It is common for people not to know what to expect regarding bail bonds until they or a loved one is arrested. As a result, they often ask the same questions about bail, the bonding process, how to get in touch with a bail bondsman, and the associated costs. Please utilize the information on this page to assist in answering the most commonly-asked bail questions.
How Does The Pretrial Release Process Work?
When someone is arrested (in states that operate with commercial bail), a determination is made as to the type of pretrial release that will be considered based on the severity of the charge. For low level offenses, defendants are often cited and released or released on their own recognizance.
For more serious charges, a bail amount is often set by an officer of the court using a bail schedule (a predetermined range of bail amounts by charge category) maintained by that jurisdiction. Once a bail amount has been set, the defendant can now exercise his right to post bail. Initial bond settings are often reviewed within a few days if the defendant has not posted bail. Typically, the defendant enlists the help of family and friends to work with a 3rd party |
commercial bail agent to post their bond for a small fee (premium). This additional layer of accountability ensures that the defendant will appear at all court proceedings and adhere to any other conditions set by the court. Once the defendant appears at all court proceedings and the case has been adjudicated, the bond is then discharged by the court releasing the financial responsibility of the bail agency based on the completion of the case.
|
What Are The Different Types Of Pretrial Release Mechanisms Available To The Defendant?
While pretrial processes differ slightly from state to state, there are generally five main types of pretrial release options:
Own Recognizance Release (OR) - if a defendant is not deemed a risk to the community or a flight risk, a judge may release that person on their own recognizance. This type of release typically occurs with low level non-violent, first time offenders. It means that they do not have to put up any money, but must simply promise to appear for all court appearances.
Pretrial Services Release - if a defendant is not deemed a serious risk to the community or a flight risk, but there may be other circumstances (substance abuse, mental health, etc.), a judge may release that person to a pretrial service agency. This taxpayer-funded agency is then responsible for ensuring that the defendant shows up for all court appearances. Additionally, these agencies may also be responsible for ensuring that the defendant attend substance abuse classes or seek mental health assistance, etc. In recent years, the expansion of state funded pretrial services often include onerous and restrictive "conditions" set by the court mirroring that of probationary conditions -all before any conviction at all. Full Cash Release - if a defendant is deemed a risk to the community or a flight risk, and a judge/magistrate has set a bond using a bail schedule, the defendant can secure his release by paying the full amount of the bond to the court. This payment is a deposit to the court and will be refunded (less court costs and fees imposed by the judge) if the defendant appears for all court proceedings until final adjudication of the case and once the bond has been exonerated by the court. Most jurisdictions require an official filing by the party who made the deposit for release of the funds. 10% Bond Release - if a defendant is deemed a risk to the community or a flight risk, and a judge/magistrate has set a bond using a bail |
schedule, the defendant can secure his release by paying 10% of the amount of the bond amount directly to the court. This payment is a deposit to the court and will be refunded (less court costs and fees imposed by the judge) if the defendant appears for all court proceedings until final adjudication of the case, and once the bond has been exonerated by the court. Should the defendant fail to appear for a required court appearance, the court will forfeit the balance of the amount of the bond, issue a warrant for the defendant's arrest, and enter a default judgement against the defendant for the amount of the bond.
Ball Bond Release - if a defendant is deemed a risk to the community or a flight risk, and a judge/magistrate has set a bond using a bail schedule, the defendant can secure his release by paying the full amount of the bond to the court. If the defendant does not have the full amount of the bond, they can use a third-party entity, in this case a state licensed and regulated bail bond agent, to post the bond for them. This is typically done for a small fee or premium determined by the state, usually 10% or less of the bond amount (i.e., $1,000 bond would cost a defendant $100). The premium paid to the bail bond agent is much like a premium fee paid on any insurance policy. It is non-refundable and fully earned upon payment. The bail agent, for the premium paid, plays an essential role to both the defendant and court by guaranteeing that the defendant shows up for court. If the defendant fails to appear, the bail agent is responsible for either retrieving the defendant and bringing them back to court or paying the full amount of the bond to the court. |
What Happens When The Defendant Fails To Appear For Court?
