MEASURING FAILURE:

THE LANGUAGE OF PRETRIAL OUTCOMES

BY

James H. Williams

B.A., University of Louisville, 1973 M.S.W., University of Illinois at Chicago,1993

DISSERTATION

Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Social Work in the Graduate College

University of Illinois at Chicago, 2003

Chicago, illinois

UMI Number: 3098343

Copyright 2003 by Williams, James Herbert

All rights reserved.

®

UMI

UMI Microform 3098343

Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346

Ann Arbor, M148106-1346

Copyright by James H. Williams

2003

THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO Graduate College

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

June 3, 2003

I hereby recommend that the thesis prepared under mysupervision by JAMES H. WILLIAMS

MEASURING FAILURE: THE LANGUAGE OF PRETRIAL OUTCOMES

entitled ---------- __ -- _

be. accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

I concur with this recommendation

Members of

Thesis or

Dissertation

Defense

Committee

I

University of Illinois at Chicago

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my late wife, Sondra Gordon Patrinos, who was convinced that it would someday be finished. And to Andrea Shapiro, who helped make it happen.

in

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Jerry R. Cates, Assistant Dean of the Jane Addams College of Social Work; Dr. Regina Kulys, Associate Professor, Jane Addams College of Social Work; Dr. James E. Rollin, Assistant Professor, Jane Addams College of Social Work; and Dr. Jess Maghan, Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Illinois at Chicago.

An especially large debt of gratitude is owed my dissertation chair, Dr. Creasie F.

Hairston, Dean of the Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dean Hairston oversaw the development of the proposal, and her patience, insights, and contributions were vital to the completion of the study. Dr. James E. Rollin's contributions to my understanding of statistical methodology were significant.

I deem myself fortunate to have worked with such a talented and insightful group, each of whom made very important contributions to my understanding of social work, criminal justice, and the rigors of the research process. The strengths of this study owe much to their contributions. The shortcomings of the study, such as they may be, are entirely my own.

JHW

IV

CHAPTER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE

PROBLEM .

PAGE

1

1.1 Introduction........... 1

1.2 Background............................. 3

1.3 Emergency Measures: Jail-based Programs 6

1.4 Emergency Measures: a Judicial Response 7

1.5 Relevance to Social Work Practice 10

1.6 Social Work, Pretrial Services, and Pretrial Release... 12

LITERATURE REVIEW .

2.1 A History of Bail Bond and the Evolution

of Pretrial Release ..

2.2 Pretrial Release Concepts and Bond Practices ..

2.3 Modem Trends in Pretrial Release:

Non-monetary Release '" .

Assessment and Supervision in Pretrial Services .

Pretrial Outcomes Studies ..

Community Supervision of Offenders and

Defendants .

Results of Pretrial Services Programs ..

Pretrial Supervision and Monitoring .

The Pretrial Experience .

Washington, DC .

Lake County, IL .

Bond Revocation .

Race and Pretrial Decisions .

Demographic Bias in Bond Decisions .

Summary of Literature Review .

Conceptual Framework .

2.

2.4 2.5 2.6

2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9.1 2.9.2 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14

v

16

16 18

20 25 27

29 34 35 37 38 40 43 44 49 50 52

CHAPTER

3.

4.

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .

3.1 Methods and Procedures .

3.2 The Research Question .

3.2.1 Research Question 1 .

3.2.2 Research Question 2 .

3.2.3 Research Question 3 .

3.3 Study Design .

3.4 NPRP Data Elements .

3.5 Conceptual Definitions and Operational

Measures of Variables .

3.5.1 Pretrial Outcomes .

3.5.2 Criminal History .

3.5.3 Bond Conditions .

3.6 Demographic Variables .

3.7 Study Design .

3.8 Specification of the Research Procedure .

STATISTICAL PROCEDURES .

4.1 The Sample .

4.1.1 Demographics .

4.1.2 Criminal History .

4.1.3 Bond Conditions .

4.1.4 Outcome Measures .

4.2 Demographic Variables and Bond Conditions ..

4.2.1 Sex and Bond Conditions ..

4.2.2 Race and Bond Conditions .

4.2.3 Age and Bond Conditions .

4.3 Relationship of Criminal History to Bond

Conditions .

4.3.1 Prior Failure to Appear and Type of Bond .

4.3.2 Number of Previous Adult Felony Convictions

and Type of Bond .

4.3.3 Current Charge and Type of Bond .

4.4 Bond Conditions and Pretrial Outcomes ..

4.4.1 Type of Bond and FTA ..

4.4.2 Type of Bond and Rearrest ..

4.4.3 Type of Bond and Bond Revocation .

VI

PAGE

58 58 58 58 59 59 59 60

62 62 63 64 67 69 70

74 74 74 75 76 77 78 78 78 79

81 81

81 82 84 84 84 85

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER

PAGE

4. (continued)

4.5 Demographics, Criminal Behavior, and

Pretrial Outcomes 86

4.5.1 Race and Failure to Appear 86

4.5.2 Sex and Failure to Appear 86

4.5.3 Age and Failure to Appear 87

4.6 Criminal History and FTA 89

4.6.1 Prior FTA and FTA 89

4.6.2 Adult Felony Convictions and Failure to Appear 89

4.6.3 Current Charge and Failure to Appear 90

4.7 Demographic Variables and Rearrest 92

4.7.1 Race and Rearrest................ 92

4.7.2 Sex and Rearrest 92

4.7.3 Age and Rearrest 93

4.8 Criminal History and Rearrest 95

4.8.1 Prior Failure to Appear and Rearrest 95

4.8.2 Number of Adult Felony Convictions and Rearrest .. 95

4.8.3 Current Charge and Rearrest 96

4.9 Demographic Variables, Criminal History,

and Bond Revocation i... 98

4.9.1 Race and Bond Revocation 98

4.9.2 Sex and Bond Revocation 98

4.9.3 Age and Bond Revocation 99

4.10 Criminal History and Bond Revocation 101

4.10.1 Prior Failure to Appear and Bond Revocation 101

4.12.1 Demographic Variables 107

4.12.2 Criminal History Variables 107

4.13 Procedure One: Type of Bond 108

4.14 Procedure Two: Failure to Appear 111

4.15 Procedure Three: Rearrest 114

4.16 Procedure Four: Bond Revocation 117

VB

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER

PAGE

5. CONCLUSIONS 120

5.1 Race, Gender, and Age in the Study 120

5.2 Criminal History 122

5.3 A Consideration of the Findings in Light of

Existing Research Studies 124

5.4 Limitations of the Study 125

5.5 Recommendations for Further Research 128

5.6 Implications for Practice 130

5.7 Implications for Policy 131

5.8 Conclusion 132

Vlll

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

PAGE

I GENDER AND RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
SAMPLE .................................................................................... 75
II DEMOGRAPHICS AND TYPE OF BOND ............................. 80
III CRIMINAL HISTORY AND TYPE OF BOND ....................... 83
IV TYPE OF BOND AND PRETRIAL OUTCOMES ................... 85
V DEMOGRAPHICS AND FAILURE TO APPEAR ................... 88
VI CRIMINAL HISTORY AND FAILURE TO APPEAR ............. 91
VII DEMOGRAPHICS AND REARREST ..................................... 94
VIII CRIMINAL HISTORY AND REARREST ................................ 97
IX DEMOGRAPHICS AND BOND REVOCATION .................... 100
X CRIMINAL HISTORY AND BOND REVOCATION .............. 103
XI REVOCATION, REARREST, AND FTA ................................. 104
XII REVOCATION BY FTA-REARREST AND RACE ................. 106
XIII LOGISTIC REGRESSION: FINANCIAL BOND ..................... 110
XIV LOGISTIC REGRESSION: FAILURE TO APPEAR ............... 113
XV LOGISTIC REGRESSION: REARREST .................................. 116
XVI LOGISTIC REGRESSION: BOND REVOCATION ................ 119 lX

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

PAGE

1. Conceptual framework................................ 57

x

BJS CCDOC COS EMS ISP NPRP OLS PIE PTR PTS ROR

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Cook County Department of Corrections Charity Organization Societies Electronic Monitoring Supervision Intensive Supervision Program

National Pretrial Reporting Program Ordinary Least Squares

Person in Environment

Pretrial Release

Pretrial Services

Release on Recognizance

Xl

SUMMARY

A study of the relationship between demographic characteristics and criminal history of defendants with pretrial outcomes was carried out using data from the National Pretrial Survey

(1992).

Defendants' race, age, and gender were compared with pretrial outcomes: failure to appear, rearrest, and bond revocation. Defendants' criminal history-prior failure to appear, prior adult felony convictions, and the nature of the current charge-were compared with pretrial outcomes: failure to appear, rearrest, and bond revocation. A regression procedure compared the effects of race, age, gender, prior failure to appear, prior adult felony convictions, and the nature of the current charge to pretrial outcomes.

The findings revealed that demographic characteristics and criminal history are related to pretrial outcomes. Furthermore, the study revealed that judges' decisions to grant pretrial release and to revoke pretrial release are influenced by race, age, and gender. The findings also revealed that criminal history influences judges' decisions to grant or revoke pretrial release.

The study found that Latino and African-American defendants were more likely to be granted pretrial release than whites. When controlling for other variables, the study found that whites were more likely to have their pretrial release revoked than Latinos or African-Americans.

xu

1. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

1.1 Introduction

The large and rapidly increasing correctional population is a major social issue in the United States. Reports by the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate that 2,019,234 persons were incarcerated in midyear 2002, the first time this number exceeded 2 million. This includes 665,475 persons who were being held in local jails, up from 405,320 in 1990 (Harrison & Karberg, 2003). Jail populations rose 5.5% in 2002, the largest increase in five years. An additional 72,437 persons who might have otherwise been in jails were being supervised outside the jail facilities in alternative programs such as home confmement and electronic monitoring. Altogether, some 702 persons per 100,000 U.S. residents were incarcerated, up from 458 per 100,000 in 199{}-one of the highest proportions in the world (Harrison & Karberg, 2003; Beck & Karberg, 2001; Gillard & Beck, 1998). An estimated 12% of African-American males, 4% of Latino males, and 1.6% of white males in their twenties and early thirties were in prison or jail in 2000 (Harrison & Karberg, 2003).

