By Erin Jacobs Valentine, Sarah Picard

Jurisdictions across the United States are implementing reforms to their pretrial systems to reduce the number of people who are held in pretrial detention—that is, who remain incarcerated in jail while they await the adjudication of their cases. As part of this effort, many jurisdictions are moving away from money bail as a primary means to encourage people to return for future court dates, and are instead implementing pretrial supervision, which requires clients to meet regularly with supervision staff members. Jurisdictions often attempt to match the intensity or frequency of supervision with a client’s assessed risk of failing to appear in court or being rearrested, for example by requiring more intensive supervision for clients who are assessed as being at a high risk. However, while different levels of pretrial supervision impose different burdens and costs on both jurisdictions and people awaiting the resolutions of their cases, there has been little systematic research into how they differ in their effectiveness in improving court appearance and arrest outcomes.

This report contributes new evidence in this area using retrospective data from cases initiated between January 2017 and June 2019 in two jurisdictions: one populous, urban metropolitan area in the western United States and a sparsely populated, rural county from the same region. The research team employed a regression discontinuity design, comparing the outcomes of people whose risk scores were just below and just above the cutoff for a level of supervision. They did so for four supervision levels: (1) no supervision, (2) low-intensity supervision that involved only check-ins with supervision staff members after court hearings, (3) medium-intensity supervision that also required one in-person meeting a month with a supervision staff member, and (4) high-intensity supervision that required three in-person meetings per month. The analysis uses a noninferiority approach, which tests whether the less intensive form of supervision is at least as effective as (that is, no worse than) the more intensive form.

The analysis found that:

Overall, lower-intensity supervision was as effective as higher-intensity supervision in helping clients to appear in court and avoid new arrests. When comparing each level of supervision with the next level in intensity, assignment to less intensive supervision led to similar outcomes as assignment to more intensive supervision.

Risk scores were strongly correlated with rearrest rates and modestly correlated with court appearance rates. Unsurprisingly, people with higher risk scores were more likely to be rearrested, and somewhat less likely to make scheduled court appearances. However, higher-intensity supervision did not mitigate this effect.

Overall, the analysis found no evidence that requiring people to meet more intensive pretrial supervision requirements improves outcomes. These findings suggest that policymakers should consider other strategies to encourage people to appear in court and avoid arrest, especially since supervision has costs, including monetary costs to jurisdictions and time and travel costs to clients. It is possible, for example, that strategies that involve service connections rather than supervision could be more effective. At the same time, the results indicate that more research on the use of pretrial supervision is needed. Because the regression discontinuity design of this study focuses on cases at particular risk levels—those near the cutoff risk scores that determine supervision intensity—it is possible that the results would differ for cases with other risk levels. For example, high-intensity supervision could have effects among very high-risk cases, a question that this analysis was not designed to address. Given that prior research suggests that both service and supervision resources are most effective when reserved for higher-risk and -need cases, studies focusing solely on outcomes among this group could be of great benefit to the field.

New York: MDRC, 2023. 77p.

By Paul Guerin

This study reviews felony court cases in the Second Judicial District Court with a Public Safety Assessment (PSA) and a pretrial detention (PTD) motion filed between July 2017 and June 2023. The dataset of 6,698 cases includes court data and jail data that is used to study the cases from the filing of the case to the court disposition. It is important to note this review includes the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic likely had some impact on case filings, time to case dispositions, and jails admissions and lengths of stay. This review found that a slightly higher percent of court cases on which a preventive detention motion was filed was granted compared to denied motions. The study confirms other research that cases with higher FTA and NCA scores are more likely to have granted motions and that motions were most likely to be filed on cases with violent charges. We found 55% of closed cases had a conviction and were sentenced and that 43.5% were dismissed or nolled and so did not result in a conviction. Cases with denied preventive detention motions spent few days in the MDC regardless of their disposition. Cases with a granted motion that were eventually dismissed or nolled spent slightly more than 120 days in the MDC and a similar number of days in the court system. Dismissals and nolles occur at the case level for a variety of reasons including uncooperative witnesses, lack of probable cause, and because some cases might be refiled in the Federal court system. Various criminal justice system level reasons may also exist. This includes the volume of crime and arrests with resulting court case filings, the complexity of cases, and staffing among the various agencies. This preliminary review of preventive detention motion cases in the Second Judicial District Court is the first of its kind to report on the disposition of cases with a preventive detention motion. In the future more sophisticated and detailed analyses and reporting could occur that further detail the relationship between PSA scores, preventive detention motions and results, and court case dispositions.

