The use of pretrial and bond supervision commonly referred to as supervised release has increased over the last several decades due to burgeoning jail and prison populations. Much research has been conducted on these release mechanisms but has yet to examine the effects of types of technical violations on pretrial failure. The current study examined the effects of technical violations committed by individuals under a felony “bond” supervision program, which included both pretrial releasees and individuals being supervised on bond awaiting a probation revocation hearing, in a large metropolitan area. The results demonstrate while technical violations are associated with pretrial failure, the effects vary by violation type. Furthermore, the findings illustrate differences in risk factors for technical violations while on pretrial/bond supervision. Relevant policy implications of the research are provided.
AzariA. M. (2019). The impact of pretrial supervision conditions: Evaluating pretrial release orders of one Colorado county [Master’s thesis, University of Northern Colorado]. Scholarship & Creative Works @ Digital UNC. https://digscholarship.unco.edu/theses/99/
2.
BahrS. J.MastersA. L.TaylorB. M. (2012). What works in substance abuse treatment programs for offenders?The Prison Journal, 92(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885512438836
3.
BaumD. (1996). Smoke and mirrors: The war on drugs and the politics of failure (p. 21). Little, Brown.
4.
BechtelK.LowenkampC. T.HolsingerA. (2011). Identifying the predictors of pretrial failure: A meta-analysis. Federal Probation, 75(2), 78–88.
5.
BelenkoS. R.Mara-DritaI.McElroyJ. E. (1992). Pre-arraignment drug tests in the pretrial release decision: Predicting defendant failure to appear. New York City Criminal Justice Agency.
6.
BergJ. W. (1993). Give me liberty or give me silence: Taking a stand on fifth amendment implications for court-ordered therapy programs. Cornell Law Review, 79(3), 700–734.
7.
BolgerM. A.PhillipsM. J. (2021). The impact of pretrial release programming on rearrest: Results from an Eastern Pennsylvania county sample. Corrections: Policy, Practice and Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2021.1878071
8.
BonczarT. P. (2003). Prevalence of imprisonment in the U.S. population, 1974-2001. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
9.
BornsteinB. H.TomkinsA. J.NeeleyE. M. (2011). Reducing courts’ failure to appear rate: A procedural justice approach. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
10.
BornsteinB. H.TomkinsA. J.NeeleyE. M.HerianM. N.HammJ. A. (2012). Reducing courts’ failure-to-appear rate by written reminders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(1), 70–80.
11.
BrittC. L.GottfredsonM. R.GoldkampJ. 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), 62–78.
12.
CadiganT. P.JohnsonJ. L.LowenkampC. T. (2012). The re-validation of the federal Pretrial Services Risk Assessment (PTRA). Federal Probation, 76(2), 3–9.
13.
CadiganT. P.LowenkampC. T. (2011). Implementing risk assessment in the federal pretrial services system. Federal Probation, 75(2), 30–34.
14.
ClipperS. J.HarperA. J.FisherT. (2022). Risk of revocation: Assessing correlates of failure in a pretrial services program. Justice Evaluation Journal, 5(1), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2021.2009312
15.
CohenT. H. (2012). Pretrial release and misconduct in federal district courts, 2008-2010. Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
16.
CohenT. H.LowenkampC. T.HicksW. E. (2018). Revalidating the federal Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (PTRA): A research summary. Federal Probation, 82(2), 23–29.
17.
CohenT. H.ReavesB. A. (2007). Pretrial release of felony defendants in state courts (pp. 1–18). Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/prfdsc.pdf
18.
CoopriderK. W. (1992). Pretrial bond supervision: An empirical analysis with policy implications. Federal Probation, 56(3), 41–49.
19.
CoopriderK. W. (2009). Pretrial risk assessment and case classification: A case study. Federal Probation, 73(1), 12–22.
DemuthS.SteffensmeierD. (2004). The impact of gender and race-ethnicity in the pretrial release process. Social Problems, 51(2), 222–242.
22.
DesmaraisS. L.ZottolaS. A.Duhart ClarkeS. E.LowderE. M. (2021). Predictive validity of pretrial risk assessments: A systematic review of the literature. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(4), 398–420.
23.
DonnellyE. A.MacDonaldJ. M. (2018). The downstream effects of bail and pretrial detention on racial disparities in incarceration. Journal of Criminal Justice, Law & Criminology, 108(4), 775–814.
24.
FaussetA. J. (2012). Answer me or go to Jail: Why court ordered polygraph testing to treat probationers violated the fifth amendment. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 21(2), 455–480.
25.
FennessyM.HussM. T. (2013). Predicting success in a large sample of federal pretrial offenders: The influence of ethnicity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(1), 40–56.
26.
FreiburgerT. L.HilinskiC. M. (2010). The impact of race, gender, and age on the pretrial decision. Criminal Justice Review, 35(3), 318–334.
27.
GarrettB. L.GreeneS. S.LevyM. K. (2019). Fees, fines, bail, and the destitution pipeline. Duke Law Journal, 69(7), 1463–1472.
28.
GehringK. S.Van VoorhisP. (2014). Needs and pretrial failure: Additional risk factors for female and male pretrial defendants. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(8), 943–970.
29.
GestT. (2001). Crime and politics: Big government’s erratic campaign for law and order. Oxford University Press.
30.
GoldkampJ. S.WhiteM. D. (2006). Restoring accountability in pretrial release: The Philadelphia pretrial release supervision experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(2), 143–181.
