Pretrial Materials
National Resources
Use the links below to get access to information on federal case law, risk assessment tools, the bail industry, general reform policy statements, and more. Resources will be added on a regular basis.
General Pretrial Reform
The focus of the 2017 edition of Trends in State Courts is “Fines, Fees, and Bail Practices: Challenges and Opportunities.” Several articles address what states and municipalities are doing to confront the effect of fines, fees, and bail practices on the poor. “The Third Generation of Bail Reform” was written by Tim Schnacke, the first presenter to the Pretrial Detention Reform workgroup. In the article Mr. Schnacke identifies the involvement of judges in pretrial reform efforts as singularly important and, among many other developments across the country, references Chief Justice Cantil-Sakuye and the PDR workgroup on p. 5.
The American Bar Association recently adopted Resolution 112C, which encourages local jurisdictions to implement policies that favor releasing individuals on their own recognizance instead of setting a monetary bail. The resolution also calls for an end to the use of “bail schedules” and a prohibition on financial conditions that result in pretrial detention due to an inability to pay. Read the full resolution here.
A New Vision for Pretrial Justice in the United States (March 2019)
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lays out its proposals for reforming pretrial justice, including: reducing the harms of pretrial process; eliminating pretrial profiteering; creating a wide net of people eligible for mandatory and presumptive pre-booking release with no conditions; facilitating speedy individualized release hearings — distinct from “detention hearings” — with necessary due process protections; narrowly limiting who can be jailed before conviction; ensuring robust appeal rights and speedy trial protections for persons who are jailed as well as for those released on liberty-restricting conditions; avoiding/eliminating the use of actuarial algorithms in pretrial systems; and eliminating wealth-based discrimination.
Organization Websites with Substantial Pretrial/Bail Resources
The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies’ (NAPSA) mission is to promote pretrial justice and public safety through rational pretrial decision making and practices informed by evidence. NAPSA’s core values include: learning; transparency and open communications; objective standards; collaboration; dignity; respect; and professional integrity. NAPSA’s core strategic approach is to provide evidence based standards and education to individuals and agencies.
National Association of Pretrial Services: Standards on Pretrial Release
Download PDF
NCSC’s Evidence-Based Judicial Decision Making curriculum resources (added 1/2019)
Developed by the National Center for State Courts in response to requests for information abut pretrial and sentencing practices affecting persons facing potential local jail sentences.
- Introduction to the Evidence-Based Judicial Decision Making Curriculum (PDF)
- The Evidence-Based Judicial Decision Making Curriculum (PowerPoint slides and notes pages)
Companion briefs:
- Effective Court Responses to Persons Charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
- Effective Court Responses to Persons Charged with Domestic Violence Offenses
- Effective Court Responses to Persons with Mental Disorders
- Effective Court Responses to Persons with Substance Use Disorder
National Center for State Courts, Safety and Justice Challenge
The webinar featured representatives from Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, and Dane County, WI, who participated in the June 2014 Pretrial Justice Policy Forum.
Website (Requires log-in to NCSC)
Advancing Legal and Evidence-based Pretrial Practices
The Pretrial Justice Center for Courts (PJCC) works closely with the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators to implement their resolution recommending evidence-based assessment of risk in setting pretrial release conditions and the presumptive use of non-financial release conditions consistent with assessments of risk. With support from the Public Welfare Foundation, PJCC provides information and tools, offers education and technical assistance, facilitates cross-state learning and collaboration, and promotes the use of legal and evidence-based pretrial practices for courts across the country.
Key Resources:
State law provides a framework for judges and other officials who are authorized to release defendants from custody before trial. View comprehensive state information on the most common statutory conditions of pretrial release in an interactive map.
Use the Pretrial Policy Laws Database to find the laws in your state or view 50-state comparison charts to see trends across the nation. See recent enactments 2012 through 2015 here.
Every state constitution guarantees the right to counsel for a person charged with a criminal offense. State laws provide framework for courts that carry out the task of ensuring that defendants are aware of their right to counsel and that counsel is appointed in a reasonable amount of time. A summary and chart provide for information on these laws.