If a defendant fails to appear for court, the bond goes into forfeiture status and a warrant for arrest is issued for the defendant. Each jurisdiction utilizes different timeframes before the court issues a default to demand payment, but typically, the defendant has a certain amount of time to get back to court (i.e. 30/60/180 days) prior to the default. However, in every case, a warrant is issued for the defendant after failing to appear as required.
Own Recognizance Release (OR), Pretrial Services Release - If a defendant is on an OR release or Pretrial Services release, a warrant is simply entered into the state system for the defendant. In these cases, there is rarely any proactive searching by authorities for the defendant. The defendant will only be returned to court, and the warrant served, should they be arrested for committing another crime or during the course of regular police activity, such as during a routine traffic stop. It is not uncommon for jurisdictions to have thousands of outstanding warrants for these types of releases due to the lack of resources by law enforcement to effectively handle the large caseloads. Full Cash Release - If a defendant is on a full cash bond and fails to appear, the process is very similar to that above, except that the money that they put on deposit is now forfeited and paid to the court. Once again, a warrant is issued, and the defendant typically isn't apprehended until they are caught committing another crime or during the course of routine police activity. |
10% Bond Release - If a defendant is on a 10% bond release and fails to appear, a warrant is issued for their arrest and the full amount of the bond is forfeited. If payment is not received in full soon thereafter, a default judgement is issued against the defendant for the full amount of the bond. Again, these types of forfeitures are rarely on the priority list for authorities to proactively search for the defendant.
Bail Bond Release - If a defendant is released on a financially secured bail bond and fails to appear, the process is much different. Because a licensed bail bond agent (surety) is involved and accountable for the full amount of the bond, there will be a substantial effort put forth by the bail bond agent to find and retrieve the defendant into custody. If the defendant is returned to custody within the allocated time period, the bail bond agent can be released off the bond (minus any court determined fees). If the defendant is not returned to court within the allocated time period, the bail agent pays the full amount to the court. Licensed bail bond agents are state regulated and follow strict guidelines with respect to apprehension methods and operate within the scope of the law in returning defendants to court. Unlike other forms of release, agents incur 100% of the expense and effort to return defendants to court - even returning defendants who have fled the state to avoid prosecution. |
Which Method Of Pretrial Release Is The Most Effective?
As one might expect, financial conditions of release (even small bonds) far outperform those of OR and pretrial releases. Judicial discretion is paramount in deciding release and most releases occur without any financial condition or additional court related burden at all. However, one size does not fit all and additional layers of accountability are necessary to ensure that both defendants and victims have their day in court. Bail decisions are routinely reviewed after the initial bail setting to foster balance and fairness within the system.
There have been several studies looking to answer the question of effectiveness, but the most comprehensive has been conducted by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics between 1990-2004. The study, "Pretrial Release of Felony Defendants in State Courts;' examined the pretrial practices of the 75 largest counties across the country and assessed which method of release was the most effective at ensuring defendants show up for court. The surprising thing about this study is that each of the 15 years the study was conducted, the results were the same. The most effective form of release in terms of ensuring appearance at court were releases on a |
financially secured bail bond with an 18% Failure to Appear (FTA) rate. The two least effective forms of release were OR releases with a 26% FTA rate and unsecured release through a pretrial services agency with a 30% FTA rate. Additionally, the release through a financially secured bail bond surpassed all other forms of release in the area of fugitive recovery rates. After one year, only 3% of people released on a bail bond were still at large compared to 8% for OR bonds and 10% for those released through a pretrial program.