31.
GrommonE.RydbergJ.CarterJ. G. (2017). Does GPS supervision of intimate partner violence defendants reduce pretrial misconduct? Evidence from a quasi-experimental study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(4), 483–504.
32.
HairJ. F.Jr.AndersonR. E.TathamR. L.BlackW. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (3rd ed.). Macmillan.
33.
Hannah-MoffatK. (2015). The uncertainties of risk assessment: Partiality, transparency, and just decisions. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 27(4), 244–247.
JensenE. L.KaneS. L. (2012). The effects of therapeutic community on recidivism up to four years after release from prison: A multisite study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(8), 1075–1087.
36.
KnightK.HillerM. L.SimpsonD. D.BroomeK. M. (1998). The validity of self-reported cocaine use in a criminal justice treatment sample. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 24(4), 647–660.
37.
LandK. C.McCallP. L.NaginD. S. (1996). A comparison of Poisson, negative binomial, and semiparametric mixed Poisson regression models: With empirical applications to criminal careers data. Sociological Methods & Research, 24(4), 387–442.
38.
LemkeA. J. (2009). Evaluation of the pretrial release pilot program in the Mesa municipal court. Court Executive Development Program.
39.
LowderE. M.FoundrayC. M. A. (2021). Use of risk assessments in pretrial supervision decision-making and associated outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 67(11), 1765–1791. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287211022642
40.
LowenkampC. T.VanNostrandM. (2013). Exploring the impact of supervision on pretrial outcomes. Laura and John Arnold Foundation.
41.
LowenkampC. T.WhetzelJ. (2009). The development of an actuarial risk assessment instrument for U.S. Pretrial Services. Federal Probation, 73(2), 33–36.
42.
McGinnisR. D.KlocksiemK. L.WiedemanC. (1977). Probation and employment: A report on the Bergen County NJ probation department. Offender Rehabilitation, 1(4), 323–334.
43.
MenefeeM. R. (2018). The role of bail and pretrial detention in the reproduction of racial inequalities. Sociology Compass, 12(5), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12576
44.
MeyersP. H. (1991). Pretrial drug testing: Is it vulnerable to due process challenges. BYU Journal of Public Law, 5(2), 285–340.
45.
MilgramA.HolsingerA. M.VannostrandM.AlsdorfM. W. (2014). Pretrial risk assessment: Improving public safety and fairness in pretrial decision making. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 27(4), 216–221.
46.
MorganK. D. (1995). Variables associated with successful probation completion. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 22(3–4), 141–153.
47.
NealD.RickA. (2016). The prison boom and sentencing policy. The Journal of Legal Studies, 45(1), 1–41.
48.
PetersiliaJ. (2008). California’s correctional paradox of excess and deprivation. Crime and Justice, 37(1), 207–278.
49.
PfaffJ. F. (2015). The war on drugs and prison growth: Limited importance, limited legislative options. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 52(1), 173–220.
SainjuK. D.FahyS.HamiltonB. A.BaggaleyK.BakerA.MinassianT.FilippelliV. (2018). Electronic monitoring for pretrial release: Assessing the impact. Federal Probation, 82(3), 3–10.
53.
Scott-HaywardC. S.FradellaH. F. (2019). Punishing poverty: How bail and pretrial detention fuel inequalities in the criminal justice system. University of California Press.
54.
SiddiqiQ. (2002). Prediction of pretrial failure to appear and an alternative pretrial release risk-classification scheme in New York City: A reassessment study. New York City Criminal Justice Agency.
55.
SimsB.JonesM. (1997). Predicting success or failure on probation: Factors associated with felony probation outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 43(3), 314–327.
56.
SorensenJ.StemenD. (2002). The effect of state sentencing policies on incarceration rates. Crime & Delinquency, 48(3), 456–475.
57.
StarrS. B. (2014). The risk assessment era: An overdue debate. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 27(4), 205–206.
58.
Stevens-MartinK.LiuJ. (2017). Fugitives from justice: An examination of felony and misdemeanor probation absconders in a large jurisdiction. Federal Probation, 81(1), 41–51.
59.
Stevens-MartinK.OyewoleO.HipolitoC. (2014). Technical revocations of probation in one jurisdiction: Uncovering the hidden realities. Federal Probation, 78(3), 16–20.
60.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
61.
TonryM. (1999). Why are US incarceration rates so high?Crime & Delinquency, 45(4), 419–437.
62.
TonryM. (2014). Remodeling American sentencing: A ten-step blueprint for moving past mass incarceration. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(4), 503–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12097
63.
VisherC. A.LinsterR. L. (1990). A survival model of pretrial failure. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 6(2), 153–184.
64.
WeinrathM.CarringtonJ.TessC. (2019). Pretrial detainees, sentenced prisoners, and treatment motivation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(15–16), 2693–2712.
65.
WhiteheadJ. T. (1991). The effectiveness of felony probation: Results from an eastern state. Justice Quarterly, 8(4), 525–543.
66.
WolffK. T.DozierC. A.MullerJ. P.MowryM.HutchinsonB. (2017). The impact of location monitoring among US pretrial defendants in the district of New Jersey. Federal Probation, 81(3), 8–14.
67.
ZettlerH. R.MorrisR. G. (2015). An exploratory assessment of race and gender-specific predictors of failure to appear in court among defendants released via a pretrial services agency. Criminal Justice Review, 40(4), 417–430.