The Pretrial Quarterly is an NCSL electronic newsletter for state legislators, legislative staff, and others interested in pretrial release policy. Email NCSL's Criminal Justice Program to subscribe or call 303-364-7700.
National Institute of Corrections Pretrial webpage
Pretrial Services programs provide crucial information to judicial officers to assist with the bail decisions and to provide supervision and services to pretrial defendants that will promote public safety and court appearance.
The role of a high functioning pretrial agency can have many positive impacts on local justice systems. By identifying risk factors through validated risk instruments and providing release options and strategies to manage the defendant’s risk pending trial, judicial officers can make informed decisions that balance the Constitutional presumption of innocence while providing protections for the community.
Pretrial
Related Links:
- More Resources on Pretrial by Topic
- National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies
- Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Colombia
- Pretrial Performance Measurement Broadcast
Sample Topics in the Library:
Bureau of Justice Assistance website
BJA's mission is to provide leadership and services in grant administration and criminal justice policy development to support local, state, and tribal justice strategies to achieve safer communities. BJA supports programs and initiatives in the areas of law enforcement, justice information sharing, countering terrorism, managing offenders, combating drug crime and abuse, adjudication, advancing tribal justice, crime prevention, protecting vulnerable populations, and capacity building.
Crime & Justice Institute website
At CJI, we work with a diverse array of criminal justice leaders whose decisions have an impact on pretrial justice, including: Sheriff’s Departments, District Attorney’s Offices, Public Defenders, Judges, Probation Departments, Pretrial Services Agencies, Public Health Agencies. By working with these stakeholders, CJI brings years of experience in helping agencies examine front-end criminal justice data, strategically examine promising practices in the pretrial field, and expertise in implementing chosen practices with fidelity.
We have worked with multiple jurisdictions to select, implement, and validate pretrial risk assessments, one of the most common pretrial strategies. Pretrial experts at CJI also have worked extensively in counties to bring stakeholders together on a regular basis; shared goals and understanding are vital because pretrial services affect so many diverse agencies in a jurisdiction.
Examples of work in CJI’s pretrial portfolio include:
Pretrial Assistance to California Counties
CJI has recently completed work with two counties in California after providing them with pretrial-focused technical assistance. Humboldt County, had recently resurrected pretrial services as a division of their Probation Department to ease jail crowding and contracted with CJI because their supervised release program was being underutilized. Riverside County had recently transferred their pretrial services from the Courts to the Probation Department and was interested in increasing their pretrial release rate by adding a supervision component and becoming a more evidence-based program through the implementation of a pretrial risk assessment.
Pretrial Justice Institute website
The Pretrial Justice Institute’s core purpose is to advance safe, fair, and effective juvenile and adult pretrial justice practices and policies that honor and protect all people. We work to achieve our core purpose by moving policymakers and justice system stakeholder to adopt and implement practices and policies through:
PJI is funded in part by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the John D. and Katherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
- Pretrial risk assessment
- Pretrial supervision & monitoring
- Citation in lieu of arrest
- Elimination of bond schedules
- Screening of criminal cases by an experienced prosecutor
- Presence of defense counsel at initial appearance
- Availability of detention with due process
- Collection & analysis of performance measures
American Bail Coalition resources webpage
The American Bail Coalition is a trade association made up of national bail insurance companies who are responsible for underwriting criminal bail bonds throughout the United States of America. The Coalition also includes affiliate bail agent members from across the United States. The Coalition’s primary focus is to protect the constitutional right to bail by working with local and state policymakers to bring best practices to the system of release from custody pending trial.
Resource Articles & Bail Bond Studies
Bail is rarely taught as a continuing legal education matter to address the often misunderstandings that surround it. In an effort to consolidate the law relating to bail, bail bonding, bail recover and regulation of the commercial surety bail industry, the American Bail Coalition is providing this library of resources and bail bond studies derived from the existing information provided by each state relating to these practices.
The resources and bail bond studies provided by the American Bail Coalition in this library are designed as a starting point for any potential research or reference into the “law.” Although updated periodically as it becomes relevant, any citation taken from this directory and bail bond studies should be confirmed by cross referencing the statute, rule, regulation or order that is cited.