These statistics have been used by several other researchers in conducting additional studies on the topic of pretrial release. One of the most widely known of these studies was conducted by Eric Helland and Alex Tabarrok. Their study, "The Fugitive: Evidence on Public Versus Private Law Enforcement from Bail Jumping" was published in the University of Chicago Journal of Law and Economics. It found that, "defendants released on a bail bond were 28 percent less likely to fail to appear than similar defendants released on their own recognizance, and if they do fail to appear, they are 53 percent less likely to remain at large for extended periods of time:' |
You might have recently heard a lot of talk about bail reform efforts being made around the country. Keep reading below to learn more about these efforts, why they're happening, and the potential consequences they might have. We will cover the myths of bail reform, the costs of bail reform, the faces of bail reform, bail reform testimonials and first-hand experiences, and the use of pretrial risk assessments.
MYTHS OF BAIL REFORM
Poor people are languishing away in jail for the sole reason that they cannot afford a bail bond.
This single phrase has become the mantra of the Bail Reform movement relying on empathy for the defendant as punctuation to further the cause to end the judicial discretion of using financial conditions as a form of pretrial release.
First, not a single person is sitting in jail because of the size of their wallet. The reason why any person is in jail is because they were accused of a crime based on probable cause determined by a law enforcement officer. Second, there are a number of reasons that a person might be in jail that has not yet been convicted of a crime. This may include: • Probation hold - bail set, but not bailable • Immigration hold - ball set, but not bailable • Awaiting transfer to another jail - bail set, but not bailable • Already convicted with a secondary open charge - bail set, but not bailable • Awaiting hearing on new charges For example, in the 2013 JFA Institute study looking at the Los Angeles County Jail population, it was determined while 70% of the |
defendants were in pretrial status, only 12% were actually bailable. That is a far cry from the claims being made by bail reform proponents that 70% of people sitting In jail is there because they can't afford a bail bond.
Lastly, and perhaps most important, the defendant has family and friends unwilling to post his/her bond for a variety of reasons - none of which have to do with the size of their wallet. They may include: • Defendant has already been released and failed to appear with a bondsman. In this case, the indemnitors may be unwilling to post another bond out of fear that the defendant may again fail to appear. • Defendant may have a substance abuse problem that the indemnitor fears, if released, would cause harm to the defendant or another person. • "Tough Love" - the family and friends of a defendant know them best. not the court system. In many cases, the decision to keep someone in jail due to issues spiraling out of control for the defendant Is a reality. These decisions often coincide with having the time to arrange for the necessary help a defendant really needs - such as enrolling In a drug treatment facility. |
Jails are filled with low level, first time, non-violent offenders who are not a flight risk and who pose no significant risk to the community.
Over the past several years, many jurisdictions around the country have adopted "soft on crime" policies that have decriminalized many non-violent misdemeanor crimes. These changes to the laws have impacted the makeup of jail populations everywhere. No longer are low-level misdemeanor first time offenders being arrested and placed in jail. Instead, many of these low-level, non-violent misdemeanors are simply cited and released.
In California, the Los Angeles County Jail conducts a jail population review every year. The most recent review (2016) showed that 90% of the pretrial population was |
being held on felony charges. Less than 2% of the population was there on low-level, first time, non-violent charges.
It is also important to keep in mind that judges have always had discretionary power to release a defendant on their own recognizance. More often than not, that's exactly what they do. However, judges consider many factors in the decision process of requiring bail and sworn to be just and fair. Removing judicial discretion and not allowing judges to be judges poses a serious threat to the communities which they serve. |
The bail industry is a completely unregulated business that takes advantage of consumers.
False. The bail industry is a highly regulated business. Insurance companies must be properly established in each state with sound financials and experience. Additionally, agents must be licensed to operate as bail bond agents. This means that agents must meet rigorous educational and financial requirements in order to maintain their ability to operate as a bail bond agent.
In most states, the industry is regulated by the |
The Department of Insurance reviews everything from financial standing to forms and contracts. These regulators are keenly focused on protecting consumers. If a consumer is misled or taken advantage of, they can easily report the alleged abuse to the department - just like any alleged complaint to an insurance product. If an agent fails to meet the specific requirements of the state they operate in, they can face fines, lose their license and in some states face criminal charges.
|
The bail industry targets poor communities and promotes racism.
Much attention has been given to the role of bail in poor communities and amongst defendants of color. Bail reform advocates often point to bail agencies as negatively impacting the poor and perpetuating racism within the system.
