KAH Webb, SA Riley, MT Wells

Pretrial risk assessment tools are used in jurisdictions across the country to assess the likelihood of "pretrial failure," the event where defendants either fail to appear for court or reoffend. Judicial officers, in turn, use these assessments to determine whether to release or detain defendants during trial. While algorithmic risk assessment tools were designed to predict pretrial failure with greater accuracy relative to judges, there is still concern that both risk assessment recommendations and pretrial decisions are biased against minority groups. In this paper, we develop methods to investigate the association between risk factors and pretrial failure, while simultaneously estimating misclassification rates of pretrial risk assessments and of judicial decisions as a function of defendant race. This approach adds to a growing literature that makes use of outcome misclassification methods to answer questions about fairness in pretrial decision-making. We give a detailed simulation study for our proposed methodology and apply these methods to data from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. We estimate that the VPRAI algorithm has near-perfect specificity, but its sensitivity differs by defendant race. Judicial decisions also display evidence of bias; we estimate wrongful detention rates of 39.7% and 51.4% among white and Black defendants, respectively.

Cornell University Pre-publication paper: 2023. 33p,

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 Shamena Anwar Shawn Bushway, John Engberg

Roughly half of U.S. counties do not provide defense counsel at bail hearings, and few studies have documented the potential impacts of legal representation at this stage. This paper presents the results from a field experiment in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, that provided a public defender at a defendant’s initial bail hearing. The presence of a public defender decreased the use of monetary bail and pretrial detention without increasing failure to appear rates at the preliminary hearing. The intervention did, however, result in a short-term increase in rearrests on theft charges, although a theft incident would have to be at least 8.5 times as costly as a day in detention for jurisdictions to find this tradeoff undesirable.

Sci. Adv. 9, eade3909 (2023) 5 May 2023

By Christopher Lowenkamp, Matthew DeMichele, and Lauren Klein Warren

This report presents findings related to impacts associated with criminal justice improvements underway in Lucas County, Ohio. The current report, however, focuses on impacts related to one of Lucas County’s initiatives - the use of the Public Safety Assessment (PSA). The report shows that Lucas County made serious reductions to the number of people booked into jail during the post-PSA period. For the entire seven-year study period, of those released pretrial, 27% experienced a failure to appear (FTA), 17% were arrested for any offense, and 5% were arrested for a violent offense during the pretrial period. There were reductions in the pretrial outcomes between the pre- and post-PSA periods: a six-percentage point decrease in FTA rates (30% vs. 24%), a five-percentage point decrease in new criminal arrest (NCA) rates (20% vs. 15%) and a two-percentage point decrease in new violent criminal arrest (NVCA) rates (6% vs. 4%). The results demonstrate that the PSA meets standards of predictive validity. For the three scales, we found that the Area Under the Curve (AUC) values are in the good (NCA) and fair (NVCA and FTA) ranges, there is incremental increase in failures as scores increase, and significant increases in the predicted likelihood of failure as scores increase across a series of regression models. The report shows that the PSA meets validity standards used for criminal justice assessments, and the report includes tests for predictive bias.

Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research, 2020. 84p.

By James Hess and Susan Turner

Jurisdictions across the country have joined a movement to rethink how individuals are handled at the pretrial stage of case processing. Although alternatives to cash bail systems have been around since the 1960s, 1 renewed interest has focused on the use of risk assessment algorithms to help determine which pretrial individuals might be released safely into the community. These types of tools hold promise as a means to move away from “debtor prisons” for individuals who do not have the financial resources to pay for their release. However, the field is still in the relatively early stage of testing these tools for predictive ability, potential racial bias in administration, as well as whether their use actually reduces incarceration.2 California has recently entered the pretrial risk assessment arena. Senate Bill 10 was passed in 2018 to change from a cash-based pretrial system to a risk-based release and detention system; although it is on hold until November 2020 when California voters determine its fate. 3 However, legislation passed as part of the 2019 Budget Act created a pilot program to test the use of various risk assessment tools in a number of counties across California. This report presents findings from the Los Angeles pilot effort under the Act to validate the Public Safety Assessment (PSA). The PSA is a risk assessment instrument developed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to inform pretrial judicial decisions on whether to release or detain a defendant. The tool predicts three outcomes after pretrial release: Failure to Appear (FTA); New Criminal Activity (NCA, arrest on any misdemeanor or felony charge); and New Violent Criminal Activity (NVCA, arrest on a violent misdemeanor or felony charge). The tool’s nine risk factors include prior convictions, incarceration, and failures to appear, violent offenses, pending cases at the time of arrest and age. Risk factor counts are weighted by an integer multiplier and summed to create a risk score. Several sets of adjacent scores are collapsed together into one score to produce a final 6-point risk scale for each of the outcomes.