The NCJA Center for Justice Planning (NCJP) is a cooperative effort between the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) to support state, tribal, and local efforts to institutionalize comprehensive approaches to community-based strategic planning for justice. Working with jurisdictions that have sustained this approach and providing technical assistance to jurisdictions that are changing their planning strategies, the NCJP will establish comprehensive community-based strategic planning as a recognizable practice within the justice system. Read more here
This section serves as a guide to state justice planners and policymakers for implementing and enhancing pretrial reform. A cooperative effort of the Public Welfare Foundation and National Criminal Justice association, this guide contains:
· Policy Guide for State Policymakers
· Legal and Historical Framework
· Mapping Pretrial Decision Making in Your State
· National Standards
· Working With Data
· Risk Management
· Addressing Challenges to Implementation
· Toolkits and TTA Providers
· Online Resources
· See more
Laura and John Arnold Foundation - Performing Foundation Research webpage
LJAF’s Criminal Justice initiative aims to reduce crime, increase public safety, and ensure the criminal justice system operates as fairly and cost-effectively as possible. In order to achieve these goals, we develop, incubate, and spread innovative solutions to criminal justice challenges. We assemble teams of experts from both inside and outside the criminal justice field to conduct research projects, create tools for practitioners, and partner with local jurisdictions to pilot and test new policies and practices. Our projects use data and technology to drive innovation and accelerate the adoption of proven reforms.
LJAF is leveraging data, analytics, and technology to improve decision making during the earliest part of the criminal justice process—from the time a defendant is arrested until the case is resolved.
LJAF’s front end work aims to fundamentally change how the system operates by developing objective, evidence-based tools, piloting and evaluating innovations, and performing foundational research that law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and others can use—in concert with their professional discretion—to arrive at more effective decisions.
Californians For Safety and Justice - Pretrial Solutions webpage
Californians for Safety and Justice, a project of the Tides Center, is a nonprofit working with Californians from all walks of life to replace prison and justice system waste with common sense solutions that create safe neighborhoods and save public dollars. Through policy advocacy, public education, partnerships and support for local best practices, we promote effective criminal justice strategies to stop the cycle of crime and build healthy communities.
Pretrial Solutions is a joint partnership between Californians for Safety and Justice’s Local Safety Solutions Project and the Crime and Justice Institute, offering a variety of resources for pretrial and criminal justice practitioners. We are pleased to offer support with the following tools:
Pretrial Progress - A Survey of Pretrial Practices and Services: A survey of California counties reveals the extent (and growth) of pretrial services in the state as local officials work to better manage their jail populations, along with a legal brief explaining how such services work within California law. Click here to learn more and view the companion legal brief.
Pretrial Toolkit: Creating an Effective Pretrial Program is a helpful resource for counties interested in pretrial programs that can reduce jail pressures and costs by managing certain people in the community as they await court dates. It is a joint publication by Californians for Safety and Justice and the Crime and Justice Institute.
National Case Law and Litigation
In the case of O'Donnell v. Harris County, TX eleven groups have filed briefs in the Fifth Circuit urging the court to rule on the constitutional issues of poverty-based pretrial detention. This group includes: The Conference of Chief Justices, 67 current and former district attorneys, US Attorneys, state attorneys general, and governors; Current and former Chiefs of Police, Sheriffs, and corrections officials; the American Bar Association; and others.
Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951)
Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)
Buffin et al. v. City and County of San Francisco et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case 4:15-CV-04959-YGR.