The bail industry exists for the very reason that there are people who cannot afford to pay the full amount of the bond. If everyone could afford bail, there wouldn't be a bail industry. When a family can't afford to pay the full amount of the bond, they can go to a bail agent and pay a small non-refundable fee {typically anywhere from 7-10% of the bond) and have their family member released. The bail agent guarantees the full amount of the bond to the court and is fully responsible should the defendant fail to appear. In terms of the bail industry promoting racial disparity in the criminal justice system, an article in the NY Times |
written by Adam Liptak came to a much different conclusion. Liptak concluded that bail bond agents actually reduce the impact of racial bias in the criminal justice system. According to Liptak, if a judge sets a higher bond amount on a person of color, the bail agent eliminates that racial bias by providing steeper discounts to these individuals. Bail agents have strong ties to the communities they serve and often are involved in temporary housing placement, drug treatment facility placement, help with obtaining legal counsel, and a variety of other services at no charge to the family. By being a part of the criminal justice process, bail agents help guide families through difficult and often unfamiliar territory.
Premium rates charged to the consumer are also heavily regulated by the state, which must approve what bail agents charge for their service. These rates are typically statutorily mandated. |
The use of money bail does not improve defendant appearance rates.
While proponents of bail reform would like this myth to be reality, it couldn't be further from the truth. Every legitimate third-party peer reviewed study ever done shows that the use of financially secured release (bail) is the most effective way to ensure appearance of a defendant in court.
Between 1990-2004, the Department of Justice conducted annual reviews of pretrial data in the top 75 most populated counties In the US. Each year the study was conducted the results were Identical, release on a financially secured surety bond through a licensed ball agent was the most effective form of release. To the contrary, one of the least effective forms of release was release on an unsecured bond through a pretrial |
services office. There have been several other independent studies that have all come back with similar conclusions. The most substantial of these studies was published in the University of Chicago Journal of Law and Economics by Eric Helland and Alex Tabarrock. That study found that defendants released on a surety bond are 28 percent less likely to fall to appear than similar defendants released on their own recognizance, and, if they do fail to appear, they are 53 percent less likely to remain at large for extended periods of time. According to Helland and Tabarrock, "these findings indicate that bond dealers and bail enforcement agents (bounty hunters) are effective at discouraging flight and at recapturing defendants. Bounty hunters, not public police, appear to be the true long arms of the law:'
|
Findings indicate that bond dealers and bail enforcement agents (bounty hunters) are effective at discouraging flight and at recapturing defendants.
COSTS OF BAIL REFORM
One of the many arguments used by proponents of bail reform has been around the cost savings provided by alternative release mechanisms,
Bail reform efforts often lead to drastic changes In the processing of criminal defendants. Due to additional procedures and steps necessary for law enforcement under these types of reforms, officers are routinely kept off the streets and tied to their desk for hours processing just one defendant. County budgets are Impacted with additional mandatory court hours, additional Judges, a robust pretrial services division, monitoring equipment purchases and maintenance, and the list goes on. In fact, counties in New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming an "unfunded mandate" after bail reform began in January of 2017, only to lose by a technicality and not on the merits of the case. The counties claimed that bail reform would cost millions to implement, and it did. In just one year, the New Jersey judiciary has stated that the courts will run out of money to fund the program and must need millions in additional taxpayer money. This, despite 2 years of planning and $130 Million in reserves to begin the program. Proponents have long claimed that by eliminating "money bail" and implementing a robust pretrial services agency, a county can save millions of dollar. They calculate this figure by taking the total cost of a jail, dividing it by the number of days in a year, and the dividing it by the |
number of inmates in a day. Far from scientific, this simple calculation is supposed to represent a day cost per jail bed. Every person they release for free can then be multiplied by the cost per jail bed, and you have your savings.
