By Allie Preston and Rachael Eisenberg

On any given day in 2022, 658,000 people are incarcerated in jails across the country, more than 80 percent of whom are awaiting trial to determine if they will be convicted of a crime. Although courts have determined that most people can safely await their trial while remaining in their communities, the inability to afford the cost of cash bail prevents thousands of people from accessing pretrial release. The pretrial process that is supposed to protect community safety and ensure access to justice has been corrupted by the corporate influence of the commercial bail industry. A small group of large insurance corporations oversees a web of private companies that make an estimated profit of $2.4 billion each year.2 Forprofit bail companies get rich by foisting nonrefundable costs onto the very people who can least afford the cost of bail, most often people experiencing poverty and people of color. These costs are owed even if the charges are dropped or the person is found not guilty at trial. The commercial bail industry actively defends cash bail systems that produce racially3 and economically unjust outcomes,4 high rates of pretrial incarceration,5 significant costs to taxpayers,6 and negative public safety consequences.7 The commercial bail industry traps people who cannot afford cash bail premiums in a predatory cycle of debt and incarceration, in the same way that payday loan companies and other predatory lenders make a profit by taking advantage of people who need help affording the necessities of daily life.8 Moreover, commercial bail companies operate with little oversight or accountability, frequently engaging in abusive and unethical practices that jeopardize public trust and undermine the legal system’s ability to administer justice.

Washington, DC: American Progress, 2022. 36p.

By the Criminal Justice Policy Program, Harvard Law School

Bail reform presents a historic challenge – and also an opportunity. Bail is historically a tool meant to allow courts to minimize the intrusion on a defendant’s liberty while helping to assure appearance at trial. It is one mechanism available to administer the pretrial process. Yet in courtrooms around the country, judges use the blunt instrument of secured money bail to ensure that certain defendants are detained prior to their trial. Money bail prevents many indigent defendants from leaving jail while their cases are pending. In many jurisdictions, this has led to an indefensible state of affairs: too many people jailed unnecessarily, with their economic status often defining pretrial outcomes. Money bail is often imposed arbitrarily and can result in unjustified inequalities. When pretrial detention depends on whether someone can afford to pay a cash bond, two otherwise similar pretrial defendants will face vastly different outcomes based merely on their wealth…. All of this builds on sustained attention from experts and advocacy groups who have long called for fundamental reform of cash bail.3 As policymakers across the political spectrum seek to end the era of mass incarceration,4 reforming pretrial administration has emerged as a critical way to slow down the flow of people into the criminal justice system. This primer on bail reform seeks to guide policymakers and advocates in identifying reforms and tailoring those reforms to their jurisdiction. In this introductory section, it outlines the basic legal architecture of pretrial decision-making, including constitutional principles that structure how bail may operate. Section II describes some of the critical safeguards that should be in place in jurisdictions that maintain a role for money bail. Where money bail is part of a jurisdiction’s pretrial system, it must be incorporated into a framework that seeks to minimize pretrial detention, ensures that people are not detained because they are too poor to afford a cash bond amount, allows for individualized pretrial determinations, and effectively regulates the commercial bail bond industry.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School, 2016. 40p.

By the National Task Force on Fines, Fees, and Bail Practices

The purpose of this Guide is to provide state court leaders with detailed information on state bail reform efforts. This Guide presents case studies of six states’ recent experiences with bail and pretrial reform efforts: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and Texas. These six states were selected to present a geographic and politically diverse sample, as well as a variety of approaches to reform. Key members involved in the reform efforts in each state were interviewed, including chief justices, appellate court justices, trial court judges, state court administrators, administrative offices of the courts staff, state legislators, state attorneys general, and executive-branch criminal-justice experts, among others

Fairfax, VA: The Task Force, 2020.78p.

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, DC: The Commission, 2022. 281p.

By Olive Lu, Erica Bond, and Preeti Chauhan,

In April 2019, New York State passed significant reforms to the laws governing bail, which the state legislature then amended in April 2020 (collectively referred to as the "2020 Bail Reforms"). The first set of reforms (“Original Reforms”),1 which went into effect on January 1, 2020, included restrictions on which charges were eligible for money bail, mandated that people be released on recognizance (ROR)2 unless more restrictive conditions are needed to assure court appearance, required that judges set at least three forms of bail, and take into account an individual's ability to pay when setting money bail. The amendments to the bail reforms (“Amended Reforms”)3 went into effect in July 2020 and moved some charges that had been made ineligible for bail under the Original Reforms into the category of charges where judges have discretion to set bail.4 In September 2019, DCJ released a research brief that examined how the Original Reforms would have impacted the number and proportion of cases resulting in pretrial release without bail had they been in effect in 2018. This report updates DCJ’s prior research brief by using 2019 case data, applying the Original and Amended Reforms, and includes additional analyses on how the reforms would have impacted different types of charges and demographic groups in 2019.

New York: The Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, ,2021. 34p.