Daily Journal Article re: CBAA Intervention
CBAA Answer to TAC – Document 123
Case Management Conference Minutes – Document 120
Order Granting Motion to Intervene - Document 119
Joint Case Management Statement – Document 118
Joint Statement re: CBAA Intervention – Document 117
Joint Case Management Statement – Document 115
CBAA Reply to Opposition to Intervene 1-17-17 – Document 113
Plaintiff's response to CBAA 4th Motion to Intervene 1-10-17 – Document 112
CBAA Fourth Motion to Intervene 12-20-16 – Document 110
Answer to TAC by Sheriff 11-1-16 – Document 101
Legal Order on Motions to Dismiss and Intervene-10-14-16 – Document 99
Joint submission of all parties re: San Francisco pilot project 8-17-16 – Document 95
Supplemental brief by San Francisco re: PSA pilot project 8-15-16 – Document 91
California Bail Agents Association (CBAA) Motion to Intervene 7-6-17 – Document 81
Motion to Dismiss TAC- Attorney General 6-23-16 – Document 77
Motion to Dismiss TAC – City and County of San Francisco and Sheriff – Document 76
Third Amended Complaint (TAC) 5-27-12 – Document 71a. Document 71-1Order on Pending Motions 2-1-16 – Document 55
b. Document 71-2
c. Document 71-3
d. Document 71-4
e. Document 71-5
f. Document 71-6
g. Document 71-7
h. Document 71-8
i. Document 71-9
Welchen v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case 2;16-CV-00185-TLN-DB (full title: Gary Wayne Welchen, et al., v. The County of Sacramento and Kamala Harris her Official Capacity as the California Attorney and Scott Jones in his Official Capacity as the Sacramento County Sheriff)
Attorney General’s Reply Supporting Motion to Dismiss – Document 40
County Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss – Document 39
Plaintiff’s Response to State’s Motion to Dismiss – Document 38
Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss – Document 37
Attorney General Motion to Dismiss FAC – Document 36
Sherriff Motion to Dismiss FAC – Document 35
Affidavit of Tim Murray – Document 31-4
Affidavit of Garry Herceg – Document 31-3
Affidavit of D.C. Judge Truman Morrison – Document 31-2
Amended Complaint – Document 31
Order Granting MTD in Part 10-10-16 – Document 30
Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652 (2007) (9th Cir.)
Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772 (2014) (9th Cir.)
Leach v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Sup'rs (1995), United States District Court, N.D. California 1995 WL 7935 (not reported in F.Supp.)
Plaintiff’s allegations that the system of pretrial bail violates the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment by treating rich and poor arrestees differently do not present a cognizable claim: the availability of a reduction or elimination of bail shows that there is no systemic equal protection violation, and permitting plaintiff’s bail claim to proceed would require interference with ongoing state criminal proceedings which a federal court should not do under principles of comity and federalism (Younger abstention). Plaintiff may raise his equal protection challenge to bail in the pending state criminal action.
JAHMAL BRANGAN vs. COMMONWEALTH
In a landmark decision on bail, Massachusetts’ highest court ruled that courts must consider arrested people’s financial resources when setting bail amounts. When bail amounts exceed what an individual can afford and will likely result in long-term detention, judges will be required to provide written or orally recorded findings of fact and a statement of reasons for the decision. Read the full decision here.
ODonell v. Harris County TX
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, Case 4:16-cv-01414 (full title: Maranda Lynn ODonnell, et al., On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Harris County Texas, et al)
Preliminary Injunction - Doc 304
Memo on Preliminary Injunction - Doc 302
Proposed Order - Document 232
Pugh v. Rainwater, 572 F.2d 1053 (1978) (5th Cir.)
Statement of Interest of the United States in Varden v. City of Clanton
U.S. Department of Justice; Statement of Interest of the United States in Varden v. City of Clanton (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama)
Walker v. Calhoun Court of Appeals Opinion – Document 53
Risk Assessment Tool Research and Information
Pretrial Risk Assessments: A Practical Guide for Judges
American Bar Association, Judges’ Journal
By David G. Robinson, Hannah Jane Sassaman, and Megan Stevenson
From Alaska to Utah, Missouri to New Hampshire, jurisdictions are introducing risk assessment algorithms into pretrial decision making. As stakeholders try to balance public concern about safety with an effort to reduce or end the use of cash bail—widely understood to disadvantage poor people who can’t pay to secure their liberty pretrial—jurisdictions have turned to algorithmic risk assessment to help determine who can “safely” be released.