The large number of persons arrested and incarcerated presents a particular problem for local jails, as they house not only individuals serving sentences of usually less than a year, but also persons who have been accused but not yet convicted of crimes. Increased arrests and convictions, and the limited alternatives to incarceration, have led to jail overcrowding and a host of related problems.

1

2

Jail overcrowding first emerged as a major social problem during the late 1980s and early 1990s. As a result of a dramatic increase in arrests, jail populations more than doubled between 1982 and 1992. This represented a 120% increase in the number of jail inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents. Perkins and Stephan (1995) reported that on June 30, 1994, the number of jail inmates in the United States reached 490,442, or a 6.7% increase over the previous year. Since then the population has grown an average of5.3% annually. The U.S. Department of Justice estimated that this represented 97% of the total U.S. jail capacity.

In 1978, jails were operating at 65% of their capacity. By 1992, that figure had jumped to 99%. Urban jails, in contrast to the national figure, were rated at III % of capacity. In 1992, populations were so large and jail overcrowding so severe, that jails in 131 jurisdictions were under court orders or consent decrees to limit their populations (Clark & Henry, 1996). Over one half of the jail inmates were being held while awaiting trial. In 1993, the total jail population exceeded jail capacity in eight states and the District of Columbia.

Jurisdictions often adopted a variety of strategies to cope with the situation. Jail and prison construction to add new space was a primary strategy and continues to be, although the high costs of constructing and operating these institutions have caused this approach to lose some of its appeal. Community supervision of defendants awaiting trial has been a second primary method used to alleviate overcrowded conditions in the nation's jails. Federal courts and a majority of states have adopted specific statutes in regard to the pretrial release

3

decision of whether to hold a defendant in custody. These statutes and decisions say that judicial personnel should begin with the presumption that a person charged with an offense should be released pending trial (Goldkamp, Gottfredson, et al., 1995).

By 1992 most of the major court jurisdictions in the country had adopted a pretrial services program which sought to ease jail overcrowding by promoting pretrial release. Additionally, by 1995, the year the Bureau of Justice Statistics first asked, local jails had developed alternative programs which were, by 1997, supervising over 70,000 persons (Mahoney, Beaudin, et al., 2001).

Alternatives to incarceration have some appeal to policy makers, as they cost less=markedly less in some cases-than confinement (Currie, 1998; Mauer & Sentencing Project, 1999; Petersilia, 1997; Sigler & Lamb, 1995). The 1997 average cost per prisoner per day in the U.S. was $54.25, while the average daily cost of probation was $3.51 (Camp & Camp, 1997). While cost is a major consideration, it is also prudent to ask if these programs achieve satisfactory outcomes. In essence, do they protect the safety of the public in a way that is acceptable, and do they ensure that the defendants are accountable for appearing in court as directed?

1.2 Background

Public opinion seems to indicate a desire for increased incarceration of offenders for a wider variety of offenses and for longer periods of time, even as

4

crime rates in general have tended to fall (Barak, 1994). Public fear of crime has also remained high even as crime rates have fallen (Heath, Kavanagh, et al., 2001). Yet responsible policymakers and the general public alike recognize that incarceration is not the only, or even the best, approach to use, especially for individuals awaiting trial. Meeting the needs for increased prison and jail bed space for this growing population is extremely expensive. The average operating cost per jail inmate in the U.S. was $14,667 per year in 1993 and has continued to increase (Perkins & Stephan, 1995). These costs include neither capital outlays nor the costs of building new jails and buying new equipment. They represent only current operating costs.

Another problem facing urban jails is a change in the demographic profile of detainees. Most beds in jails are allocated to house a population generally deemed docile and nonviolent (Goodale, 1995). However, as jail populations soar, jails are increasingly housing dangerous inmates arrested for committing violent and more serious crimes. As a result of this, jails are hard pressed to find jail space (or beds, as these are typically called) that is appropriate for dangerous prisoners and which segregates them from nonviolent and docile prisoners.

Thus overcrowding has two dimensions: the actual number of beds available to house prisoners (double and triple bedding), and the type of housing that is appropriate for the discrete risks and needs of the inmates. Most importantly, there is a lack of high-security space for serious offenders. This means that some persons are obliged to be housed together with more dangerous

5

inmates. This increases the risk of injury to the less-dangerous inmates as well as to the jail personnel, who must simultaneously manage high-risk and low-risk inmates.

Dangerous criminals are not the only problem. Researchers who study urban jail populations have voiced concern that jails have increasingly become "dumping-grounds" for the homeless, the mentally-ill, and other special populations that are under-served. Advocates for the mentally ill argue that mentally ill offenders should be housed in more therapeutic settings than jail (Belcher, 1988; Isaac & Armat, 1990; Pontell & Welsh, 1994; Teplin, 1990; Teplin, 1994; Torrey, 1992).

Again, it is important to bear in mind that most of the defendants in jail have not been convicted of a crime-they are simply awaiting trial, They are "presumed innocent." Researchers also point to the increasing criminalization of young African-American males who are incarcerated at alarmingly high rates (Mauer, 1990; Tonry, 1995). The disparate growth of this population is a source of particular concern since the numbers are so disproportionate to their numbers in the general population. A study of trial courts in Chicago (Mann, 1993) found that it was economically more difficult for nonwhites and defendants of lower occupational status to make bail, and that an indirect effect of not making bail was "outright discrimination and longer prison sentences (p. 167)." The incarceration of such a high percentage of African-Americans disproportionately affects African-American communities in a number of ways: persons with criminal

6

histories have a more difficult time finding employment, prisoners who are not provided with treatment return to the community at risk for drug abuse, and family life is disrupted.

1.3 Emergency Measures: Jail-based Prolrams

There are two primary approaches used to release defendants awaiting trial. The first, jail-based programs, are essentially emergency programs to alleviate overcrowding. These are essentially of a stopgap nature.

In jail-based programs, jail officials, under court orders, release many awaiting trial on some form of "recognizance" supervision, independently of the judicial process (Goldkamp & Gottfredson, 1979; Goldkamp & Gottfredson, 1985; Manickas, Trossman, et al., 1989; Thomas, 1976; Wagner, 1987). In these cases jail officials, rather than judges, make the decision to release inmates-or to refuse to accept incoming inmates. In 1997 nearly 70,000 inmates were being supervised in alternative programs that were under jurisdiction of jail officials but outside of jail facilities (Beck & Harrison, 2001; Gillard & Beck, 1998).

In one example of court rulings against jail overcrowding, a federal consent decree (Duran v, Sheahan, 1974) required the Cook County, Illinois (Chicago) Department of Corrections (CCDOC) to take urgent measures to reduce the jail population. In responding to this order, CCDOC, like many large urban jurisdictions, developed a number of programs, such as electronic home

7

monitoring and day-reporting. This was also accompanied by increased jail construction.

The court also gave the CCDOC the emergency authority to release inmates directly (thus bypassing the courts) by issuing the Administrative Mandatory Furlough, or "Sheriffs l-Bond" program. Jail officials may tum away defendants for whom there is no room. A study of the Cook County mandatory furlough program found that defendants released on sheriff's bonds had higher rates of bond forfeiture, rearrest, and reincarceration than defendants released by the courts (Illinois Criminal Justice Authority, 1992 ). Ceding release authority to agencies other than judges results in a certain dualism in these jail-based programs, in that there is possible an implicit conflict with the powers and duties of the judiciary.

1.4 Emergency Measures: a Judicial Response

The second major approach for releasing defendants awaiting trial has been a judicial response wherein the judiciary plays a more active role in alleviating jail overcrowding, thus reasserting judicial authority over pretrial release. Judges make the decision about who is to be detained or released on bond pending trial.

Pretrial release by judges allows defendants to remain free in the community while awaiting trial. Judges may require the posting of a cash bond of some sort, or they may allow the defendant to be released on his own

8

recognizance and a pledge to appear for court hearings and avoid bad behavior while awaiting trial.

The primary purpose of pretrial release is to assure that the defendant returns to court as scheduled and is not rearrested for a new offense. Historically, judges have established certain conditions of release when releasing pretrial defendants on bond, in addition to whatever cash or security is required. These bond conditions establish behaviors or norms which the defendant is expected to follow. For example, some bond conditions are meant to help ensure that the defendant is present for trial, such as barring the defendant from leaving the area of the court's jurisdiction. Some bond conditions seek to protect public safety, by ordering the defendant to, for example, not possess a weapon, avoid contact with the victim, or remain at home at night. Other bond conditions may seek to prevent rearrest or re-offense by attempting to control or limit at-risk behaviors, such as requiring random drug testing in order to reduce or stop the use of illegal drugs, which could result in the rearrest of the defendant. Having set such bond conditions, courts must then find a way to enforce them. In many jurisdictions, the court's pretrial services department supervises defendants to see that bond conditions are obeyed. Pretrial service programs, acknowledging that defendants may need certain provision of services (e.g., drug treatment) in order to attain goal achievement, seek to provide those services which mayor may not have been part of the original plan.

9

In many jurisdictions, agencies called Pretrial Services have been developed to assess defendant risks and needs and to provide supervision, direct services, and case management to defendants who are released on bond pending trial. The primary goal or expectation of these programs is to ensure that defendants who are released appear at all scheduled court hearings regarding their cases and that they do not commit new offenses while on release.

Some released defendants perform successfully in the community while awaiting trial. They attend every court hearing and avoid being arrested for new offenses. However, a portion of defendants "fail," either by not appearing for scheduled court dates, or by committing new offenses. Some experience the ultimate failure and have their bond revoked and are remanded to jail (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Pretrial Survey, 1992).

