By Robin Joy

The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of the Arnold Ventures’ Public Safety Risk Assessment (PSA) in Vermont. This report presents the findings of the study. The Arnold PSA measures the risk of a person failing to appear for a court date (FTA) and engaging in new criminal activity (NCA) or committing a new violent crime (NCV) while out on bail. The PSA relies on criminal histories, the current charged offenses, and the age of the defendant to score the likelihood of a person engaging in the measured behavior. This research was conducted at the request of the Vermont stakeholder group of the National Criminal Justice Reform Project (NCJRP). The NCJRP was supported by the National Governors Association, Arnold Ventures, and the National Criminal Justice Association. This report was funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Key Findings Overall, the PSA did not perform well in Vermont, and we do not recommend its adoption. It was unable to accurately predict who would not appear while on bail, commit a new crime, or commit a new crime of violence. Additionally, there are racial equity concerns about using criminal histories in criminal justice decision making. The PSA may have performed poorly for a variety of reasons. First, the overall rate of failure to appear (FTA) for the cohort (people arraigned on felony charge in 2016-2017) was 11%. This is low; however, the real number of FTAs are likely higher, but they are not appearing in the official data. Because the PSA relies on criminal histories, the completeness and accuracy affect the score. Not all states report the same level of detail and completeness of records, therefore, the scores are likely off. New crimes of violence while out on bail were also low, with 14% of the cohort being arrested or arraigned with a new crime of violence. About 25% of the cohort committed a new criminal offense (excluding Violations of Conditions of Release), but the PSA did not accurately predict who would commit a new crime.   

Montpelier, VT: Crime Research Group, 2022. 16p.

By Kesha Moore

Under the Constitution, people are granted the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty if they have not been convicted of a crime. Pretrial incarceration runs directly against these bedrock constitutional principles. While money bail and pretrial detention are intended to ensure court appearances and protect public safety, the evidence shows that this system is an ineffective and discriminatory approach to accomplishing these goals. Money bail creates a two-tiered justice system: those with money can buy their way to freedom, while those without money are made to languish in jail. The U.S. incarcerates close to half a million individuals who have not been convicted of a crime but are denied freedom because they cannot afford to pay bail. The racial biases embedded in our criminal legal system, and by extension the money bail regime, cause pretrial incarceration to disproportionately harm Black and Latinx people. “Pretrial Justice Without Money Bail or Risk Assessments, Principles for Racially Just Bail Reform” details the issues with the current U.S. money bail system through a racial justice lens and provides principles for comprehensive bail reform that both lowers the number of individuals in jail and diminishes the racial disparities in pretrial incarceration.

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Thurgood Marshall Institute, 2024. 21p.