Sharad Goel and Ravi Shroff, Jennifer L. Skeem and Christopher Slobogin
John Logan Koepke & David G. Robinson,
Washington Law Review
Laurel Eckhouse, Kristian Lum, Cynthia Conti-Cook and Julie Ciccolini
Criminal Justice and Behavior
Sam Corbett-Davies and Sharad Goel
Megan Stevenson
Minnesota Law Review
Sandra G. Mayson
Yale Law Journal
Brice Cooke, et al.
University of Chicago Crime Lab
Matthias Spielkamp
MIT Technology Review
The Academy for Justice, Reforming Criminal Justice
Megan Stevenson & Sandra G. Mayson
Paul Heaton et al.
Stanford Law Review
Council of State Governments Justice Center, Justice Center.
The Washington Post
Koepke, John Logan and Robinson, David G., Danger Ahead: Risk Assessment and the Future of Bail Reform (February 19, 2018). Washington Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3041622 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3041622
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has partnered with the Urban Institute (Urban) to create the content for the Public Safety Risk Assessment Clearinghouse (PSRAC), a comprehensive online source for current and objective information on criminal justice risk and needs assessments. PSRAC brings together a wide range of resources from research and practice, and presents this information in a way that is easy to understand and use. PSRAC also provides training and technical assistance on issues related to the development, validation, adoption, implementation, and use of risk and needs assessments.
Pretrial Justice Institute’s Online Library
Provides numerous materials on race and criminal justice
Pretrial Risk Assessment Can Produce Race-Neutral Results
PJI's newest report explores the relationship between validated risk assessment tools and racial and ethnic bias in pretrial decision making. No tool can eliminate wider system disparities, but rigorous data analysis and testing substantially reduce the risk of racial and ethnic bias influencing this crucial decision point.
Risk, Race, & Recidivism: Predictive Bias and Disparate Impact (June 14, 2016)
Jennifer L. Skeem, University of California, Berkeley and Christopher T. Lowenkamp, Government of the United States of America - Administrative Office of the U.S. Court
One way to unwind mass incarceration without compromising public safety is to use risk assessment instruments in sentencing and corrections. Although these instruments figure prominently in current reforms, critics argue that benefits in crime control will be offset by an adverse effect on racial minorities. Based on a sample of 34,794 federal offenders, we examine the relationships among race, risk assessment (the Post Conviction Risk Assessment [PCRA]), and future arrest.
PUBLIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT (PSA): Court Analysis of Race and Gender
An analysis of whether the Public Safety Assessment–Court (PSA-Court) risk assessment has a discriminatory impact on minorities and women. What we have found is that the tool is both racially neutral and gender neutral. In other words, it accurately classifies defendants’ risk levels regardless of their race or gender and does not have a discriminatory impact on any of these groups.
Race and Pretrial Risk Assessment
The design, testing and validation processes of actuarial pretrial risk assessment instruments are such that racial biases are virtually eliminated. A common misperception of these tools is that they rely heavily on defendants’ prior arrests to determine the pretrial risk score, thereby discriminating against people of color who, for a variety of reasons, may have higher rates of previous justice system involvement.
Bias in Criminal Risk Scores Is Mathematically Inevitable, Researchers Say (December 2016)
ProPublica’s analysis of bias against black defendants in criminal risk scores has prompted research showing that the disparity can be addressed — if the algorithms focus on the fairness of outcomes.
Machine Bias (May 2016)
Article by ProPublica on bias in risk assessments for sentencing.
The Arnold Foundation documents the nine factors used in the PSA Instrument and illustrates which factors are related to each of the pretrial outcomes—New Criminal Activity (NCA), New Violent Criminal Activity (NVCA), and Failure to Appear (FTA).
A Schematic on Risk Assessment Instruments:
Download PDF (Source)
Download PDF
Joint Statement in Support of the Use of Pretrial Risk Assessment Instruments (Updated March 2019)
The American Council of Chief Defenders, Gideon’s Promise, the National Association for Public Defense, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the National Legal Aid & Defender Association "support the use of a validated pretrial risk assessment as a component of a fair pretrial release system, in any jurisdiction where it is evident, based on input from the local criminal defense stakeholders and impacted communities who understand the unique circumstances surrounding pretrial release in their jurisdiction, that it will serve to reduce unnecessary detention and help to eliminate racial and ethnic bias in the outcome of the pretrial decisions." The statement also recommends checks and balances.