Albuquerque: Center for Applied Research and Analysis, Institute for Social Research, University of New Mexico , 2024. 13p.

By Alex Severson,  Elise Ferguson,  Cris Moore, Paul Guerin, 

This study analyzes the costs and benefits of pretrial detention in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, examining 16,500 felony cases filed between January 2017 and March 2022. The analysis evaluates the relationship between pretrial detention length and failure outcomes, including failure to appear (FTA), new criminal activity (NCA), and new violent criminal activity (NVCA), both during the pretrial period and post-disposition. The study found that longer detention periods (8-30 days) were associated with significantly higher odds of pretrial failure compared to shorter stays, particularly for failure to appear, though this relationship varied by demographic groups. For post-disposition outcomes, moderate detention lengths (4-30 days) were associated with increased odds of general recidivism but decreased odds of violent recidivism. Using marginal cost estimates rather than average daily jail costs, we estimate that reducing detention length to two days for eligible low-risk defendants who did not fail pretrial could yield cost savings of approximately $259,722 annually. The study contributes to ongoing debates about pretrial detention policies by demonstrating that extended detention periods may increase certain failure rates while generating substantial system costs. However, the analysis notes important limitations, including inability to fully control for post-disposition sentencing outcomes and the challenge of establishing causal relationships between detention length and failure rates. 

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, Institute for Social Research, 2024.40p.

By Kristine Denman and Ella Siegrist  

The New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center received funding from the Bureau of Justice Statistics to complete a multi-phase study assessing New Mexico’s bail reform efforts. The current report examines the impact of bail reform in six New Mexico counties. This study first explores the use and amount of bond judges ordered as recorded in criminal court cases where conditions of release were set, using data from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The data includes cases disposed between 2015 and 2019, and consists of misdemeanor and felony cases, both pretrial and post-disposition. Second, using data from New Mexico county detention centers and the AOC, the study explores the impact of bail reform among defendants booked between 2015 and 2019 for a new felony offense. This allows us to examine the impact of bail reform on pretrial practices among felony defendants—the target of New Mexico’s constitutional amendment on bail reform. Specifically, the study examines four outcomes: pretrial detention practices, the use of bond, failure/success rates among those released pretrial; and court efficiency. By analyzing pre- and post- bail reform data, we found that the amendment has been successful in reducing the average amount of bond ordered and the frequency with which it is ordered. Judges, however, ordered temporary no-bond holds when issuing a warrant for arrest more frequently after bail reform. Overall, defendants involved in new felony cases were detained for a shorter period of time. However, this was not true across the board: a slightly greater percentage were subject to a short period of detention (rather than immediate release), and those detained during the entire pretrial period spent more time in jail post-reform. During the pretrial period, new violent offenses increased slightly by 2%; new offenses overall increased by 1%. Failures to appear were more common after bail reform, with a 5% increase, but this varied significantly by county. In general, time to case resolution decreased post-bail reform, though cases involving defendants detained the entire pretrial period took slightly longer to resolve. 

Albuquerque: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center   2022. 57p.

By The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Government, Criminal Justice Innovation Lab

In North Carolina, thirty-seven of the state’s 100 counties offer some kind of pretrial supervision and support services. The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies identifies two primary roles of pretrial services agencies. First, to assist judicial officers in making informed release decisions that promote court appearance and public safety. And second, to offer supervision and support options for individuals who require oversight while on pretrial release. These options can include services such as court date reminders, check-ins with staff, electronic monitoring, and providing referrals to community service providers. Numerous North Carolina counties use pretrial risk assessments to assist judicial officers in making informed release decisions. As used here, the term pretrial risk assessment refers to tools that are designed to predict the likelihood that someone will appear in court and remain arrest-free while on pretrial release. This briefing paper provides information about the use of pretrial risk assessments in North Carolina, including the types of assessments being used and how they are implemented. We also share lessons learned from stakeholders about implementation. This information was gathered as part of a larger partnership between the UNC School of Government Criminal Justice Innovation Lab (the Lab) and the North Carolina Pretrial Services Association (NCPSA) to assess the feasibility of research on the impact of pretrial services.