Courts have devised a variety of assessment approaches to predict which defendants are more likely to fail, and to perform a sort of triage, in which some defendants are not recommended for release, some defendants are released with no extra conditions or provision of services, and a final group are released and provided supervision and/or service provision while awaiting trial. There is a lack of consensus, however, as to the efficacy of assessment programs, and as to which factors provide reliable indicators of risk. A compounding factor is that judges making bond decisions are free to accept or ignore Pretrial Services' recommendations regarding release decisions, even where these recommendations are buttressed with considerable evidence. As a result, there is considerable

10 variability in bond setting even among defendants with identical backgrounds and

identical offenses (Clark & Henry, 1996).

Depending on the judge, defendants with very high risk assessments may be assigned few or no conditions, while defendants with low risk assessments may be given extensive conditions of supervision. Similarly, some defendants may have their bonds revoked, while others who have similarly failed to follow court orders may remain free on bond. In this study, we will examine how these processes actually work in practice. We win look at pretrial outcomes and the factors that influence them.

1.5 Relevance to Social Work Practice

At first glance, a study of outcomes in pretrial cases may appear to be of little or no relevance to social work practice. The social work profession has limited visibility in much of the criminal justice system. The relationship between social work and corrections, however, is actually one oflong standing. For many years during the reign of the Charity Organization Societies (COS) movement in the early part of the zo- century, the goals of social work and corrections were seen as inseparable: the "correction" of the indigent and "dangerous" classes. A similar involvement with corrections and criminal justice was practiced by the Settlement House Movement, whose members were active in promoting various reform efforts in criminal justice. Jane Addams, founder of the Settlement House

11 Movement, for example, played a major role in establishing the first juvenile court

in Illinois and the nation (Ehrenreich, 1985).

While the COS and Settlement House Movements disagreed about many things, on one point they were absolutely in accord: social work was incontrovertibly directed toward the alleviation of the conditions of the poor. Working with poor persons, the indigent and disadvantaged=those in need of proper socialization-were the goals of social work. If this population happened to be in jailor prison at some point, the only thing that changed was the setting in which social work took place (Ehrenreich, 1985; Specht & Courtney, 1994).

Although the economically and socially disadvantaged have continued to be of major concern to the social work profession, social work practice with and on behalf of individuals involved in the criminal justice system has waned. This is in spite of the importance of a social work perspective in successful criminal justice programming. Historians of the profession such as Ehrenreich (1985) argue that social work was deflected from criminal justice work by a number of factors, including the rise of interest in psychotherapy as its predominant technology, and its flight from social justice issues during the McCarthy period of the 1950s, when preoccupation with social questions was seen as disloyal (Reynolds, 1991).

It is an assumption of this paper that social work's consideration of the person-ill-environment brings an important perspective to criminal justice and corrections. The person-in-environment perspective is an important theoretical concept because of its multi-disciplinary emphasis and also because of its goal of

12 improving the fit between the individual and society. Mobilizing the resources of

the community to assist individuals and families in order to help them be more effective in their lives is a key component of social work practice (Germain & Gitterman, 1996; Saleebey, 2002; Appleby, Colon, et al., 2000).

Although the recent history of social work is not one in which corrections programs have been widely embraced, there is ample evidence that the timing is right for change. Shared interests among social workers and criminal justice professionals involved in community corrections are rather extensive. Both professional groups, for example, are concerned with the rights of the accused and that due process be observed. Both are concerned with the social health of the community and with the rights of citizens to public safety and a crime-free environment. Both are concerned with the poor and their relationship to crime and criminal justice, albeit there may be divergences in conceptualization and intervention. The two disciplines recognize that poor people suffer the most as victims of crime, as wen as that most convicted perpetrators of crime are also poor. Both believe that services to offenders may enhance the likelihood for improved performance, although the impact of these programs may not be visible or immediately apparent (Rothman, 1990).

1.6 Social Work. Pretrial Services. and Pretrial Release

The issue of pretrial release has important implications for social work practice with individuals, families, and communities. The issue of the racial

13

disparities in jail and prison populations is a prima facie area of concern. The fact that so many defendants are being held in jail while accused and awaiting trial, seems a sort of punishment in itself. Reports that as many as 29% of young African-American men are incarcerated at some point in their life (Harrison & Karberg, 2003) raises concerns, not only about them, but also for those they have left behind-their families and their communities. A greater understanding of these issues can inform social work policy and guide our practice in these communities.

Community corrections programs offer many opportunities for the convergence of social work and criminal justice practice, though current policies and programs do not necessarily reflect this convergence. Pretrial services which provide community supervision of persons accused of crimes provide an opportunity for defendants to remain at liberty in the community rather than be incarcerated. To the degree that such programs are successful, they increase the possibilities for defendants (who are mostly poor and disadvantaged) to enjoy the same opportunities for freedom as those whose financial status affords easy access to bail bond. In this sense, pretrial release programs tend to level the playing field for poor defendants. The pretrial programs also supply at least the potential for assisting or aiding defendants who are experiencing life problems. Many programs offer defendants the opportunity for referral to a range of social assistance programs, including GED classes, housing, and treatment for substance abuse problems. Even when the more invasive bond condition of drug testing is applied, it may assist the defendant in breaking down denial that could be

14

preventing him or her from seeking help. Conditions such as reporting or observing a curfew, while restrictive, may help provide a certain amount of needed structure to defendants' lives.

The social work person-in-environment perspective, or PIE (Karles & Wandrei, 1994; Bronfenbrenner, 1979), can inform research and knowledge in this field by drawing upon its ability to integrate social, economic, cultural, and developmental perspectives into work with defendants. Social work's perspective of involving family and community resources in work with individuals can bring additional assistance to bear on criminal justice problems. Social work's perspective of the importance of community resources in developing self-determination and individual responsibility can add to the knowledge base in community corrections. The potential for the expansion of social work practice in the field of pretrial services could come about through increased attention to the rehabilitation needs of poor defendants, and not simply punishment.

The involvement of economically-deprived people in the criminal justice system represents an intersection for intervention. Certainly the act of arrest represents a crisis situation for an individual and their families. But social work recognizes that a crisis can be an opportunity to address and seek solutions for problems. As a social worker working with the Cook County (Illinois) Adult Probation Department, the writer is particularly interested in how social work can contribute to a greater understanding of the problems facing the criminal justice system.

15

The goals and aims of the social work profession and the criminal justice

system appear to overlap in several areas, including those that deal with releasing accused individuals on their own recognizance and providing the supports that they need to avoid further contacts with the law. Both professions desire a better understanding of how conditions of release influence and impact outcomes. On a macro level, it behooves us to know if certain aspects of judicial decision-making lead to greater disparities, or to equal justice for poor people, minorities, and other oppressed groups. Such knowledge could and should lead to better-informed policies and practice. In the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, it is relatively easy to continue traditions and practices, mainly because things have always been (or been done) that way; or because they have never been challenged by advocates for reform. Consequently, social work knowledge of and participation in criminal justice processes, as well as development of knowledge about such settings, is important for reasons of individual well-being and systemic change.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of the study is to examine pretrial outcomes and the factors that contribute to different outcomes. This chapter deals with the review and analysis of the studies relevant to this topic.

The literature will fall into the following sections:

1. History of bail bond and evolution of pretrial release in the United

States;

2. Pretrial release concepts and bond practices;

3. Factors related to pretrial outcomes.

2.1 A History of Bail Bond and the Evolution of Pretrial Release

The question of what should be done about persons accused of crime is a long-standing one. As noted by Friedman (1993), while the Constitution says little about criminal justice, the subsequent Bill of Rights is devoted almost entirely to criminal justice. The Eighth Amendment, in particular, stressed protection against "excessive" bail, and Friedman notes that similar provisions later appeared in state constitutions (pp. 72, 242). The rise of alternative practices of punishment in the community such as parole and probation in the nineteenth century shows a continuing public debate about the role of punishment and rehabilitation (pp. 242, 162-164). Rothman (1990) discusses this public debate and the historical relationship between the rise of correctional institutions and the concurrent rise of institutions to regulate the poor (almshouses, etc.). Rothman notes the close

16

17

relationship between charity and corrections in the eighteenth century, with both processes frequently managed by the same group of overseers. During this period, punishments dealt to offenders ranged on a continuum from "warning out" (that is, a stem instruction to leave the area), through whippings, to the gallows itself (pp. 48-52).

The nineteenth century, with its subsequent economic growth and industrialization, gave rise to certain new ideas. The sources of crime were now believed to be external, that is, rooted in society and its history and not in the personality of the individual (Rothman, p. 69). Thus, the idea of the penitentiary was to provide a social setting designed to correct deviant behaviors and to mold individuals into more socially appropriate beings. "Just as the criminal's environment had led him into crime, the institutional environment would lead him out of it (pp. 82-83)." These same methods of correction were to find application in the treatment of the mentally ill in the asylum and of the poor in the almshouse or workhouse.

While the almshouse as an institution declined and outdoor relief grew in popularity, prisons continued in popularity as a correctional measure. However, as Friedman noted, the early nineteenth-century emphasis on the perfectibility of man and on reform eventually led to community-based corrections such as probation and parole, while retaining the option of the prison (Friedman, pp. 161-163).

18

The criminal justice system exists in an interrelationship with other social institutions, particularly those directed at the poor as a class. The impact of social policies such as the poor laws, social work, social security and labor-market regulation, is emphasized by a number of authors. Simon (1993), Greenberg (1981), and Garland (1990) give support to the notion that the criminal justice system is a means of social control of the poor and people of color.

The notion that criminal behavior was endogenous to certain morally-deprived individuals was supplanted by the notion that social environment was an important causal factor in the commission of crimes. Consequently, attitudes toward punishment also evolved toward measures that took this social context into account.

2.2 Pretrial Release Concepts and Bond Practices

Eskridge (1983) describes the practice of bail as evolving from English Common Law in the twelfth century when King Henry II created places of detention as a way for his sheriffs to supervise defendants awaiting trial, to ensure their appearance when the traveling magistrate arrived. Yet prolonged detention seemed inappropriate and contrary to humanitarian principles in a system where the defendant is presumed innocent. Eventually, a system of surety arose as defendants were released into the custody of friends, families, or private surety agencies who took responsibility to ensure that the individual would appear at triaL In preindustrial England, where peasant farmers, yeoman, and artisans did

19

not travel far, in small communities where everyone knew everyone else, this system (although subject to abuse) seemed to suffice.

