By Chloe Anderson Golub, Cindy Redcross and Erin Jacobs Valentine

On January 1, 2017, the State of New Jersey implemented Criminal Justice Reform (CJR), a sweeping set of changes to its pretrial justice system. With CJR, the state shifted from a system that relied heavily on monetary bail to a system based on defendants’ risks of failing to appear for court dates and of being charged with new crimes before their cases were resolved. These risks are assessed using the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), a pretrial risk-assessment tool developed by Arnold Ventures with a team of experts. The PSA uses nine factors from an individual’s criminal 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 is used at two points in New Jersey’s pretrial process: (1) at the time of arrest, when a police officer must decide whether to seek a complaint-warrant (which will mean booking the person into jail) or issue a complaint-summons (in which case the defendant is given a date to appear in court and released); and (2) at the time of the first court appearance, when judges set release conditions for defendants who were booked into jail on complaint-warrants. (The DMF is also used at this second point.) CJR includes a number of other important components: It all but eliminated the use of monetary bail as a release condition, established the possibility of pretrial detention without bail, established a pretrial monitoring program, and instituted speedy-trial laws that impose time limits for case processing.

This report is one of a planned series on the impacts of New Jersey’s CJR. It describes the effects of the reforms on short-term outcomes, including the number of arrest events (where an “arrest event” is defined as all complaints and charges associated with a person on a given arrest date), complaint charging decisions, release conditions, and initial jail bookings.

New York: MDRC, 2019, 48p.

By Cindy Redcross and Brit Henderson with Luke Miratrix Erin Valentine

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.

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.

New York: MDRC, 2019. 42p.

By Melanie Skemer, Cindy Redcross, Howard Bloom

On any given day in the United States, nearly half a million people are detained in jail while awaiting the resolution of their criminal cases, many because they cannot afford to pay bail. Bail is meant to ensure that defendants appear for court dates and are not arrested for new charges while they wait for their cases to be resolved. However, research has shown that setting bail as a condition of release can lead to unequal treatment and worse outcomes for defendants who do not have the ability to pay, regardless of the risk they pose. Additionally, systemic racial inequities throughout the criminal justice system mean that communities of color are disproportionately affected by cash bail and pretrial detention.

In 2016, New York City rolled out a citywide program known as Supervised Release (SR). SR offers judges the option of releasing defendants under supervision in lieu of setting bail. Defendants released to SR are required to report to program staff members regularly and are offered reminders of their court dates, case management support services, and voluntary connections to social services. The city developed the SR program to reduce the number of defendants detained in jail because they could not afford to pay bail, while at the same time maintaining court appearance rates and public safety. The findings presented in this report offer strong evidence that SR achieved these overarching goals.

New York: MDRC, 2020.185p.

By Andrea Woods and Portia Allen-Kyle

Every year, millions of people are arrested, required to pay money bail they cannot afford, separated from their families and loved ones, or absent from their jobs--subjected to long periods of incarceration based on the mere accusation of a crime. This all occurs while people are presumed innocent under the law. Black and brown people, their loved ones, and those without the economic resources to thrive suffer the worst harms. The money bail system is in dire need of an overhaul.

New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2019. 15p.

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.