Durham, NC: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Government, Criminal Justice Innovation Lab: December 2024, 15p.

By Jaeok Kim, Cherrell Green, Alex Boldin, Quinn Hood, and Shirin Purkayastha

In April 2019, New York passed historic bail reform that was intended to reduce the use of pretrial detention. The impact was quick and sizable: from April 2019 to March 2020, the number of people incarcerated in New York jails decreased by more than 30 percent. The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic further decreased the number of people in jail. In July 2020, a daily average of 11,000 people were incarcerated in local jails across New York, hitting a two-decade low.1 Two-thirds of these people were incarcerated in jails outside of New York City. This report provides an extensive look at how five counties—Albany, Broome, Erie, Tompkins, and Ulster—implemented key provisions of the bail reform law. The analysis incorporates multiple data sources, including arrest, jail, and pretrial supervision administrative data; court observations; and system actor interviews. The major findings are as follows: 1. Changes in pretrial admissions and likelihood of pretrial detention § Across the counties, pretrial populations decreased more than 35 percent after the implementation of bail reform. § The likelihood of pretrial detention after arrest decreased by more than 35 percent after the implementation of bail reform. 2. Putting policy into practice: Findings from 300 virtual court observations § Mandatory release effectively limited the use of money bail. § Prosecutors and judges relied on money bail where still allowed. Judges set bail in about a quarter of all arraignments and for almost 60 percent of cases with qualifying charges. § When setting bail, judges rarely considered ability to pay and often set bail above defense counsel requests. In more than 70 percent of cases for which judges set bail, discussion about the person’s ability to pay remained absent from their arraignment hearing. § Prosecutors and judges relied on criminal history and severity of charge when assessing bail in more than a quarter of cases in which bail was set. § Although it occurred rarely, the 2020 amendments to bail reform allowed judges to use ambiguity in the statutes to set bail on charges that otherwise required mandatory release. 3. Twenty-six system actors’ perceptions of bail reform § More than 90 percent of system actors interviewed supported the bail reforms. § Virtual arraignments, introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, hampered attorney–client communication. Defendants faced many barriers in returning to court, including substance use, mental health, and financial struggles. § Inconsistent practices in local and county courts created challenges to the successful implementation of the law. 4. Changes in the use of pretrial supervision after bail reform implementation § The number of people admitted to pretrial supervision in Albany, Broome, and Ulster Counties decreased by more than one-third immediately after bail reform went into effect. § COVID-19 resulted in short-term declines in pretrial supervision admissions in Albany, Broome, and Ulster Counties, and a more prolonged effect in Erie County. § The share of new supervision admissions for misdemeanor cases dropped more than 30 percent at the beginning of the pandemic, then returned to prepandemic levels. § Variations in the use of release conditions reveal different court practices across counties. § Less than 15 percent of new pretrial supervision cases ended in revocation within six months, mostly for felony rearrest or failure to appear.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2022. 47p.

By Jaeok Kim, Quinn Hood, and Elliot Connors

Over the last decade, thousands of New Yorkers have been held in jail pretrial, largely because they could not afford to pay bail. In April 2019, New York legislators passed bail reform bills updating a set of laws that had remained largely untouched since 1971. The laws, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, made release before trial automatic for most people accused of misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies. In cases that remained eligible for bail—including violent felonies and some domestic violence- or sex-related charges—the law mandated that the judge consider a person’s ability to pay bail. However, an organized, immediate backlash by the opponents of bail reform led the New York legislature to amend the law in April 2020, only three months after the original reform went into effect. Meanwhile, in March 2020, New York became an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic changed the way the criminal legal system operated. Court hearings, including arraignments, became virtual. Jury trials were cancelled. And, understanding that jails could become COVID-19 hotspots and drive outbreaks outside of the jails, some court actors across the state began working to reduce jail populations. This report by the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) is the first to examine the impact of April 2019’s bail reform in New York State by exploring trends in jail populations and admissions in New York City and a sample of counties

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2021. 44p.