But Goldkamp (1979) found that the advent of industrialization in the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth century, with its concurrent depopulation of the countryside, caused great shifts of the population. Dispossessed peasants fled into the cities or traveled to far-flung comers of the realm in search of work. The subsequent impoverishment and dispersion of the rural population led legal scholars in the eighteenth century to urge reconsideration of the use of surety bail, since many of the accused were no longer in their home communities. Safeguards against excessive bail became part of common law.

Concerns about abuse of judicial authority followed the English colonists to the American land. Aptheker (1976), in his study of the formation of the Constitution of 1787, found that concern that civil rights and civil liberties were not sufficiently guaranteed was widespread even as the new constitution was ratified (pp. 100-103). Debate over the passage of the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, began as soon as the new Congress convened (pp. 109-111). The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution incorporated strictures against excessive bail. The right to bail was further guaranteed in the Judiciary Act of 1789 (Goldkamp, 1979; Hall, Gaynes, et al., 1984). However, it was up to the individual states to decide how that right would be implemented.

A late-nineteenth-century American innovation was the use of commercial bail bondsmen, who charge a fee for the service of posting bailor bond, placing

20

the risk of forfeiture on the bondsman. The bondsman, in turn, places certain collateral requirements on the defendant; that is to say, the defendant pays a fee to the bondsman for posting his bond (Thomas, 1976). Critics of bail bondsmen (Feeley, 1992; Feeley, 1979) argue that the fee paid by the defendant to the bail bondsman amounts to a fine: a fine paid by the innocent and guilty alike. Feeley's (1992) observations of bail bondsmen in Connecticut in the 1980s reveal that the bail bondsmen earn substantial incomes with little actual risk because, in cases where their clients actually take flight and do not appear, the court usually returns the entire amount or a goodly portion to the bondsman.

2.3 Modem Trends in Pretrial Release: Non-monetary Release

Efforts for reform of the bail system have tended to rise and fall with general efforts toward social reform. There were three waves or spasms of reform efforts in the U.S. during the 20th Century: the Progressive Era during the early part of the century, the New Deal during the nineteen-thirties, and the era of the civil rights and anti-poverty movements of the nineteen sixties. In each case, as the pendulum of reform swung to the left, it was followed by a swing to the right, usually as a result of war or civil unrest. The Progressive Era's goals were therefore supplanted by the requirements of the First World War, the goals of the New Deal were supplanted by the requirements of the Second World War, and the goals of the Civil Rights Era were exhausted by the demands of the Vietnam War.

21

Goldkamp and Gottefredson (1985) indicate that criticism of the bail bond

system arose in the early 20th Century during the rise of the Progressive Movement. Critics argued that the use of money bail was discriminatory and that the practices of commercial bail bondsmen were corrupt. Eskridge (1983) notes that Felix Frankfurter argued in 1922 that recognizance bonds should replace cash or property sureties. As Feeley (1992) notes, the practice of depositing a sum of money or other surety as a means of achieving pretrial release has obvious implications for the poor. The wealthy or well-to-do are more likely to have such means at hand than poor people or working people who live from paycheck to paycheck (p. 205).

Reformers' hopes of changing the bail system foundered in the great social disorder following World War I. A wave of strikes, including the first nationwide steel strike and a strike by Boston policemen, shook the nation. Race riots in Chicago, East St. Louis, rural Arkansas, and in Tulsa and Enid, Oklahoma also stirred fears that the social fabric was in danger. Nativist fears of foreign radical influences generated a series of anti-immigrant raids directed by Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, in which thousands of foreign born were rounded up, placed in concentration camps, and summarily deported. The Ku Klux Klan experienced a rebirth. The liberal Wilson was replaced by the conservative Harding, who was followed by the even more conservative Coolidge. The Progressive Era was over, its agenda uncompleted (Tuttle, 1970; Bernstein, 1960; Ehrenreich, 1985). As a

22

result, the desire for public order triumphed over the desire for a more equitable bail system.

The New Deal Era saw little practical movement toward bail reform. The energy of social reformers was directed toward resolving the economic crisis and passing the various social security acts, while the militance of the trade unions and subsequent labor strife reinforced the arguments of those who felt the preservation of order was at stake (Gutman, 1992). But the New Deal Era of reforms soon succumbed in a series of post-war witch hunts and the rise of the Cold War. The conservatism of the Fifties put little stress on the need for reform.

The tide for reform began to change as America emerged from the McCarthy period of the 1950s. One may argue that the growth of the civil rights movement, beginning with the Montgomery bus boycott, and the involvement of students in civil disobedience, drew middle-class attention to bail inequities. The 1960s and 1970s ushered in a new era of social consciousness and appetite for reform in many aspects of American society, including criminal justice. Along with this was a renewed concern with the criminal justice system and the rights of the accused.

The Civil Rights Era's push toward bail reform began in 1961, when the Vera Institute initiated the Manhattan Bail Project in New York City (Eskridge, 1983). The Project sought to show that defendants could be released prior to trial without having to provide cash bail and that they would return to court. The Project sought to achieve these goals by providing judges with verified

23

information documenting the defendant's ties to the community, thus designating suitable candidates for pretrial release. Rosen (1993) and Goldkamp (1993) have emphasized the judge's need for verified, accurate information about pretrial detainees in order to make a decision about bail. After three years of study, the Vera Institute concluded that defendants released on their own recognizance had lower rates of failure (failure to appear or rearrest) than those released on cash bonds. Thomas (1976); Eskridge (1983); and Rikosi and Witcomb (1982) say that this initial success in New York led to the establishment of the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency in 1963.

A National Conference on Bail and Criminal Justice, held in 1964, held that the presumption of release on recognizance should be one of the major factors in bail. This concept was strengthened by passage of the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966, which codified the presumption in favor of release on recognizance and which also laid out specific factors that a judicial officer was to consider in making a decision. Although the Act only covered federal jurisdictions, many states emulated the federal law. In 1968, the American Bar Association published its first set of guidelines and standards that addressed the pretrial release issue, calling for the abolition of surety bail as an option (Clark & Henry, 1996).

In 1978, the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies issued a set of standards and goals which provided guidelines for functioning of local agencies and to assist in the formation of new pretrial service agencies (Beaudin, 1978). The standards recommend that non-monetary forms of release become

24

standard, and that conditions of release be monitored by local pretrial services agencies. The purpose of such local agencies was to screen and assess pretrial defendants and make recommendations to the court, and to monitor the compliance of the defendants while out on pretrial release. The standards further provided that pretrial service agencies should supply needed social services to defendants such as alcohol and drug treatment, referrals for employment services, and educational services as required to enable them to comply with their conditions of release (Beaudin, 1978).

The success of pretrial services programs in local jurisdictions led to the passage of the Federal Pretrial Services Act in 1982, which established pretrial release programs in federal courts and subsequently resulted in the Bail Reform Act of 1984 which specified which factors judges were to consider in levying bail.

The concept of pretrial release programs has gained acceptance in many jurisdictions since the Bail Reform Act of 1984. By the year 2001, there were pretrial service programs operating in more than 300 counties and in all 94 districts in the federal court system (Mahoney, Beaudin, et al., 2001, p. 8).

The concept of pretrial release has evolved from the use of property sureties as bond with the goal of assuring attendance at trial, to one based on individual recognizance with the goal of assisting the defendant to appear in court and to avoid rearrest. As the volume of arrests grew in the 1980s and jail overcrowding became an issue, pretrial services was increasingly seen as an instrument to alleviate overcrowding and to help minimize the risks of pretrial

25

crime. While the impetus to save money and save space is no doubt primary, one should bear in mind that basic issues of fairness lie at the heart of these pretrial programs (Mahoney, 2001, p. vi).

2.4 Assessment and Supervision in Pretrial Services

A key role of pretrial service agencies is to identify those candidates whose release will pose little threat to community safety. Identifying defendants who will return to court for their trials and who will obey rules imposed by the court is another important factor. The primary task of the pretrial agency is to provide judges with the information needed to make informed decisions about release or detention. Another aspect of their role is to provide defendants with the supervision and/or service provision that will help ensure pretrial success.

Much of the early work of pretrial services programs centered on developing effective assessment tools to predict which defendants would be good candidates for pretrial release. By selecting the most promising candidates for release, it is possible to achieve a lower failure rate (Clark & Henry, 1996). The challenge was to develop procedures that would identify those defendants who were most likely to adhere to bond requirements: to appear for court appointments and to refrain from committing offenses while awaiting trial. By instituting a process that would select the most promising candidates for release, failure rates would be lower and the safety of the community would be preserved.

26

Assessment tools that would prevent unnecessary detention were needed for reasons of protecting individual rights as well. Research by Foote in New York City in 1957 (cited in Eskridge, 1983) had found strong correlation between pretrial detention and conviction, in that defendants held in jail before trial were more likely to be convicted. Since pretrial release on recognizance was used in only 2.9% of the cases in that study (p. 24), it suggested that those indigent defendants who could not post bond could potentially suffer discrimination.

The Vera Institute was one of the first organizations to develop a risk assessment instrument. Their scale, Eskridge (1983) notes, developed in the early 1960s, was subsequently adopted with few changes in other jurisdictions. The Vera assessment tool was based on the finding from a study of pretrial release wherein those having strong family and community ties were found to be good risks for release, and those with prior convictions, poor risks. The Vera researchers combined positive points from a community ties scale with negative points from a prior criminal record scale as the central feature of their assessment tool (Eskridge, 1983).