This paper explains the science underlying risk-based decision-making and explores both the promise and controversies associated with the increasing application of "big data" to the field of criminal justice. While the technology has contributed to important policy reforms, such as the diversion of low-risk groups from jail and prison, debate has arisen over the potential for risk assessments to reproduce existing racial biases, the lack of transparency of some proprietary tools, and the challenge of applying classifications based on group behavior to individual cases. Along with identifying an emerging professional consensus that the careful and ethical implementation of risk assessment tools can improve outcomes, the paper closes with a series of best practices urging jurisdictions adopt a localized, collaborative approach.
John Goldkamp, Judicial Responsibility for Pretrial Release Decisionmaking and the Information Role of Pretrial Services (57 Fed. Probation 28, March 1993
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance; Pretrial Risk Assessment: Research Summary, (Charles Summers and Tim Willis, October 2010)
Pretrial Justice Institute and U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance; State of the Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment (Cynthia Mamalian, March 2011)
Laura and John Arnold Foundation; Developing a National Model for Pretrial Risk Assessment (November 2013)
Mental Illness
In a three-year, randomized-control study conducted by clinical researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center's Department of Psychiatry, the Rochester Forensic Assertive Community Treatment model (R-FACT) withstood rigorous examination and now holds promise for cities across the United States. The peer-reviewed study, supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, was published online today in Psychiatric Services, a journal of the American Psychiatric Association.
A guide intended to help criminal justice officials work with health professionals to better use both systems’ information, when appropriate, to reduce criminal justice involvement among.
Link to the Six Questions document for Stepping Up. And includes the four data measures: prevalence of people with mental illness in jails, average length
CSG Justice Center hosted with APA Foundation and the National Judicial College
Victims Rights
Domestic Violence
Battered Women’s Justice Project
"The Network appreciates the value of pre-trial services with regard to assessment of non-violent offenders. However, no offender who poses a safety risk to a victim or to the public should be allowed released into the community with proper risk assessment and supervision. Unfortunately, in Vermont today, we do not have the systems in place to adequately assess the risk of those charged with domestic assault."
Some information on lethality instruments used in assessment: Download PDF.
Research and Evaluation
MacArthur Foundation's Safety and Justice Challenge and the Vera Institute
Nearly two-thirds of Americans held in jail are still awaiting trial, often because they can't afford bail. New data shows that many of them are incarcerated in poor, rural counties, whose jail growth trends are helping to fuel incarceration growth nationwide. Pretrial detention rates in rural US counties have grown by an astonishing 436%. What is driving this trend? One reason may be that rural counties often have fewer resources, such as pretrial service programs and diversion programs. We can't address mass incarceration without paying attention to these rural counties.
(February, 2017) This document highlights the commitment of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to define and support evidence-based practices that improve decision-making at the pretrial stage of our criminal justice system, enhancing the safety of America’s communities and fostering the fair administration of pretrial release and detention. With the release of A Framework for Pretrial Justice: Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial System and Agency, NIC and its Pretrial Executive Network helps inform the discussion on bail reform and pretrial justice by presenting and defining the fundamentals of an effective pretrial system and the essential elements of a high functioning pretrial services agency. This publication presents and describes these essential elements—as well as the components of an evidence-based framework for improving pretrial outcomes nationwide.
In Academy for Justice, A Report on Scholarship and Criminal Justice Reform (Erik Luna ed., 2017, Forthcoming)
U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 17-18
But a new large scale study - Human Decisions and Machine Predictions - demonstrates that it’s possible to build a predictive tool that simultaneously accomplishes three desirable goals: reducing pre-trial detention rates, reducing re-arrest rates of those released pending trial, and reducing racial disparities in which defendants are jailed. Policymakers across the ideological spectrum should be interested in this result and encourage further study.