The problem with this type of calculation is that most jail costs aren't variable, but rather they are fixed. Letting one person out of jail does not save money because costs are not based on occupancy in that way. The corrections officers must still be paid, housing costs for the facility must still be paid, and the food must still be bought. It costs the same to guard a 1/2 empty jail pod as it does a fully occupied jail pod - minus a few meals. The only way to save money in a jail is by closing a wing or an entire jail, which rarely happens under reform efforts due to most jails operating at near capacity already. Another fault in this type of cost analysis is that jail population numbers are not constant. They are making the false assumption that if someone is let out of jail, the bed they are removing him from is now empty and they have no "bed cost," thus a savings. Once again, the reality of this scenario simply doesn't add up. Jail populations are not static, they are very much fluid. If a jail bed is freed up, it is not left empty but rather filled up by another inmate. As you can see, there really is no "jail bed" savings calculation that can be attributed to eliminating "money bail." |
There really is no 'jail bed' savings calculation that can be attributed to eliminating 'money bail.'
In the process of explaining to people how much money the pretrial programs can save (which of course, they don't), proponents rarely talk about how much these pretrial programs cost -perhaps for obvious reasons.
Other states have done costs analysis of pretrial programs and economists have reported their findings on potential costs to implement the no-money bail system.
Reforming the bail system in any jurisdiction will only happen at great cost to taxpayers and cannot be dismissed -especially when these proposed reforms have unintended consequences that threaten public safety and criminal accountability.
Regardless as to the degree of any proposed changes to the bail system a jurisdiction is legislatively willing to go, it is Incumbent upon lawmakers and stakeholders to understand the fiscal impact to the communities they serve.
Regardless as to the degree of any proposed changes to the bail system a jurisdiction is legislatively willing to go, it is Incumbent upon lawmakers and stakeholders to understand the fiscal impact to the communities they serve.
THE FACES OF BAIL REFORM
When jurisdictions decide to reform their bail systems and utilize a pretrial risk assessment took, one thing is certain to happen... judicial discretion takes a backseat to "black box" algorithms, and defendants who should never be released without accountability will walk out of jail with little to no supervision. One of the biggest myths of the bail reform movement is that these algorithms can predict whether a defendant will commit a crime if released from jail. Here are just a few of the so-called "low risk" defendants that have been released for FREE thanks to a computerized risk assessment algorithm and the implementation of bail reform.
New Jersey Bail Reform - The Headlines
School bus driver charged with molesting 9 children FREE TO GO
|
Ex-con driving drunk with a .38 cal handgun and weed FREE TO GO
|
Leader of child porn distribution network FREE TO GO
|
Man charged with sexual assault hours after being released for assaulting ex-girlfriend
|
Prior felon arrested with 2 handguns and cocaine near school FREE TO GO
|
Thief released under NJ bail reform strikes again 45 minutes later
|
New Mexico Bail Reform - The Headlines
3 charged in brutal rape, kidnapping of woman FREE TO GO
|
Man fails to appear for 2nd degree murder is FREE TO GO
|
Stepfather charged with 6 counts of child abuse FREE TO GO
|
Convicted murderer fights cops during traffic stop FREE TO GO
|
Man charged with rape of foster child, sexual assault of another, FREE TO GO
|
Texas Bail Reform - The Headlines
New mother murdered days after boyfriend released on bail reform after beating her, claimed he couldn't afford bail
|
Woman convicted of killing Pearland officer released prior in May on Harris County PR bond
|
Drunk driving dad FREE TO GO under Travis County "soft on crime" policies
|
Man charged with capital murder while on pretrial release supervision for felony aggravated robbery
|
Man punches cop and attempts to push him into traffic FREE TO GO under Travis County "soft on crime" policies
|
Pregnant woman robs bank at gunpoint [fake gun] now FREE TO GO under Travis County PR bond
|
testimonials: first hand experience with bail reform
While proponents of bail reform go around the country touting its success, the reality tells a different story. In fact, many decision makers and stakeholders have come out publicly against bail reform in the hopes of helping counties avoid the mistakes of those that tried before them. Here are just a few of the comments made by groups and individuals from around the country.