The Vera scale was subsequently adopted with few changes by other jurisdictions. Kirby's (1977) survey of21 pretrial services programs revealed, for example, only three agencies which had sought to independently verify the scale through their own research. Kirby questioned the validity of the Vera scale. Risk assessments tended to be focused on failure to appear in court. Kirby noted that some success was achieved by predicting failure to appear, but efforts to

27

satisfactorily predict dangerousness were less successful. He argued that assessment instruments, in general, tend to over-predict failure or dangerousness; that is to say, that some candidates who would not be likely to fail are not recommended, in order to avoid recommending some who might fail or might be dangerous (pp. 122-128).

Subsequent studies examining the relationship of community ties to pretrial release outcomes have yielded mixed results. Wilson, according to Eskridge (1983), found that community ties, including the length of residence in the community, employment status, marital status, and whether home utilities were listed in the defendant's name, are important predictors of success (p. 139). However, Eskridge (1983) reported that several other studies, including his own and those by Landes, Feeley, McNaughton, Kirby, Wheeler, Landrum, Nelson, and Gottefredson, found that community ties were not reliable predictors of failure to appear (p, 140).

2.5 Pretrial Outcomes Studies

Other studies of pretrial outcomes have focused on criminal history. They have also focused on failure to appear (FTA) for court as scheduled and rearrest as the predominant outcome measures. Unlike community ties, the relationship between criminal history and pretrial outcomes has been consistent across studies. Eskridge reports that his studies and those by Wices found that a significant predictor of failure to appear was previous failures to appear. Their studies

28 indicate that persons with prior FT A are poor risks for pretrial release (Eskridge,

p. 141).

Maxwell and Davis (2000) in their study of the National Pretrial Survey data found that prior criminal history was a predictor of whether a judge would grant release on recognizance (ROR). Only 27% of those with previous failures to appear received ROR Maxwell (1999) found that 72% of those with no prior adult felony convictions were released, compared to 28% of those with one or more prior adult felony convictions (Maxwell, 1999, p. 131). The type of current criminal offense also played a role in pretrial release decisions, but the type of offense did not seem decisive: those accused of crimes against persons received ROR in 32% of the cases, those accused of crimes against property received ROR in 35% of the cases, those accused of drug offenses received ROR in 35% of cases, while those accused of "other" offenses received ROR in 29% of the cases

(p.495).

The researchers also found that the types of offense and prior felony convictions to be significant predictors of pretrial release. Those with offenses against person, property, and other were less likely to be ROR'd than those accused of drug offenses, and those with prior felony convictions were less likely to be ROR'd than those with none (pp. 496-497).

Prior arrest and conviction records were also found by Eskridge and Landes to be closely related to pretrial failure. However, Eskridge (1983) found that as the severity of the past record increases, the FT A risk decreases (p. 141).

29

2.6 Community Supervision of Offenders and Defendants

Most evaluative studies of community supervision interventions center on the experiences of adult probation and parole departments. It is important to distinguish certain important legal differences between those who are assigned to pretrial supervision while awaiting trial and those sentenced to various types of probation, prison, or other forms of court supervision. The most important difference is certainly a fundamental one: pretrial defendants are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Conditions may not be levied which may be presumed punitive for a crime not yet proven. Offenders on probation or parole, however, have been found guilty by the courts. Their conditions of supervised release are part of their sentence and reflect this important distinction. Therefore, there is a marked difference in the legal status. Of accused defendants and convicted offenders there are, however, important similarities which allow for a modicum of comparison. Several studies of community supervision of criminal offenders provide understanding of the complex factors influencing outcomes. The types of supervision provided to defendants on community release is one of the influential factors that has been studied by researchers.

Murray and Cox (1979), in their study of the Cook County Juvenile Justice System, found evidence that intensive community-based intervention and supervision could produce a reduction in the recidivism rate of juvenile offenders. They found that the more intensive the intervention, the less likely that the clients would be engaged in post-program criminal behavior. Clients who received only

30

minimal intervention during the program failed to do as well as clients provided harsher interventions (p. 125). Murray and Cox speculated that the "sharp shock" of intensive programs, rather than the duration or other factors, accounted for the improvement in performance (p. 22). A subsequent evaluation of the same data used by Murray and Cox (Mcl.eary, Gordon, McDowell, & Maltz, 1978) disputed their conclusions and attributed improvement to maturation effects. A similar study conducted in Provo, Utah by Empey and Erickson (Wilson, 1980, p.393), however, found that a community-based program which employed an intensive level of participation in a supervised group discussion program was followed by reductions in the arrest rate which could not be explained by maturation or social class differences.

Adult probation programs that provide reduced caseloads for probation officers so that they could devote more time to individual probationers are based on the intensive supervision concept reflected in the Murray and Cox studies. These programs include increased contact between probation officers and probationers and have an underlying assumption that these enhanced supervision programs reduce recidivism (Gendreau, 1993; Petersilia & Turner, 1993). One of the earliest studies to examine intensive supervision among adults was conducted by Austin, Krisbert and Litsky (1985) in their study of 615 parolees in Washington, DC Subjects were randomly assigned either to a supervision-only group (phone and face-to-face contacts) or an enhanced supervision group (including participation in either a vocational/employment training program or a

31 drug/alcohol counseling program). Their findings revealed that participants in the

enhanced supervision group did not have lower failure to appear (i.e., report to their parole officer) or rearrest rates. However, the failure to report rates of defendants assigned to their program was lower than failure to appear rates of defendants released on bailor other programs.

Gendreau's (1994) examination of studies of offenders sentenced to Intensive Supervision Programs (ISP) in Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, and Georgia found that these programs emphasized increased types of supervision and control and de-emphasized treatment. Gendreau found little difference in the recidivism rate between these programs and regular probation programs. He also concluded that these ISP programs were about 50% more costly than regular probation programs. Gendreau found differences in outcomes for those ISP clients who were provided social services and treatment options, as they did better than those who were only intensively supervised. There were also differences in outcomes when comparing the quality of the supervision that ISP clients received. A Massachusetts study by Byrne and Kelley (cited in Gendreau, 1994) found a relationship between the quality of an officer's supervision of probationers and recidivism. Recidivism rates were 12 to 33% lower among offenders whose officer provided "high-quality" supervision as opposed to "lower-quality" supervision (p. 5). Byrne and Kelley found that only 27% ofthe ISP offenders were being supervised at the level described in the ISP model (Gendreau, 1993).

32

A New Jersey study conducted by Gendreau and Paparozzi (1995) also. points to the positive effects of services. The recidivism rate for that ISP program, which concentrated on providing services and treatment to. offenders, reported a recidivism rate of Zl % compared to. 29% in the regular program. Their research also. found differences in outcomes according to. parole officers' approach to. their work, Officers who. had a "balanced" approach to their supervisory work had lower recidivism rates among their clients than officers who. were either "law enforcement" o.r "social work" alone in their approach (Gendreau, 1993). Andrews (1996) found that higher-risk offenders tend to. benefit more from interventions that positively reinforce behavior, with an emphasis on cognitive behavior and social learning (p. 4).

Petersilia and Turner's (1993) evaluation of fourteen ISP sites in nine states and covering more than 2,000 participants provides findings similar to. those reported by Gendreau. Intensive programs that employ intensive supervision alone have no. more positive results than more traditional programs, while supervision combined with treatment provides more positive results. The fourteen sites studied by Petersilia and Turner tested ISP programs of three kinds: prison diversion, enhanced probation, and enhanced parole. The programs were asked to. follow procedures modeled after a program in Georgia, where two. officers supervised twenty-five offenders and enforced weekly contacts, unscheduled drug testing, strict probation conditions, and community service. The programs barred persons convicted of homicide, robbery, or sex crimes (p. 292). In practice, no. two

33

programs were identical. Only two of the programs, Santa Fe and Winchester, focused more on treatment participation (p. 293).

Taken together, there was little difference between the rearrest rates of those participating in ISP programs than those participating in regular probation. At no site did ISP result in fewer arrests than among regular probationers. Excluding technical violations, about 37% ofISP participants were rearrested within one year, compared to 33% of regular probationers who were rearrested within the same period. If technical violations were used as a recidivism measure, an average of 65% of ISP participants logged technical violations, compared to 38% of the control group (p. 311). Petersilia and Turner warn that the increased technical violations may be a program effect: that offenders on ISP may be committing fewer crimes than comparable offenders, but that heightened surveillance and control may increase the probability of detection (p. 31lff).

When conviction rates for arrests were included as a recidivism measure, there were no differences between experimental and control groups. Twenty-one percent of each group were convicted for crimes committed within one year of their assignment (p. 312, 313). Participation in drug treatment, however, was found to be helpful in reducing recidivism. A supplementary analysis of the Texas and California sites (with the greatest number of participants) indicated a relationship between treatment participation and recidivism. Higher levels of treatment program participation were associated with a 10 to 20% reduction in recidivism (p. 315). The authors caution about a selection error--that the more

34

promising probationers might be more wining to participate effectively in treatment (p. 321). The authors note that one-third of all new arrests by ISP participants were drug-related, that about one-half of all ISP participants were judged "drug-dependent" by their officers, and that, consequently, a higher proportion of offenders receiving treatment might have improved the results (p.

321).

Petersilia and Turner (1993) also question the efficacy of technical violations in ISP programs. They cite evidence from a Washington state study which indicated that technical violations are often a "proxy" for criminal behavior, and they conclude that decreasing the number of conditions imposed is likely to lower revocation rates somewhat (p. 323).

2.7 Results of Pretrial Services Programs

Early studies of pretrial programs focused on the extent to which outcomes for the participants in pretrial programs differed from those released on cash bonds. Eskridge (1983) cites a 1973 study of 16 pretrial service programs across the country. Of these, ten had failures-to-appear rates that were lower than cash-bond releasees, five had rates that were higher, and one found the rates to be the same (p. 98). The same study also compared six programs' experience with rearrest rates. Four found that fewer pretrial clients were rearrested for new offenses than cash-bond clients, while the rates of the remaining two programs were the same (p. 100). An explanation for these variations was not given.

