Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Despite the growing use of both pretrial risk assessment and supervision as pretrial reform strategies, there has been limited investigation on the effectiveness of risk assessment-informed pretrial supervision. We conducted a multi-site, retrospective investigation in 1,505 pretrial defendants from four local jurisdictions to examine risk assessment-informed pretrial supervision decisions and associated pretrial misconduct outcomes. Our findings showed pretrial supervision decisions were generally consistent with structured guidelines and defendant risk classifications. Use of bond and electronic monitoring had little impact on pretrial misconduct. However, more frequent pretrial monitoring was associated with higher rates of pretrial misconduct across all risk levels. Reducing supervision conditions and monitoring for low-risk defendants, in particular, may help reduce rates of misconduct in pretrial populations.

Keywords

pretrial risk assessment supervision recidivism pretrial decision-making

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

Hoge

R. D.

(1990a). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854890017001004

Andrews

D. A.

Zinger

Hoge

R. D.

Bonta

Gendreau

Cullen

F. T.

(1990b). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x

Austin

Krisberg

Litsky

(1985). The effectiveness of supervised pretrial release. Crime & Delinquency, 31(4), 519–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128785031004004

Barno

Martínez

D. N.

Williams

K. R.

(2020). Exploring alternatives to cash bail: An evaluation of Orange County’s pretrial assessment and release supervision (PARS) program. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(3), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-019-09506-3

Baumer

T. L.

Maxfield

M. G.

Mendelsohn

R. I.

(1993). A comparative analysis of three electronically monitored home detention programs. Justice Quarterly, 10(1), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829300091731

Bechtel

Holsinger

A. M.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Warren

M. J.

(2017). A meta-analytic review of pretrial research: Risk assessment, bond type, and interventions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(2), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9367-1

Bonta

Rugge

Scott

T.-L.

Bourgon

Yessine

A. K.

(2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(3), 248–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670802134085

Britt

C. L.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Goldkamp

J. S.

(1992). Drug testing and pretrial misconduct: An experiment on the specific deterrent effects of drug monitoring defendants on pretrial release. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29(1), 18.

Cadigan

T. P.

(1991). Electronic monitoring in federal pretrial release. Federal Probation, 55(1), 26–30.

10.

Casey

Elek

(2015). A snapshot of pretrial reform activity across the nation. National Center for State Courts.

11.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.

12.

Cohen

T. H.

Reaves

B. A.

(2007). Pretrial release of felony defendants in state courts (NCJ 214994). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

13.

Cooke

Diop

B. Z.

Fishbane

Hayes

Ouss

Shah

(2018). Using behavioral science to improve criminal justice outcomes: Preventing failures to appear in court. University of Chicago Crime Lab and ideas42.

14.

DeMichele

Comfort

Misra

Barrick

Baumgartner

(2018). The intuitive-override model: Nudging judges toward pretrial risk assessment instruments. SSRN Electronic Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3168500

15.

Desmarais

S. L.

Lowder

E. M.

(2019). Pretrial risk assessment tools: A primer for judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. Safety and Justice Challenge, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

16.

Desmarais

S. L.

Zottola

S. A.

Duhart Clarke

S. E.

Lowder

E. M.

(2020). Predictive validity of pretrial risk assessments: A systematic review of the literature. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(4), 398–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820932959

17.

Elek

Sapia

Keilitz

(2017). Use of court date reminder notices to improve court appearance rates. Pretrial Justice Center for Courts.

18.

Ferri

(2019). Desk appearance tickets and the benefits of court date reminders. (No. 45). New York Criminal Justice Agency.

19.

Gendreau

Little

Goggin

(1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works? Criminology, 34(4), 575–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01220.x

20.

Goldkamp

J. S.

Jones

P. R.

(1992). Pretrial drug-testing experiments in Milwaukee and Prince George’s county: The context of implementation. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29(4), 37.

21.

Goldkamp

J. S.

White

M. D.

(2006). Restoring accountability in pretrial release: The Philadelphia pretrial release supervision experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(2), 143–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-006-9001-1

22.

Hatton

Smith

(2020). Research on the effectiveness of pretrial support and supervision services. 27. School of Government, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

23.

Heaton

Mayson

Stevenson

(2017). The downstream consequences of misdemeanor pretrial detention. Stanford Law Review; Stanford, 69(3), 711–794.

24.

Henry

D. A.

Clark

(1999). Pretrial drug testing: An overview of issues and practices [Data set]. American Psychological Association.

25.

Howat

Forsyth

C. J.

Biggar

Howat

(2016). Improving court-appearance rates through court-date reminder phone calls. Criminal Justice Studies, 29(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2015.1121875

26.

Hyatt

J. M.

Barnes

G. C.

(2017). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime & Delinquency, 63(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714555757

27.