Irvine, CA: University of California Irvine, Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, 2021. 103p

By North Carolina School of Government, Criminal Justice Innovation Law

In 2015, former Chief Justice Mark Martin convened the North Carolina Commission on the Administration of Law & Justice and tasked it with making recommendations to strengthen the state’s court system. In 2017, that Commission released its reports, including a recommendation that North Carolina embark on pilot projects supporting evidence-based pretrial justice reform.2 With the support of the Director of the NC Administrative Office of the Courts,3 North Carolina Judicial District 30B (JD 30B) became the state’s first such pilot project. The JD 30B pretrial justice pilot project sought to improve the district’s pretrial system, promoting public safety, efficient use of taxpayer resources, and fairness of the judicial process. The project had two core components: (1) developing and implementing consensus pretrial system reforms; and (2) an empirical evaluation to assess the impact of those reforms. In the project’s first effort, JD 30B stakeholders unanimously agreed to reforms including: • Implement a new decision-making framework for determining conditions of pretrial release. • Provide first appearance proceedings for all in-custody defendants. • Provide for the early involvement of counsel at pretrial proceedings.  • Promote the increased use of summons in lieu of arrest in appropriate cases. • Promote the increased use of citation in lieu of arrest in appropriate cases. Reforms took effect January 1, 2019. Part II of this report details the findings from an empirical evaluation of the project.

Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina School of Government, 2020. 15p. 55p.

Part I: Background, Process & Implemented Reforms March 20201 [PDF]

Part II: Final Evaluation Report  [PDF]

By American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana

For two years, the ACLU of Louisiana gathered and analyzed thousands of jail records and interviewed people directly affected by pretrial incarceration to compose a snapshot of who Louisiana incarcerates pretrial, for how long, and at what cost. The landmark report – Justice Can't Wait – showed that after a 10.3 percent increase, Louisiana’s pretrial incarceration rate is now three times the national average and the highest of any state on record since 1970. The study, based on an analysis of thousands of jail records, found that 57 percent of people in jail had been arrested for non-violent offenses and that pretrial incarceration costs Louisiana taxpayers nearly $290 million per year. On average, the people represented in the study had been held behind bars for 5 and a half months – without trial or conviction.

New Orleans: ACLU of Louisiana, 2022. 44p.

By Will Dobbie and Crystal S. Yang

  We measure the economic costs of the US pretrial system using several complementary approaches and data sources. The pretrial system operates as one of the earliest points of entry in the criminal justice system. It typically represents an individual’s first opportunity to be incarcerated, potentially leading to subsequent long-term damage in the form of family separation, work interruption, loss of housing, and so on. We find that individuals lose almost $30,000 in forgone earnings and social benefits when detained in jail while awaiting the resolution of their criminal cases. These adverse consequences are also present in aggregate measures of economic well-being, with increases in county pretrial detention rates associated with increases in poverty rates and decreases in employment rates. Counties with high levels of pretrial detention also exhibit significantly lower levels of intergenerational mobility among children, consistent with pretrial detention having an adverse impact on young children who may be the dependents of individuals affected by the pretrial system.

Washington DC: Brookings,, 2021. 41p.

By Christopher T. Lowenkamp, Marie VanNostrand and Alexander Holsinger,

Each time a person is arrested and accused of a crime, a decision must be made as to whether the accused person, known as the defendant, will be detained in jail awaiting trial or will be released back into the community. But pretrial detention is not simply an either-or proposition; many defendants are held for a number of days before being released at some point before their trial. The release-and-detention decision takes into account a number of different concerns, including protecting the community, the need for defendants to appear in court, and upholding the legal and constitutional rights afforded to accused persons awaiting trial. It carries enormous consequences not only for the defendant but also for the safety of the community" (p. 3). This study examines the relationship between pretrial detention and sentencing. Sections following an executive summary include: introduction; sample description; and findings for eight research questions regarding the relations between pretrial detention and sentencing. Defendants who are detained for the entire pretrial period are three times more likely to be sentenced to jail or prison and to receive longer jail and prison sentences.

Houston, TX: Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2013. 21p.

By Christopher T. Lowenkamp, Marie VanNostrand and Alexander Holsinger

The release-and-detention decision takes into account a number of different concerns, including protecting the community, the need for defendants to appear in court, and upholding the legal and constitutional rights afforded to accused persons awaiting trial. It carries enormous consequences not only for the defendant but also for the safety of the community … Using data from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, this research investigates the impact of pretrial detention on 1) pretrial outcomes (failure to appear and arrest for new criminal activity); and 2) post-disposition recidivism" (p. 3). Sections following an executive summary include: introduction; sample description; research objective one—investigate the relationship between length of pretrial detention and pretrial outcome; and research objective two—investigate the relationship between pretrial detention, as well as the length of pretrial detention, and new criminal activity post-disposition (NCA-PD). There appears to a direct link between how long low- and moderate-risk defendants are in pretrial detention and the chances that they will commit new crimes.