35

Studies have also shown that pretrial services programs are somewhat effective in reducing the bond forfeiture rate and reducing the number of defendants rearrested for a new offense while out on bail (Austin, Krisbert, & Litsky,1985). Goodman (n.d.) found that implementation of a pretrial services program in Hennepin County, MN, reduced failure rates by as much as 25%. Cooprider (1992) in his study of Lake County, IL, a suburban county adjoining Chicago's Cook County, found that 85% of defendants receiving pretrial services terminated the program successfully.

2.8 Pretrial Supervision and Monitoring

The second group of studies focused primarily on the impact of drug treatment and monitoring on pretrial outcomes. Given the high incidence of substance use among criminal defendants, drug testing and monitoring is often a factor in the pretrial release program. National Pretrial Standards (Beaudin, 1978) require referral to alcohol and drug treatment to pretrial defendants to ensure their ability to comply with the court's directives. Furthermore, the standards state that it is appropriate to monitor defendants' compliance with conditions requiring that they refrain from drugs while on release (p. 61). It was hoped that drug monitoring would serve as a deterrent to drug use while pretrial defendants were in the community.

Research results are mixed when the impact of drug monitoring on pretrial outcomes is considered. The use of drug monitoring as a type of supervision was

36 found by Visher (1992) and by Belenko (1992) to improve defendants' ability to

avoid rearrest or revocation of bond. Wish and Gropper (1990) indicate that drug monitoring as a condition of supervision for those on pretrial release did result in an improvement in failure to appear rates in the Washington, DC study (p. 357).

On the other hand, Britt, Gottefredson, and Goldkamp (1992) report that drug monitoring did not achieve significant results in subsequent monitoring of defendants. They studied two groups of pretrial defendants in Tucson, Pima County, AZ (360 subjects) and Phoenix, Maricopa County, AZ (425 subjects). They found that monitoring drug use had neither a substantively significant nor a statistically significant effect in reducing the level of pretrial misconduct. Similar results were obtained by Goldkamp and Jones (1992), who conducted studies in Prince Georges' County, MD, a suburb of Washington, DC, and in Milwaukee, WI. The Prince Georges' results (298 subjects) found that the subjects who were under drug monitoring performed worse than a control group when it came to failure to appear in court, with 55% receiving warrants for failure to appear, compared to 19% for the control group. The treatment group performed somewhat better when it came to rearrests. Ten percent of the treatment group were rearrested during the program, compared to 15% for the control group. The authors concluded that the high failure-to-appear rate is based on the higher number of failure-to-appear "opportunities" afforded the participants: if they failed to appear for a drug test this was reported to the courts, who scheduled a show cause hearing. Many defendants apparently failed to appear for these as well

37 as for their tests. The authors say that by eliminating these instances, a failure-to-

appear rate of 27% is achieved-still higher than that of the control group.

The Milwaukee sample (336) subjects fared no better. Fifty-three percent of the participants recorded at least five violations, a result that was statistically different from the control group. The authors concluded that "results of the study clearly show that drug testing itself had little deterrent effect on program noncompliance and suggests that the role of drug monitoring might be relatively insignificant (p. 459, 460)."

Petersilia (1993) offers a further explanation for the relative ineffectiveness of drug monitoring in assuring positive pretrial outcomes. Petersilia argues that "putting drug-dependent offenders in a program that forbids drug use, provides frequent drug testing, and provides no assured access to drug treatment virtually guarantees high violation rates (p. 320)."

The literature on drug monitoring of pretrial defendants before their bond hearing seems to indicate that such testing is not particularly useful in predicting pretrial failure. The literature on continuing drug monitoring during the period of pretrial post release supervision is mixed, while the literature on provision of effective drug treatment indicates that positive outcomes can be achieved.

2.9 The Pretrial Experience

The third group of studies, while similar to those of probation and parole, focused more broadly on the relationship between pretrial supervision and

38

outcome, with outcome defined as whether the defendant appears in court as scheduled or is rearrested for a new offense while on pretrial release.

2.9.1 Washington. DC

One of the first evaluation reports on pretrial supervision was conducted by the DC Bail Agency (1978). The agency used an experimental research design to test the impact of different forms of supervision. About 300 defendants charged with committing a crime and awaiting trial were released on their own recognizance and were randomly assigned to three discrete types or types of supervision: passive, moderate and intensive.

The three types of supervision were:

1) Passive supervision was based upon defendant-initiated contact. This means that it was the defendant's responsibility to make contact with the agency: to report in at specified intervals. 2) Moderate supervision provided that defendants were contacted by the agency every two weeks by telephone (or by letter if the defendant had no phone). The purpose of these contacts was to remind the defendants of future court dates, to warn them of their responsibilities pertaining to conditions of bond set by the court, and to determine whether there were any problems that might affect their pretrial performance. 3) Defendants assigned to intensive supervision. This group received the same supervision as the first two groups, but were also visited in person at their residences or places of employment on a monthly basis.

39

Outcome measurements were based upon failure to appear for court appearances (FTA), rearrest, and compliance with court-mandated conditions.

Failure to Appear (FTA): comparisons ofFTAs among the three groups showed variations according to the level of supervision received. As supervision was intensified, the rate of failure to appear decreased. Group members receiving the highest level of supervision had the lowest failure rate. Group members receiving the lowest level of supervision had the highest failure rate.

Rearrest: It was found that types of supervision had no effect on reducing the number of rearrests during the pretrial period.

Compliance with conditions: persons provided with higher types of supervision complied more often with conditions of release than those receiving the lowest level of supervision. No violations were discovered for the highest-level group. In contrast, the compliance rate for the group receiving the lowest level of supervision was 52%. Persons receiving moderate supervision had a compliance rate of 62% (pp. 13-20).

The agency summarized its findings thus:

* Increased levels of supervision improved the appearance rates of defendants in court.

*Increased levels of supervision reduced the overall number of missed court appearances.

"Increased levels of supervision improved compliance with other court -mandated conditions.

40

"Types of supervision had no effect on the level of rearrest during the pretrial period (p. 19).

2.9.2 Lake County, IL

In a more recent study, Cooprider (1992) conducted a study of the relationship of conditions of pretrial release to outcomes in Lake County, IL. In Lake County, a suburban county adjacent to Chicago, defendants released to pretrial services were subject to a number of conditions of release including phone contacts, home visits, curfew checks, random drug testing, and substance abuse treatment. Another more restrictive condition was that of 24-hour home confinement monitored by electronic monitoring devices, the ultimate and highest level of pretrial supervision.

Cooprider sought to describe patterns of success and failure based on 1) the type of supervision, 2) felony seriousness, and 3) type of offense. Of the total number of defendants released to pretrial services between 1986 and 1990,35% were electronically monitored. Cooprider saw a direct correlation between the class of felony and the use of electronic monitoring. The more serious the felony charge, the more likely that electronic monitoring was used. The less serious the charge, the less likely that electronic monitoring was used. However, Cooprider noted a moderation in the use of electronic monitoring over the five-year period, with smaller proportions of persons charged with serious felonies assigned to electronic monitoring. It is speculated that an "equipment ceiling" may have contributed to this redistribution in that there were a limited number of monitoring

41

devices and judges eventually found a need to scale back on assignment of this condition.

Of the total number of defendants supervised by pretrial services in Lake County, 1986-1990,85% completed their supervision successfully, without being rearrested or failing to appear for court, whereas 15% violated their conditions of bond by either failing to appear for a scheduled court date, getting arrested on a new charge, or a technical violation, such as leaving home without permission. Only 3% of the 15% who violated committed a new offense for which they were rearrested. The remainders were divided evenly between FT As and technical violations, such as failure to make an appointment with the supervising officer, or not being at home when a monitoring check was made.

In his study, Cooprider made two main divisions in types of supervision: those assigned to Electronic Monitoring (EMS), and all others. As noted above, the others were subject to a wide range of conditions. But for the purposes of this Study, Cooprider only evaluated the performance of EMS defendants vs. non-EMS defendants. It was found that EMS defendants had a higher overall violation rate than non-EMS defendants: 19% versus 14%, respectively. Cooprider notes that EMS defendants had a much higher technical violation rate (14%) while non-EMS defendants had only a 3% technical violation rate.

The rate of technical violations of EMS defendants is attributed to the fact that EMS defendants are more likely to "get caught" during an unauthorized absence from their homes than a non-EMS defendant. The use of the EMS

42 equipment increases the detectability of a violation. There is another opportunity

for technical violation with EMS equipment, for example, tampering with the electronic monitoring equipment-a sure way of returning to jail. This is obviously a function of "being on" the electronic monitoring device. A non-EMS defendant cannot be violated for such an infraction. In addition, EMS defendants tend to be defendants charged with more serious crimes or be deemed high-risk defendants. By definition, they would be more likely to engage in misconduct than a non-EMS defendant.

While EMS clients had a higher violation rate than non-EMS clients, their performance in all other respects was superior to non-EMS clients. EMS clients were found much less likely to fail to appear for their court dates. EMS defendants had a 2% FTA rate compared to 7% for non-EMS defendants. However, rearrest rates for the two groups were roughly identical.

Cooprider notes that 80% of Pretrial's successfully terminated cases received a sentence of probation, and another 20% of the cases were either dismissed or ended in acquittal. He concludes that these outcomes demonstrate the relevance of favoring a presumption of release on personal recognizance. Those who did not successfully terminate, received jail sentences.

However, he concludes that the use of the more restrictive condition of supervision, EMS, results in a higher violation rate--particularly a higher technical violation rate. He suggests that the data illustrate the need to develop supervision strategies which are more variable, and suggests that the spirit of the law which

43

stipulates the use of the least restrictive conditions of bond may suffer some damage by over-use of electronic monitoring devices. The Cooprider study does not consider the relationship of conditions other than EMS to pretrial outcomes, but it does suggest, as did the DC Bail Agency study, that levels and types of supervision playa role in outcomes.

2.10 Bond Revocation

Although bond revocation and the return to jail is the ultimate form of failure in the pretrial process, it is rarely studied. Attention is directed more toward defendant-specific behavior such as not appearing in court, rather than judicial decision-making, as would be noted by bond revocation. Judicial decision-making is a critical factor, nevertheless, in both the decision to release the defendant and the decision to revoke bond.