"As you may know, New Jersey passed and has implemented a bail reform policy similar to California's 581 o which you are considering. I supported the legislation when presented to our Assembly and advocated for its passage. The law went into effect this past January and it has been an absolute disaster. The public safety needs of citizens in New Jersey has suffered far greater than could have been imagined. The costs to the state have increased exponentially and, even worse, the constitutional rights of many of the accused are being infringed."
Letter to Speaker of the California Assembly
Bob Andrzejczak Assemblyman, First Legislative District, New Jersey July 2017 |
"We, the undersigned organizations, are united in the belief that: we do not have to add dangerousness to New York's bail statute to reduce our pretrial detention population; the use of risk assessment instruments to predict dangerousness will further exacerbate racial bias in our criminal justice system; and the use of these instruments will likely lead to increases in pretrial detention across the state."
Letter from Community & Advocacy Groups to Governor Cuomo
November 2017 |
"No conclusive evidence has been presented showing that the risk assessment methods proposed by AB136 are effective in determining when it may or may not be appropriate to release a criminal defendant without requiring bail."
Letter to the Speaker of the Nevada House of Representative
Governor Brian Sandoval Nevada May 2017 |
"In 2013 our county shifted towards an unsecured bond system with the support of our pretrial services agency. The program did not work as intended. We did not save budget dollars. The system suffers from a lack of accountability. The District Attorney's office originally had significant objections and concerns for public safety due to the bail reform initiative and those objections and concerns persist. The use of financial bail, including the use of commercial sureties, has been reintroduced Into the system. We believe accountability has improved and as a system, we are functioning better."
Letter to Maryland Judicial Committee
Libby Szabo, County Commissioner, Jefferson County Colorado Peter Weir, District Attorney, First Judicial District, Colorado Jeff Shrader, Sheriff, Jefferson County Colorado December 2016 |
"I am writing on behalf of the New Jersey State Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) to express its concerns with the bail reform law in New Jersey that took effect In January of this year. It is a proven fact that since its enactment law enforcement has encountered a more difficult time In attempting to keep New Jersey's communities safe. Since the law's enactment, law enforcement has been overwhelmed by the release of suspects and In may cases their often prompt re-arrests."
Letter to the Office of the Attorney General of New Jersey
James E, Ford New Jersey Fraternal Order of Police April 2017 |
"[Bail Reform] would heighten the risk to public safety. Those arrested for selling drugs, committing identity theft, vandalizing homes and businesses, stealing huge sums of money, or burglarizing dozens of businesses would all presumptively be granted pretrial release -without having to appear before a judge, post bail or submit to any conditions upon release. These bills also inexplicably exclude residential burglary from the list of crimes for which arrestees are not to be considered for release without judicial authorization."
Letter to California Assemblyman Rob Bonta regarding SB10/AB49
Honorable Steve White President, Alliance of CA Judges May 2017 |
New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez took to media [see transcript below] to warn Utah citizens and lawmakers of adopting the Arnold Foundation Pretrial Risk Assessment Tool by court rule and other bail bond reforms which has perpetuated a "catch and release revolving door criminal justice system" in New Mexico.
New Mexico implemented this pretrial risk assessment tool to devastating results. |
"Good morning. I'm Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico. Before taking office, I was a prosecutor for 25 years. Keeping dangerous criminals off the streets and behind bars where they belong has always been one of my top priorities.
As leaders in Utah work to consider reforms to bail bonds and pretrial detention rules, I know your top priority is to keep your citizens safe from dangerous and repeat criminals. Here in New Mexico, we've been working hard to crack down on a catch and release revolving door criminal Justice system -a problem that irresponsible interpretations and rules implemented by courts and the Arnold pretrial risk assessment tool have only aggravated. New Mexico implemented this pretrial risk assessment tool to devastating results. I encourage those in Utah to be very skeptical of voices calling for misleading devices that would result in letting dangerous criminals back out on the street to terrorize communities. Thank you for your time and God bless you as you move forward in working to make your state a safer place." |
RISK ASSESSMENTS: ALL TALK, NO RESULTS
In most discussions about Ball Reform there is often the mention of"validated" risk assessments as a tool in determining the pretrial release of criminal defendants.