Latessa

E. J.

Lovins

B. K.

Makarios

(2013). Validation of the Indiana risk assessment system: Final report. University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research.

28.

Latessa

E. J.

Smith

Lemke

Makarios

Lowenkamp

C. T.

(2009). Creation and validation of the Ohio risk assessment system: Final report. University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research.

29.

Lattimore

P. K.

Tueller

Levin-Rector

Witwer

(2020). The prevalence of local criminal justice practices. Federal Probation, 83(1), 10.

30.

Lowder

E. M.

Lawson

S. G.

Grommon

Ray

B. R.

(2020a). Five-county validation of the Indiana Risk Assessment System – Pretrial Assessment Tool (IRAS-PAT) using a local validation approach. Justice Quarterly, 37(7), 1–20.

31.

Lowder

E. M.

Diaz

C. L.

Grommon

Ray

B. R.

(2020b). Effects of pretrial risk assessments on release decisions and misconduct outcomes relative to practice as usual. Journal of Criminal Justice, 73, 101754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101754

32.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Holsinger

A. M.

Dierks

(2018). Assessing the effects of court date notifications within pretrial case processing. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-017-9393-7

33.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Latessa

E. J.

Holsinger

A. M.

(2006a). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 77–93.

34.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Paler

Smith

Latessa

E. J.

(2006b). Adhering to the risk and need principles: Does it matter for supervision-based programs. Federal Probation, 70(3), 3–8.

35.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

VanNostrand

(2013). Exploring the impact of supervision on pretrial outcomes. Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

36.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

VanNostrand

Holsinger

(2013). The hidden costs of pretrial detention. Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

37.

Mamalian

C. A.

(2011). State of the science of pretrial risk assessment. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

38.

Nice

(2006). Court appearance notification system: Process and outcome evaluation. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council and the CANS Oversight Committee.

39.

Pretrial Justice Institute. (2014). Implementing the recommendations of the national symposium on pretrial justice: The 2013 progress report. Author.

40.

Pretrial Justice Institute. (2019). Scan of pretrial practices (No. 2019-10-02KN). https://university.pretrial.org/viewdocument/scan-of-pretrial-practices-pji-20

41.

Sainju

K. D.

Fahy

Hamilton

B. A.

Baggaley

Baker

Minassian

Filippelli

(2018). Electronic monitoring for pretrial release: Assessing the impact. Federal Probation, 82(3), 8.

42.

Sawyer

Wagner

(2020). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2020. The Prison Policy Initiative.

43.

Schnacke

T. R.

Jones

M. R.

Wilderman

D. M.

(2012). Increasing court-appearance rates and other benefits of live-caller telephone court-date reminders: The Jefferson County, Colorado, FTA pilot project and resulting court date notification program. Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association, 48, 86–95.

44.

Stevenson

(2018). Assessing risk assessment in action. Minnesota Law Review, 103, 303–384.

45.

Toborg

M. A.

(1989). Assessment of pretrial urine testing in the District of Columbia. National Institute of Justice and Toborg Associates.

46.

United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, No. 86-87 (United States Supreme Court 1987).

47.

VanNostrand

Keebler

(2009). Pretrial risk assessment in the federal court. Federal Probation, 73, 3–29.

48.

VanNostrand

W. M.

Rose

K. J.

Weibrecht

(2011). State of the science of pretrial release recommendations and supervision (pp. 1–46). Pretrial Justice Institute.

49.

Viljoen

J. L.

Cochrane

D. M.

Jonnson

M. R.

(2018). Do risk assessment tools help manage and reduce risk of violence and reoffending? A systematic review. Law and Human Behavior, 42(3), 181–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000280

50.

White

W. F.

(2006). Court hearing call notification project. 9, Criminel Justice Coordinating Council and Flagstaff Justice Court, Coconino County.

51.

Wiseman

S. R.

(2013). Pretrial detention and the right to be monitored. Yale Law Journal, 123(5), 1344–1405.

52.

Wolff

K. T.

Dozier

C. A.

Muller

J. P.

Mowry

Hutchinson

(2017). The impact of location monitoring among U.S. pretrial defendants in the District of New Jersey. Federal Probation, 81(3), 7.

53.

Wooldredge

(2012). Distinguishing race effects on pre-trial release and sentencing decisions. Justice Quarterly, 29(1), 41–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.559480

54.

Wooldredge

Frank

Goulette

Travis

(2015). Is the impact of cumulative disadvantage on sentencing greater for black defendants? Criminology & Public Policy, 14(2), 187–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12124

55.

Zeng

(2020). Jail inmates in 2018 (No. 32; Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear Series). Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.63 MB

Use of Risk Assessments in Pretrial Supervision Decision-Making and Associated Outcomes

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material