Statutes governing bond or bail revocation grant considerable discretion to the judge: "Bond revocation is an exercise of the court's inherent authority to enforce its orders" and a specific statute granting the court authority to grant bail is not necessary, although the court must provide a statement of reasons for bond revocation (IlL People v. Bruce, 1975). Generally speaking, the breach ofa condition of release provides an adequate basis to revoke the release, but this power should be exercised with circumspection and may not be exercised arbitrarily or for improper reasons (Bail and Recognizance: section 103, section

81).

44

Greenberg and Ruback (1982) viewed judicial decision-making as a two-

way process in which the decision maker forms impressions of the other person and then evaluates the costs and benefits of various responses. They found that judges' assessments of defendants' criminality could be influenced by the nature of the offense and the defendant's demeanor, and that the interaction between judges, defendants, prosecutors, and defense attorneys could playa role in judicial outcomes. Dharmapala and Schwartz (2000) have postulated that the individual philosophies of judges and their conceptions of their roles is a major factor in their decision-making. Glaser (1968) indicates that defendants with poor courtroom demeanor were more likely to influence judges in a negative way.

2.11 Race and Pretrial Decisions

That judicial discretion can and does playa considerable role in the outcomes of criminal cases, and that judicial discretion can possibly be informed by prejudice, may be inferred from the evolution and development of judicial guidelines for sentencing. Concerns that African-Americans and other minorities received harsher sentences than whites prompted the development of sentencing guidelines which sought to eliminate possible racial prejudices in the sentencing process (Tata, Wilson, et al.,1996; Tonry,1995; Basermore & Feder, 1997; Currie, 1998; Hacker, 1992; Jencks, 1992).

There is ample evidence of racial disparities in all phases of criminal justice processing. For example, African-Americans constitute only 12.1% of the

45

population but account for 28.9% of arrests (Free, 1996, p. 8). There are further disparities: African-Americans account for 62% of an arrests for robbery, 55% of an arrests for murder, 44% of an arrests for rape, 33% of all arrests for aggravated assault and motor vehicle theft, and 31 % for burglary and theft ( La Free, 1995, p.185). See also Mauer (1990) and Mann (1993). One in three African-American males are under correctional supervision (Mauer, 1999), and African-Americans today make up more than 50% of the state and federal prison populations (Bede & Gilliard, 1998).

Miller (1996) contends that African-Americans tend to be involved in the criminal justice system at a much higher proportion than their share of the population-he argues that the drug war has exacerbated an already endemic racial bias throughout the system. Mauer's (1990) report for the Sentencing Project indicated that, on an average day, one in four African-American males aged 20-27 was in jail, in prison, on probation/parole, out on bond, or being sought on an arrest warrant. Tonry (1995) has also called attention to the rising racial disparity in the criminal justice system. Since 1980, he notes, the number of AfricanAmericans in prison has tripled. Incarceration rates for African-Americans were nearly seven times higher than for whites in 1991 (p. 4). A study by Blumstein and Graddy (1982) cited in Free (1996, p.S) found that African-Americans living in large cities (populations in excess of250,000) have a 51% chance of being arrested during their lifetimes (the lifetime rate of arrest for whites is 14%).

46

The extent to which these disparities reflect bias within the criminal justice system is a question that absorbs the attention of researchers, and the findings of researchers remain at variance. Much of the debate centers on questions of methodology and research techniques, as well as attempts at explanatory theories. Suffice it to say that at each discrete stage of processing within the criminal justice system, there is an element of human decision-making. Where there is human decision-making, there is an opportunity for bias to skew the process.

The few studies that have been conducted of judicial decision-making in pretrial decisions point to racial bias and prejudice. A study by Lynch and Patterson (1991) of 335 non-narcotics felony arrests in a county in North Florida found evidence of bias in the bail process. This Florida court operated under bail guidelines which set a schedule for bail. The use of defined bail schedules (as in defined sentencing guidelines) is thought to reduce the influence of bias. The bail guidelines took into account the seriousness of the offense (first, second, or third degree felony; property or non-property; and whether a weapon was used); offender characteristics such as race, gender, and socio-economic status, and perceived dangerousness: the legal status of the defendant at the time of arrest, use of alcohol at the time of the offense, residence status, and number of prior arrests (pp. 42-46). A bivariate comparison found that whites are more likely to receive bail amounts that are below the scheduled guidelines than nonwhites. Nonwhites are more likely to be given bail within the guideline schedule, but less likely to be

47

given a bail lower than that specified in the schedule. Additionally, several variables were found to have no effect on bail schedule compliance by the judges: status of defendant at time of arrest, weapon use, property or personal crime, or the socioeconomic status of the defendant (p. 46). A legit estimation was also employed. This procedure found that nonwhites were significantly less likely than white suspects to be given below guideline amounts. However, nonwhite suspects were no more likely than white suspects to be given bail amounts that exceed the schedule limits (p. 49). The researchers concluded that extra-legal factors still have a "systemic influence on decision-making in the bail process," and that bail guidelines have "little impact upon the generation of uniform, non-discriminatory outcomes (Le., outcomes that are explicable solely by reference to legal criteria)." This study revealed that nonwhites are significantly less likely than whites to receive low bail. While nonwhites are not noticeably subjected to attempts to set bail above guideline limits, they are less likely to receive the "benefit of the doubt" afforded to many white suspects ( pp. 49-51). This evidence of early-stage discrimination, while limited in scope, indicates that the possibility of racial bias in the bail process can possibly account for some of the racial disparities observed in the criminal justice process.

A study by LaFree in 1985 in El Paso, Texas, found that Latino defendants "received less favorable pretrial outcomes than white defendants, were more likely to be convicted in jury trials, and received more severe sentences when found guilty by trial (cited in Farnworth, et al., 1980, p. 58)."

48

Farnworth, et al. (1980) in a study of court processing in Northern California found evidence of bias against African-American and Latino defendants, and that white defendants received privileged outcomes. Their study involved 767 convicted male defendants with prior criminal records. Among this group, they found that charge reductions were most prevalent for whites (31.5%) compared to 26% for African-Americans. Charge reductions were least likely for Latinos (19%). This pattern held for sentencing to probation as wen. Twelve percent of whites received probation compared to 9% of African-Americans and 2% of Latinos. In addition, minority males with prior criminal records were more likely to be incarcerated at the time of sentencing than whites (86%) (Pp.60-68).

A study by Maxwell and Davis (2000), based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) National Pretrial Reporting Program (NPRP) (U.S. Department of Justice, 1992) for 1992, found disparities in a nation-wide study of pretrial release decisions. They examined those who were released on recognizance (ROR) without any bailor surety and those who were required to post bond or surety (non-ROR) or not given any pretrial release options.

The researchers found that ROR was given to only a third (34%) of defendants, and most (66%) were not given bail (non-ROR). They found, in a bivariate study, little difference by race: 33% of African-Americans, 31 % of Latinos and 35% of whites received ROR. The researchers found a significant gender disparity: 43% of females received ROR, compared to 32% of males. The most striking disparities, however, were not by race or gender, but by region: 49% of all

49

defendants in the North got ROR, while 18% in the South, 26% in the East and 23% in the West got ROR (p. 496).

Maxwell and Davis (1999) proceeded with a multivariate analysis of the data, using a Logistic Regression model. In this procedure they found that men were less likely to be ROR'd than women-about 40% less likely, with an odds ratio of .59. White and Latino defendants were significantly more likely to be ROR'd than African-American defendants, with an odds ratio of 1.25 each (p. 497).

When the interaction between race and region was considered, Maxwell found that white offenders in the South were less likely to receive ROR than African-Americans. African-Americans in the North and East were more likely to receive ROR than African-Americans in the South. African-Americans were less likely to receive ROR in the West than in any other region (p. 497-499).

2.12 Demographic Bias in Bond Decisions

Researchers have sought to track variables such as race, gender, and age and their relationship to bond decisions by judges. While African-Americans are over-represented in the criminal justice system, women are under-represented-yet both occupy subordinate social and economic positions in American life (Goldkamp, Gottefredson, & Mitchell-Hertzfeld, 1981; Goldkamp, 1985; Daly

& Tonry, 1997). Daly (1994) argues that a sort of paternalism toward women exists in the courts=a notion that women are more reformable and less responsible

50

for their own actions than men (p. 271). Daly (1994) Krutschnitt (1984) suggest that it is believed that women have internalized a greater degree of social control, as women, mothers, and members of a family group than men, and therefore receive more lenient treatment, particularly in pretrial release decisions (pp. 23-

232).

Petersilia and Turner (1987) found that age (age at first offense or current age) was included as a factor in sentencing guidelines in many of the instruments developed by 32 jurisdictions (p. 158). The Philadelphia study indicated that 23% (1,099 of 4,799) were aged 20 years and under (Goldkamp, Gottefredson & Mitchell-Hertzfeld, 1981). Recently, Maxwell (1999, 2000) has studied race and gender in two articles using the National Pretrial Survey of 1992. From a social work perspective, these accounts indicate a need to consider the possible impact of disparities related to race, gender, and age in the population under study and to determine their effects. From the perspective of this study, it is important to determine if these demographic differences are related to outcomes in the pretrial process.

2.13 Summary of Literature Review

Pretrial populations have not been the subject of considerable study. Prior

studies have produced diverse and sometimes conflicting results. The earliest studies in Washington, DC, indicated that types of supervision were associated with success or failure. A survey of 16 pretrial programs in 1973 found that ten produced lower failure rates than conventional programs, while five produced

51 higher failure rates. One program produced no difference at all. Goodman (n.d.),

in an evaluation of the pretrial services program in Hennepin County, Minnesota, found that the program reduced failure rates by as much as 25%. The use of drug monitoring as a type of supervision, however, was found to be beneficial by

Visher (1992) and Belenko (1992) in improving defendants' ability to avoid re-

arrest or revocation of bond.

