LIBERTY AND JUSTICE: PRETRIAL PRACTICES IN TEXAS

March 2017

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE: PRETRIAL PRACTICES IN TEXAS

AUTHORS

Dottie Carmichael, Ph.D. George Naufal, Ph.D. Steve Wood, Ph.D. Heather Caspers, M.A. Miner P. Marchbanks, III, Ph.D. Public Policy Research Institute, Texas A&M University

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Scott Griffith Amanda Stites Texas State Office of Court Administration

The full report can be retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/Texas-Bond-Study On March 24, 2017, Part II of this report was amended to add a sixth Texas jurisdiction using validated pretrial risk assessment.

Funding for this research was provided by the Texas Office of Court Administration and the Texas Indigent Defense Commission. 2017 Public Policy Research Institute. All Rights Reserved.

https://tinyurl.com/Texas-Bond-Study

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Texas Judicial Council ....................................................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary. ....................................................................................................................................... xiii

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

Part I: Evidence From Two Jurisdiction

Overview of the Study Sites ............................................................................................................................. 7

Risk-Informed Pretrial Case Processing System: Travis County ........................................................................... 7

Financial-Based Pretrial Release System: Tarrant County .................................................................................. 11

Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 13

FINDING 1: Validated pretrial risk assessment successfully predicts defendants chance of bond failure. ...... 15

Risk Scores Predict Bail Failure ............................................................................................................................ 15

Risk Scores Are Being Used to Inform Detention Decisions ................................................................................ 16

Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 16

FINDING 2: Similar decisions to release or detain defendants can be obtained using a lower-cost statistical algorithm instead of an interview-based risk assessment. .............................................................................. 17

Efficacy of an Automated Risk Assessment Algorithm ........................................................................................ 17

Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 18

FINDING 3: Validated risk assessment results in better pretrial classification: fewer high-risk defendants are released, and fewer low-risk individuals are detained. ................................................................................... 19

Release Based on Risk ......................................................................................................................................... 19

Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 21

FINDING 4: The costs of a risk-informed pretrial release system are more than offset by savings that occur when defendants are properly classified. ....................................................................................................... 23

4.1: Pretrial Program Costs ................................................................................................................................. 25

4.2: Bail Failure Case Processing Costs ............................................................................................................... 26

4.3: Victim Costs ................................................................................................................................................. 27

4.4: Detention Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 29

4.5: Misclassification Costs ................................................................................................................................. 30

Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 31

iv

FINDING 5: A risk-informed pretrial release system is fairer for defendants. ................................................. 33

Disparate Impacts ................................................................................................................................................ 33

Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 34

Part II: Survey of Pretrial Processing in Texas

Overview of the Survey .................................................................................................................................. 37

FINDING 6: Despite advantages of safety, cost, and fairness, only six Texas counties currently use validated pretrial risk assessment. ................................................................................................................................ 37

Pretrial Information Available to Courts ............................................................................................................. 38

Uses of Pretrial Risk Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 40

Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 42

FINDING 7: Pretrial personal bond or surety bond supervision programs were identified in 100 Texas counties. Most of these programs are implemented by existing Community Supervision and Corrections Departments (CSCDs). ......................................................................................................................................................... 43

Operational Structures ........................................................................................................................................ 43

Pretrial Supervision Services ............................................................................................................................... 45

Cost to Defendants for Supervision ..................................................................................................................... 46

Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 47

FINDING 8: Stakeholders are optimistic about the feasibility of pretrial reform including validated risk assessment and personal bond supervision. ................................................................................................... 48

Available Tools for Judicial Bond Determination ................................................................................................ 49

Attitudes toward Expanding Pretrial Risk Assessment and Supervision ............................................................. 50

Pretrial Program Implementation Strategies ...................................................................................................... 50

Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 51

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 55

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 58

APPPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Validated Risk Assessments Used in Texas

APPENDIX B: Tarrant County Pretrial Services Standards

APPENDIX C: Classification Criteria for Counties Using Pretrial Risk Assessment

v

TEXAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL

Criminal Justice Committee In June 2015, the Texas Judicial Council established the Criminal Justice Committee to assess the impact of pretrial criminal justice statutes and policies in Texas to determine if there are ways in which Texas courts can enhance public safety and social outcomes when making pretrial confinement decisions, and identify judicial policies or initiatives that could be enacted to further those goals. The members of the committee are:

District Court Judg