This report from the Vera Institute of Justice —published as part of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's Safety and Safety and Justice Challenge—examines existing research and data to take a deeper look at our nation’s misuse of local jails and to determine how we arrived at this point. The research and data include characteristics of the people currently being held; the key policies that have contributed to their cycling in and out; and the negative impacts that jail incarceration can have on people, their families, and the communities to which they return.
Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF)
Pretrial Justice Institute and U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance
Marie VanNostrand, Kenneth Rose, Kimberly Weibrecht, June 2011
Bail
Two thirds of the jail population and one quarter of the total incarcerated population consist of pretrial detainees. These shares have risen over time, fueling questions about the impacts of pretrial detention and the system of monetary bail that largely governs it. New research indicates that pretrial detention has a substantially negative economic impact on individuals, disrupting their labor market activities and causing increased recidivism. In addition to summarizing this research, we characterize key trends in pretrial detention and the bail system: increasing use of monetary bail, increasing time from arrest to adjudication, and rising median bail requirements, all of which have occurred across major offense categories. We conclude by discussing costs and benefits of monetary bail and the bail bonds industry.
Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP) brings together elected district attorneys as part of a network of like-minded leaders committed to change and innovation. FJP hopes to enable a new generation of prosecutive leaders to learn from best practices, respected experts, and innovative approaches aimed at promoting a justice system grounded in fairness, equity, compassion, and fiscal responsibility
This brief discusses the prosecutor’s role in reforming the money bail system. The brief seeks to provide guidance to DAs considering new approaches to this topic.
Who Pays? is a national community-driven research project. The research presented in this report was led by the collaborative efforts of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Forward Together, and Research Action Design with extensive research and participation by the local partners listed below. This research and its contributing organizations seek to address the lack of representation and the misrepresentation of low-income communities of color in the design of smart solutions that can break the cycles of violence and poverty exacerbated by the criminal justice system at the local, state, and national levels. This research also sought to uncover some of the ways individuals, families, and communities disparately experience these punitive practices based on race, class, gender, and sexuality.
Color of Change and ACLU
Discover the rarely heard and even less understood story of how the bail industry has corrupted our constitutional freedoms for profit. Read Color Of Change’s bail industry report, supported by ACLU’s Campaign for Smart Justic
Sheller Center for Social Justice, Temple University Beasley School of Law, Pennsylvania
The report’s analysis and findings are based on information from legal research, conversations with a range of criminal justice stakeholders within and outside Pennsylvania, and conversation with community members who have been directly affected by Pennsylvania’s cash bail system.
(April 18, 2017) This paper is designed to help persons craft and justify language articulating who should be released and who should be eligible for detention in a purposeful in-or-out pretrial system through a study of the history of bail, the fundamental legal principles, the pretrial research, and the national standards on pretrial release and detention.
Harvard Law School Criminal Justice Policy Program
Bail portion begins on page 6
Download PDF
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections
Timothy R. Schnacke, August 2014
New Jersey State Commission of Investigation’s final report of findings and recommendations stemming from an investigation of bail-bond practices in New Jersey.
Pretrial Justice Institute
Michael R. Jones, 2013
Fact Sheet:
Download PDF (Source)
Materials Provided to the Pretrial Detention Reform Workgroup (PDR) by the American Bail Coalition (ABC)
Includes link to all Dropbox materials
Download PDF
Craig DeArmond, Chief Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Illinois
Jeffrey Clayton, American Bail Coalition
Gregory Cui
The Yale Law Journal Forum
February 29, 2016
Eric Holland and Alexander Tabarrok
The University of Chicago, Journal of Law and Economics
April 2004
L. Jay Labe and Jerry Watson
Includes Glossary at end of article
Download PDF
Lexington National Insurance Corporation
Robert G. Morris, Ph.D.
This study was completed on behalf of the Dallas County (Texas) Criminal Justice Advisory Board (CJAB)
January 2013
Sonya B. Starr
University of Michigan Law School
Law and Economics Research Paper Series, Paper No. 13-014
September 2013
Brief for Amici Curiae American Bail Coalition, Georgia Association Of Professional Bondsmen, and Georgia Sheriffs’ Association in Support of Defendant Appellant and Reversal of the Preliminary Injunction.