people in the jail-87 percent-are black. The money bail system intrinsically harms those least able to afford it, whether by extracting scarce dollars or jailing those with insufficient dollars to pay. Black people, whether subject to implicit biases or by virtue of being economically disadvantaged, suffer the greatest harm. New Orleans has led all U.S. cities in jailing its people. Why does a majorityblack city pursue policies and practices that lead to the jailing of black people at starkly higher rates than people of other races? Why does this city-300 years old, half of that post-emancipation-continue to exact the heavy human toll of conditioning freedom on the ability to pay the price set? One place to look for answers is in the historical practices of exploitation of people of color, driven or sanctioned by the state, that trade on the fiction of black dangerousness and criminality to extract revenue and exert control. This essay examines the extent to which money bail in New Orleans is a descendant of slavery and subsequent practices of racial exploitation. It describes bail and related practices across the city's 300-year history, identifying echoes in the present-day regime of money bail. It then explains the processes and costs of modern money bail. Finally, it presents some ways in which the city has been moving to a less harmful criminal legal system and offers models from jurisdictions that have rejected money-based detention as inconsistent with the core principle of innocent until proven guilty. Details: New Orleans: The Data Center, 2018. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2018 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/gnocdc/reports/Daniels_bondage_to_bail_bonds.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/gnocdc/reports/Daniels_bondage_to_bail_bonds.pdf Shelf Number: 150194 Keywords: Bail BondsPovertyPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRacial Disparities |
Author: Redcross, Cindy Title: Evaluation of Pretrial Justice System Reforms That Use the Public Safety Assessment Effects in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Summary: Arnold Ventures' Public Safety Assessment (PSA) is a pretrial risk assessment tool that uses nine factors from a defendant's history to produce two risk scores: one representing the likelihood of a new crime being committed and another representing the likelihood of a failure to appear for future court hearings. The PSA also notes if there is an elevated risk of a violent crime. The PSA is designed to provide additional information to judges and others making release decisions - decisions about whether a defendant will be released while waiting for a case to be resolved, and if so, under what conditions. The score is used in conjunction with a jurisdiction-specific decision-making framework that uses the defendant's PSA risk score in combination with local statutes and policies to produce a recommendation for release conditions. The goal of the PSA is to make the restrictions on a defendant's release conditions better align with that defendant's assessed risk of committing new crimes or failing to appear. Over 40 jurisdictions across the country have implemented the PSA. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina was one of the first; it began using the PSA in 2014, switching from another risk assessment. This study presents the effects of the PSA and related policy changes in Mecklenburg County. The first report in the series describes the effects of the overall policy reforms on important outcomes. A supplemental second report describes the role of risk-based decision making in the outcomes and describes the effects of the PSA on racial disparities in outcomes and among different subgroups. Overall, the findings are notable from a public-safety perspective: Mecklenburg County released more defendants and did not see an increase in missed court appointments or new criminal charges while defendants were waiting for their cases to be resolved. The PSA policy changes were associated with less use of financial bail and a higher rate of defendants being released on a written promise or unsecured bond. The proportion of defendants detained in jail was lower than it would have been in the absence of the policy changes. There was an improved alignment between defendant risk and the restrictiveness of release conditions. Fewer cases resulted in guilty pleas and convictions than would have been the case in the absence of the reforms. Because more defendants were released while their cases were pending, they may have had less incentive to plead guilty in order to get out of jail. Even though the PSA policy changes increased the percentage of defendants who were released pending trial - and even though a higher proportion of defendants were facing felony charges in the period after the PSA was implemented - there was no evidence that the PSA policy changes affected the percentages of defendants who made all of their court appearances or who were charged with new crimes while waiting for their cases to be resolved. Most of the changes in pretrial release conditions occurred at a step in the pretrial case process before the PSA report is completed. Thus, having access to the information in the PSA could have had at most only a small effect on the way judges set release conditions. There was no evidence of racial disparity in the setting of release conditions and the PSA had no effect on racial disparities within the system. Black defendants were more likely than other racial groups to be assessed by the PSA as being high-risk, though. Details: New York: MDRC Center for Criminal Justice Research, 2019. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Report 1 of 2: Accessed March 29, 2019 at: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/PSA_Mecklenburg_Brief1.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/PSA_Mecklenburg_Brief1.pdf Shelf Number: 155229 Keywords: BailPretrial JusticePretrial ReleasePublic SafetyRacial DisparitiesRisk Assessment |
Author: Fox, Aubrey Title: Pretrial Release Without Money: New York City, 1987-2018 Summary: Should New York end the use of money bail? What legislative framework would best limit the use of pretrial detention while promoting court appearance? As elected officials consider updating New York's 1970 bail statute, these questions have come under intense debate. One place to start is by establishing a baseline of current pretrial practice in New York City. Although limited by the 1970 legislative framework, judges have broad discretion in making pretrial release decisions. Those practices may vary from judge to judge, but when viewed in the aggregate broad trends can be discerned. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2019. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 27, 2019 at: https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=15ad6f0e-b18c-d8d8-ec60-156090d88968&forceDialog=0 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.nycja.org/operations-pretrial-services-and-special-programs/ Shelf Number: 156578 Keywords: Fines and Fees Monetary Sanctions Money Bail Pretrial Detention Pretrial Release |