By Brad Lander

The purpose of bail is to ensure that a person who is arrested returns to court for trial. However, in practice, the impact of bail has been to detain tens of thousands of New Yorkers, presumed innocent, before trial and cost low-income families tens of millions of dollars every year. To address these concerns, in April 2019 the New York State Legislature passed sweeping reforms to state bail laws. The guiding principle was that no one should be jailed because they are too poor to pay bail. The law prohibited bail-setting for most misdemeanor and non-violent felony charges, required judges to consider a person’s ability to pay before setting bail, and required that defendants have at least three options for making bail, including less onerous options. In the ramp-up to implementation of bail reform on January 1, 2020, the jail population dropped quickly, falling from about 7,100 on November 1, 2019 to 5,800 on January 1, 2020 and to 5,500 on February 1, 2020. When COVID-19 hit the city in March 2020, the jail population fell further, temporarily falling below 4,000 as arrests dropped and efforts were made to reduce the incarcerated population, including those at greater risk of severe illness, during the pandemic

New York: Office of the City Comptroller, Bureau of Budget and Bureau of Policy and Research 2022. 17p.

By Don Stemen and David Olson

Bail reform efforts across the United States have accelerated in recent years, driven by concerns about the overuse of monetary bail, the potentially disparate impact of pretrial detention on poor and minority defendants, and the effects of bail decisions on local jail populations. Proponents of bail reform advocate for reducing or eliminating the use of monetary bail, arguing that many defendants are held in jail pretrial solely because they cannot afford to post bail. Opponents counter that reducing the use of monetary bail or increasing the number of people released pretrial could result in more defendants failing to appear for court hearings (FTAs) or committing crimes while on pretrial release. Evaluations of recent bail reform efforts indicate that these efforts have not been associated with increases in new criminal activity….. A debate has played out in the media regarding the link between GO18.8A, the types of individuals released pretrial, and the number and percent of individuals charged with a new crime while on pretrial release. The debate centers around an evaluation of GO18.8A conducted by the Office of the Chief Judge (OCJ).5 The OCJ’s evaluation found that the number and percent of felony defendants released pretrial increased after GO18.8A but that the percent of felony defendants charged with a new crime while on pretrial release was similar before and after GO18.8A. Subsequent analyses by the media6 and academics7 suggested that the OCJ’s evaluation underestimated the percent of defendants charged with a new crime after GO18.8A. …. These critiques suggested that GO18.8A may have led to an increase in new criminal activity of those released pretrial and contributed directly to increases in crime in Chicago and Cook County. These subsequent analyses, however, also suffer from methodological problems similar to those in the OCJ’s evaluation. By relying on the same public data collected and distributed by the OCJ, these analyses were unable to correct for the critiques made of the OCJ’s analyses – namely a truncated follow-up period and a failure to account for seasonality – without making assumptions about, and estimations of, underlying recidivism rates of those released.8 More importantly, the analyses were unable to verify or refute the OCJ’s analyses of bond court decisions, release rates, or new criminal activity through the independent analysis of defendant- and charge-level court or jail data. As a result of these methodological shortcomings and contradictory findings, the actual impact of GO18.8A remains unclear. ….

Chicago: Loyola University Chicago, 2020. 34p

By Alex Albrigh

Are the effects of money bail on misconduct large enough to justify its costs? Money bail advocates argue that its usage is critical for averting misconduct, while skeptics counter that its effects are small and not worth the consequent human costs of pretrial detention. I address this debate directly by using administrative data and a policy reform in Kentucky. An automatic release program removed financial bail conditions for a subset of low-level cases, creating an opportunity to estimate the program’s effects on detention and misconduct using a differences-in-differences approach. The program cut the usage of financial bail by 50.5 p.p., while it increased the rate of failure to appear by 3.3 p.p. The program’s effect on pretrial rearrest is indistinguishable from zero, and the data rules out even modest sized increases. Effects on misconduct are primarily driven by substitution away from money bail, rather than from unsecured bail (which only requires payment in the event of misconduct). …

Unpublished paper, 2021. 61p.

By René Ropac and Michael Rempel

This report examines the impact of New York’s bail reform law on recidivism in New York City. We sought to produce a credible analysis of the impact of releasing people under reform who would have otherwise faced bail or pretrial detention. 