Houston, TX: The Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2013. 32p.

By Sara Rahman

Aim: To estimate the effect of bail decisions on the likelihood of receiving a prison sentence, failure to appear and offending on bail. Method: A dataset of 42,362 first bail hearings taking place after the ‘show cause’ amendments to the Bail Act (2013) was constructed and linked to final case outcomes and offending data. Quasi-random assignment of bail magistrates with differing propensities to grant bail was used to address problems of selection bias and partial observability. Further analyses were undertaken to determine the proportion and characteristics of defendants who were sensitive to magistrate leniency. Robustness checks were conducted to determine the sensitivity of estimates to different specifications. Results: The marginal effect of additional releases is an increase in the rate of offending from 2.3 per cent to 13.3 per cent, a decrease in the rate of imprisonment from 59.0 to 49.0 per cent and an increase in the rate of failure to appear from 2.1 per cent to 11.1 per cent for those defendants. Thus, remanding ten additional defendants increases the number imprisoned by one, and reduces the number of offending and failing to appear by 1.1 and 0.9 on average. These estimates are causal and net of differences in observed characteristics and selection bias, but applicable only to a subset of defendants whose bail status is sensitive to magistrate leniency. The likelihood of failing to appear and of offending on bail for these defendants does not exceed the general rate among those released on bail. Conclusion: Taken together, the results show that bail refusal has a significant incapacitation effect on crime and failure to appear. These benefits should, however, be considered alongside the considerable cost to the correctional system and the individual arising from increased imprisonment rates. There is limited evidence for the influence of selection bias in regards to imprisonment but not in relation to crime or failure to appear.

Brisbane: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research , 2019. 24p.

By Sandra G. Mayson

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.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania School of Law, 2020. 39p.

By Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research (APPR)

The pretrial system has, in recent years, become a focus of attention for governments, civil rights advocates, the media, and nonprofit organizations. Understandably so: it is the front door of the criminal legal system, and decisions made in the early stages of a criminal case have major impacts on everything that follows. As Berkeley law professor Caleb Foote wrote in 1956, “Pretrial decisions determine mostly everything.” This adage is true for individual cases: whether or not someone is detained while awaiting trial has major impacts on whether they are found guilty, whether they are sentenced to incarceration, and how long those sentences are.Unnecessary detention can also disrupt lives, leading to lost jobs and housing, family instability, and even increased likelihood of rearrest. It is also true for the system as a whole: virtually all of the growth in the U.S. jail population in the 21st century is attributable to pretrial incarceration. Housing people before trial costs county and state governments at least $14 billion annually. So, it is critical that we get pretrial decisions right. But in most of the country, the pretrial system is deeply flawed. There is an overreliance on custodial arrest instead of citations or summonses; release and detention are determined more by money than by judicial officers making intentional decisions about public safety or flight; defense counsel is not present, despite someone’s liberty being at stake; and pretrial services focus on monitoring rather than supporting people in the community. In addition, like the rest of the criminal legal system, the pretrial system suffers from systemic racism, with Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) disproportionately arrested and booked, subjected to higher financial conditions of release, and more frequently detained. These practices result in many people who could safely be released remaining in jail, often for long periods. And they do not enhance—and frequently undermine—community safety and well-being. Improving the pretrial system requires a comprehensive approach; we cannot focus on a single decision point or a single agency. And the problems will not be fixed with a single solution such as an actuarial assessment tool or even the abolishment of financial conditions. Rather, we need to look at the system as a whole, involve policymakers from all agencies, and engage the community meaningfully in the improvement process.

Silver Spring, MD: Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research (APPR) , 2022. 29p.

By Crijns, J.H. ; B.J.G. Leeuw, and H.T. Wermink.

The goal of this report is to provide an overview of the use of pre-trial detention in practice in the Netherlands. In recent years there has been a lot of discussion and criticism of the (extensive) use of pre-trial detention in Dutch criminal procedures. In this report we will assess whether this criticism is justified, and if so, what steps need to be taken to alleviate the concerns that exist regarding pre-trial detention. The overarching conclusion of our research is that Dutch legislation on pre-trial detention meets the relevant standards of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This leads us to the conclusion that legislative changes are not strictly necessary. However, our research shows that the way in which the legal rules on pre-trial detention are applied in practice is rightly criticised by defence lawyers, academics and even judges themselves.

The Hague: Eleven International Publishing Co., 64p.