Proponents of bail reform tout them as the panacea to the ills in the criminal Justice system. There are several different types of risk assessments, but the one making the most headlines is the Pretrial Screening Assessment (PSA) created by the John and Laura Arnold Foundation. The theory behind risk assessments is that they can predict whether a defendant will show up for court and/or commit another crime if released. While this seems like a great concept, the reality of these risk assessments is that they have not produced the types of results promised. In fact, in a recent report, random consumers deciding whether a defendant would show up for court or commit a new crime were just as accurate as the so-called scientific algorithm. |
There is next to no evidence that the adoption of risk assessment has led to dramatic improvements in either incarceration rates or crime without adversely affecting the other margin. |
A professor at the George Mason University School of Law recently conducted the most definitive study of risk assessments in practice. The study, "Assessing Risk Assessment in Action," released in December 2017, concluded as follows:
"In sum, there is a sore lack of research on the impacts of risk assessment in practice. There is next to no evidence that the adoption of risk assessment has led to dramatic improvements in either incarceration rates or crime without adversely affecting the other margin."
"In sum, there is a sore lack of research on the impacts of risk assessment in practice. There is next to no evidence that the adoption of risk assessment has led to dramatic improvements in either incarceration rates or crime without adversely affecting the other margin."
This conclusion was reached as a result of reviewing the data and studies from as many as eight jurisdictions. This is similar to the argument made by Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, who vetoed legislation that would have created risk assessments in Nevada because they are a "new and unproven method" and that "no conclusive evidence" has been presented that such pretrial risk tools work.
The Kentucky model, which proponents of bail reform point to as a success, was clearly debunked as part of Professor Stevenson's research. Using six years' worth of data, she made a variety of important conclusions. Regarding the use of the risk assessment in Kentucky [the Arnold Foundation Pretrial Safety Assessment], she found it increased failures to appear for Court: "There is a sharp jump up in the failure-to-appear rate (defined as the fraction of all defendants who fail to appear for at least one court date) from before the legislation was introduced to after the new law was implemented. The introduction of the PSA did not lead to a decline in failures-to-appear. If anything, the FTA rate is slightly higher after the PSA was adopted than before." Regarding the rearrest rates for new crimes, which proponents say would be reduced, the opposite was true: "It is clear that the increased use of risk assessments as a result of the 2011 law did not result in a decline in the pretrial rearrest rate." |
Despite all of the promises that expanding risk assessments would deliver fantastic results, in fact "the large gains that many had assumed would accompany the adoption of the risk assessment tool were not realized in Kentucky."
Concerning what other jurisdictions can learn from Kentucky, the Professor explained that, "Kentucky's experiences with risk assessment should temper hopes that the adoption of risk assessment will lead to a dramatic decrease in incarceration with no concomitant costs in terms of crime or failures to appear." The Arnold Foundation continues to push its successes, even though it has removed reports from its website touting the success of the PSA because of data quality concerns. Simply put, risk assessments are largely untested and not validated by objective 3rd party audits and are shrouded in secrecy as to the formula used to derive such results. Hidden behind the unbreakable walls of contracts signed by the user of these tools, the developers of these risk assessments refuse to be transparent as to how the programs actually work. Jurisdictions adopting these tools are expected to trust the outcomes as "scientific" and "validated," yet the only ones validating them are the developers themselves. In addition, these tools have often been accused by researchers of biased outcomes that disproportionately recommend detention and onerous release conditions to low-income individuals and minorities. |
Simply put, risk assessments are largely untested and not validated by objective 3rd party audits and are shrouded in secrecy as to the formula used to derive such results. Hidden behind the unbreakable walls of contracts signed by the user of these tools, the developers of these risk assessments refuse to be transparent as to how the programs actually work. Jurisdictions adopting these tools are expected to trust the outcomes as "scientific" and "validated," yet the only ones validating them are the developers themselves.