Key Findings:

• Eliminating bail for most misdemeanor and nonviolent felony charges reduced recidivism. There were reductions for any re-arrest (44% vs. 50%) and felony re-arrest (24% vs. 27%) over two years.

• For people remaining legally eligible for bail (most of whom were charged with violent felony offenses), reducing the use of bail through measures such as supervised release expansion or requiring judges to set the least restrictive condition did not affect recidivism in either direction.

• The 2020 amendments targeted a specific subgroup of people whose re-arrest rates had increased under the original reforms.

• Beyond the aforementioned overall takeaways, bail reform had varying recidivism effects depending on people’s charges and recent criminal history.

New York: Data Collaborative for Justice, 2023. 56p.

By Joshua Page and Christine S. Scott-Hayward

In this review of scholarship on bail and pretrial justice in the United States, we analyze how the field of bail operates (and why it operates as it does), focusing on its official and unofficial objectives, core assumptions and values, power dynamics, and technologies. The field, we argue, provides extensive opportunities for generating revenue and containing, controlling, and changing defendants and their families. In pursuit of these objectives, actors consistently generate harms that disproportionately affect low-income people of color and amplify social inequalities. We close with an analysis of political struggles over bail, including current and emerging possibilities for both reformist and radical change. In this, we urge scholars toward sustained engagement with people and organizations in criminalized communities, which pushes scholars to reconsider our preconceptions regarding safety, justice, and the potential for systemic change and opens up new avenues for research and public engagement.

   Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2022. 5:91–113

By Lauren Nickolls

This Library briefing paper provides an overview of police powers to release suspects from custody under investigation and on pre-charge bail. It also discusses the two major reforms that pre-charge bail has undergone in the last decade, first in 2017 and then in 2022.   When the police have arrested and detained a suspect but do not have the evidence to charge them, the suspect must be released. They can be released either on pre-charge bail (also known as police bail), “under investigation” (RUI) or with “no further action”.  

London: UK Parliament, House of Commons Library, 2023. 36p.

By Sandra G. Mayson 

ABSTRACT An unaffordable bail requirement has precisely the same effect as an order of pretrial detention: the accused person is jailed pending trial. It follows as a logical matter that an order requiring an unaffordable bail bond as a condition of release should be subject to the same substantive and procedural protections as an order denying bail altogether. Yet this has not been the practice. This Article lays out the logical and legal case for the proposition that an order that functionally imposes detention must be treated as an order of detention. It addresses counterarguments and complexities, including both empirical and normative ambiguity in the concept of “unaffordable” bail. It explains in practical terms what it would entail for a court system to treat unaffordable bail as a detention order. One hurdle is that both legal and policy standards for pretrial detention are currently in flux. Recognizing unaffordable bail as a detention order foregrounds the question of when pretrial detention is justified. This is the key question the bail reform movement must now confront.  

69 Duke L.J. 1643 (2020)  

By Don Stemen and David Olson

  In response to widely voiced criticism that monetary bail imposes an unfair burden on poor defendants, many of whom remain in jail because they are unable to acquire the money for bail, numerous jurisdictions—cities, counties, and states—have enacted changes in pretrial practices and policy intended to reduce or eliminate the use of bail. Although under long-established practices and policies most defendants required to post bail eventually do so, critics of these reforms contend that they endanger the public by allowing arrestees to remain at liberty while awaiting trial, leading to substantial increases in crime. To assess these arguments, we considered eleven bail-reform jurisdictions to determine the effect, if any, of these policy changes on crime. Violent crime trends after reforms present no clear or obvious pattern in these jurisdictions. In six places, violent crime decreased in the year after reforms. In all these instances, it decreased more than the national average did in that year, or it decreased while the national average increased. In four jurisdictions, violent crime increased while the national average decreased in the same year….

New York: Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation , 2023. 23p.

By  Ilya Klauzner

A program designed to keep young people out of remand significantly reduces the likelihood of custody. However, its limited reach means very few young people receive this assistance. The NSW Bail Assistance Line is an after-hours helpline that assists young people who are likely to be remanded by police gain access to bail.  Young people can be connected with accommodation, transport and other support services to help them satisfy the conditions of a bail order. A new evaluation by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research considers the number of young people helped by this program and how placement impacts the likelihood of incarceration and reoffending. The study found that the number of young people receiving bail through the Bail Assistance Line is low.   In the first half of 2019, the Bail Assistance Line placed 51 young people; or 9.4% of the 542 cases that were bail denied by police or placed by the Bail Assistance Line.  While the number of placements is low, the number of bail placements through the service has in fact more than doubled over the 8 years from 2011. Young people helped by the Bail Assistance Line are more likely to be female, non-Aboriginal defendants with shorter criminal histories. Services are strongly concentrated in urban areas and Greater Sydney. While reach is low, the study found positive outcomes for those assisted.  In particular, in the six months after the bail decision, young people placed by the Bail Assistance Line were 16% less likely to be incarcerated. According to Jackie Fitzgerald, Executive Director at BOCSAR, “Expanding the Bail Assistance Line has the potential to increase the number of young people placed on bail. However, the impact depends on police engaging the Bail Assistance Line earlier in the bail process and police willingness to consider varying a young person’s bail determination.”

Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Crime and Justice Bulletin No. CJB237. 2021. 32p.

By Min-Taec Kim

The aim of this study is to estimate the causal impact of appearing via audio-visual link (AVL) on the likelihood of being granted bail. Audio-visual link describes the video conferencing equipment to facilitate court appearances without the defendant being physically present. To estimate the impact of appearing via AVL on bail outcomes, we compare individuals who have their first court bail hearing via AVL at two NSW Correctional Centres, Amber Laurel and Surry Hills, between Jan 2018 and Feb 2020 with similar individuals over the same period. The credibility of the estimates hinge on two factors:
1) The extent to which we have observed and modelled the factors that influence the bail decision of the magistrate, and 2) The extent to which the allocation of AVL is ‘as good as random’ after controlling for all observed factors. Three statistical approaches (logistic regression, Mixed effects regression and a generalised random forest) are used to adjust for the observed differences between these two groups and estimate the causal impact of appearing via AVL.

Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR), Crime and Justice Bulletin No. CJB235. 2021. 40p.

By The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

This report examines current approaches to reforming the pre-trial and bail systems in the U.S. criminal justice system. The report reveals that between 1970 and 2015, there was a 433% increase in the number of individuals who have been detained pre-trial, and pre-trial detainees represent a larger proportion of the total incarcerated population.

Washington, USCCR, 2022. 281p.

By The  U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,  Kentucky Advisory Committee

The Kentucky Advisory Committee (“Committee”) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights examined the pretrial detention and bail process in Kentucky. The Committee’s work focused on the impacts and uses of cash bail—that is, the money an individual must pay to secure their release from detention pretrial—in the state. As part of the inquiry, the Committee heard testimony on this topic from a diverse group of panelists during public meetings. The use of cash bail is prevalent in Kentucky courts, posing significant challenges to low-income defendants. A study by the Pegasus Institute in 2016 found that over 64,000 nonviolent, nonsexual offenders—70 percent of whom were deemed to be at low to moderate risk for reoffending prior to trial—were detained in Kentucky for an average of 109 days pretrial because they could not afford to pay their bail.1 The Committee heard several key themes throughout their inquiry which evidenced the need for cash bail reform in the state to achieve more equitable and effective public safety outcomes. These key themes included (1) the failure of Kentucky’s pretrial risk assessment tool to reduce pretrial detentions and provide reliable risk assessments; (2) the widely varied conditions of release for similarly situated defendants across the state; and (3) the negative consequences caused by unnecessary pretrial detention of low- to moderate-risk nonviolent and nonsexual alleged offenders. ….

Washington DC: USCCR, 2021. 16p.

By Ella J. Siegrist, Jenna L. Dole, Kristine Denman, Ashleigh Maus, Joel Robinson, Callie Dorsey, and Graham White

In November 2016, New Mexico voters approved a constitutional amendment altering pretrial release and bail practices for felony cases within the state. As part of a multi-phase study, this report evaluates the implementation of bail reform thus far. We primarily used information from stakeholder interviews; this was supplemented with court observations, media coverage, and legal documents. In this report, we document the current pretrial process; the way that pretrial release and detention decisions are made; the perceived impact of the amendment; reform success and areas for improvement; and recommendations for how New Mexico and other states may improve pretrial practices.

Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center. Institute for Social Research, 2020. 131p.