Prior research indicated that there is a relationship between bond conditions and defendant outcomes. Programs which include referrals to treatment reduce failure rates over programs which are based upon increased surveillance and control. In this regard, the contrasts between pretrial forms of supervision and those of probation and parole are not very great. The results of both types of research suggest that increased surveillance inexorably results in increased detection of violations. There is little relationship in outcomes between those receiving enhanced supervision and those receiving traditional levels of supervision. However, some studies have indicated that programs which actually provide drug treatment do achieve a more modest degree of success in the reduction of the recidivism rate than those that do not provide treatment.

Studies have consistently shown that prior criminal behavior is related to a defendant's pretrial release behavior, while studies of defendants' community ties show mixed results. The pretrial release studies to date, while informative, have been, in some respects, narrowly focused. Measures of pretrial outcomes have

52

focused on defendants' behavior and characteristics to the exclusion of the bond revocation decision. Yet judicial decision-making in bond decisions is marked by considerable latitude. There is evidence of discrimination and bias in criminal justice decisions, and a pressing need to determine if these types of disparities affect outcomes for pretrial release as well.

This study, informed by the social work perspective on the person-inenvironment, assumes that criminal justice outcomes are a function of both the defendant's and the criminal justice system's (including those in charge) actions, and that informed interventions (e.g., drug monitoring and supervision) can and do alter behavior and outcomes. This study builds on the prior work on pretrial release and community supervision of criminal offenders to obtain a broader understanding of the influential factors in pretrial outcomes. This study describes the pretrial outcomes among a national, rather than a limited local, sample and examines factors in the defendant's background and pretrial environment that are related to pretrial outcomes. Both the behavior of defendants and the judges' decisions are the focus of this study.

2.14 Conceptual Framework

A review of the literature on pretrial release did not yield a coherent theory to explain pretrial outcomes. Theoretical discussions of the pretrial experience are rare and research has usually been conducted without an explicit theoretical framework. There are conceptual frameworks, however, that provide useful perspectives for examining the diverse sets of variables that researchers and

53 practitioners have considered important in pretrial decision making. The PersonIn-Environment (PIE) perspective, which takes into consideration the individual as well as his or her behavior, is particularly relevant in this regard and therefore serves as a primary conceptual framework for this study. Since pretrial outcomes are not only a function of individual defendant's behaviors, but also of the judge's actions, Social Control Theory adds to a greater understanding of the system's response to the individual defendant's behaviors.

The PIE perspective provides a structure for the analysis of human behavior and interaction and for the organizing of beliefs and information, into a coherent pattern. Furthermore, it helps to develop a framework for action and decision-making. The PIE perspective recognizes that the individual exists in a multitude of contextual factors=historical, economic, social, biological, and physical-sand that these factors are in a process of development, change, and reciprocal interchange. Furthermore, the PIE perspective suggests that actions and behaviors of social systems and individuals also exist in a social and historical context.

The PIE perspective, as outlined by Germain and Gitterman (1996), focuses on the natural and social environment and on the history of the interaction between individuals and their social and natural environments. PIE posits that an individual's behavior and social consciousness is formed by the transactions between the individual and society. The individual cannot be understood except as a unitary whole within his/her social environment. The capacities of the

54

individual for action are defined within the context of this social and historical relationship and are influenced by the resources and social supports that are available. Society and social institutions are likewise shaped by their interactions with individuals and groups. Moreover, individual qualities or properties have different meanings in a social context: "innate" individual qualities such as race, gender, and age are social constructs as well. Social institutions may therefore define individuals in different ways according to the norms of society and devalue individuals or elevate individuals based primarily on those characteristics. The PIE perspective recognizes the influence of these multiple variables in determining individual and system outcomes.

An additional perspective which assists in understanding criminal justice outcomes is Social Control Theory. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1991) conceptualize social control as an institutional formation which exercises force and authority and argue that when an individual's self-control breaks down, it can lead to antisocial behavior which must be controlled, modulated, or regulated by an outside entity-in this case, the criminal justice system. Gitterman (1991) also notes the coercive power of social systems or institutions and how it is used to direct an individual to adhere to social norms.

Social Control Theory (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Walters, 1990) focuses on processes which regulate and limit human behaviors in ways that conform to acceptable social norms. Social control theory posits that individuals learn how to behave in society from their families, friends, and peers. Institutions

55

such as church and school also playa part in shaping the norms of human behavior. Most individuals form bonds with family and institutions and learn to internalize appropriate behavioral norms.

However, some individuals do not learn or internalize these norms. For such persons, norms of behavior must come from social institutions. Social control is a form of force which is exercised on persons who do not adhere to societal norms. Social institutions exercise this control by punishment-for example, deprivation of liberty or deferral of rewards. Social institutions also employ the threat of punishment as a means of influencing behavior, sometimes in conjunction with forms of support, in order to achieve conformity with societal norms.

The PIE perspective suggests that the demographics of criminal justice defendants are relevant factors to examine in studying pretrial outcomes. Race, gender, and age are both individual properties and social constructs. They shape defendants' access to resources and capacity to act. There is also a body of research that indicates that group identities and characteristics also often enter into rational decision-making generally, and in criminal justice decisions specifically: first in terms of the behaviors of the individual defendants, and secondly in terms of the decisions of the judges-who are agents of social control.

Similarly, the PIE suggests that pretrial outcomes are not just a function of current events but also of the defendant's history of involvement with the criminal justice system. That history is an important factor in determining how an individual handles pretrial release and how he or she is viewed and treated. The

56

history of a person's interaction with a system can and does influence future transactions. It would be expected that more extensive criminal histories would be associated with more negative outcomes in most aspects of criminal justice processing.

Though studies of pretrial outcomes have focused almost exclusively on defendants' behaviors, PIE suggests that since judges are the ultimate decisionmakers, their actions are equally important. In this case, judges are responsible for deciding who is released, the conditions of release, and who remains at liberty while awaiting trial. They must identify those defendants who are in need of external social control and they must also identify what degree of social control is warranted, and if additional social supports are needed. Judges exercise social control at two points in the pretrial process. The first is when a decision is made to release a defendant pending trial. The second is when a decision is made to revoke a defendant's release. Judges make control decisions based on their perceptions of different groups and history of criminal conduct. They are concerned about public safety and the prevention of crime and they use their knowledge and perception of racial groups, their knowledge of the current offense, and the individual's criminal history in making decisions. The more negatively an individual or group is perceived, the more likely they will receive harsher treatment.

We can visualize this conceptual framework as shown in Figure 1.

Race Gender Age

Criminal History Current Charge

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Failure to Appear Re-arrest

Bond Revocation

57

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Methods and Procedures

This chapter discuses the methods and procedures of the present study. For

the purpose of presentation, the chapter has been divided into sections:

1. Description of the research question;

2. The study design;

3. Conceptual definitions and operational measures of variables.

3.2 The Research Question

This study examines the influence of social and demographic characteristics and criminal histories of defendants upon the pretrial outcomes. As judicial decision-making is a key factor in pretrial processing, attention is also focused on this aspect. Some of the independent variables believed to affect pretrial outcomes include past criminal history, social demographics, and conditions of release or bond conditions. (Bond conditions, for purposes of this paper, will refer to those properties of release associated with bond.)

3.2.1 Research Qu.estion 1

The first research question examines the extent to which race, age, and gender and criminal histories are related to bond conditions. Two sub-questions are posed: Do defendants with more extensive criminal histories receive more intensive bond conditions? Do pretrial release conditions vary by race, age, and gender?

58

59

3.2.2 Research Question 2

The second question examines the nature of the relationship between bond conditions and pretrial outcomes. The key question raised is: do more intensive bond conditions produce more positive pretrial outcomes? Sub-questions examine the impact of the type of bond and type of supervision on pretrial outcomes.

3.2.3 Research Question 3

The third research question examines the role of prior criminal history, bond conditions, race, gender, and age on pretrial outcomes. Does a more extensive criminal history playa role in predicting pretrial failure?

3.3 Study Design

This study used data collected by the National Pretrial Resource Center and made available by the Inter-University Consortium on Political and Social Research (1995). The data were collected as part of the National Pretrial Reporting Program (NPRP), a national research effort by the National Pretrial Resource Center in Washington, DC, under a grant funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The program longitudinally tracks a sample of adult felony cases in the. nation's 75 most populous counties from the point charges are filed by the prosecutor to the sentencing of convicted defendants by the court. The data were collected in 1992, but this specific collection did not continue in the ensuing years.

60

The 75 largest counties are placed into four strata based on their ranking

in court-related activity. The counties with the largest felony caseloads are placed in the first stratum and are automatically included in the survey. All other counties are randomly selected from the other three remaining strata.

Each site that is selected is asked to provide cases filed on a specified number of randomly selected days during the designated month. Jurisdictions in the first strata provide five days' worth of filings. The cases in the present study were selected during the month of May 1992.

A total of 13,206 cases were included in this survey. Investigators involved in the NPRP indicate that data collection in the various sites is performed by local agencies and personnel. This may vary from site to site. Each case is updated as events occur until it reaches its final disposition, which may be at either the adjudication or sentencing stages. The updating continues for one year.

3.4 NPRP Data Elements

The NPRP data are rather extensive. They include the defendant's two most serious arrest charges as well as defendant's sex, race, and age. It includes defendant's prior involvement with the criminal justice system, including criminal justice status at the time of the current offense, number of prior arrests and convictions at both the misdemeanor and felony levels, and court appearance

61

record during prior cases. The data collects information on bail amounts, whether the defendant was released prior to case disposition, the method of pretrial release used, and the conditions of release (if any).

Data regarding the conduct of defendants while in pretrial release status is also collected. This includes the defendant's court appearance record. (NPRP defines a failure to appear in court as occurring when a bench warrant is issued because a defendant missed a scheduled court appearance.) The NPRP also collects information on pretrial rearrests, indicating whether the rearrest was for a felony or a misdemeanor. The NPRP data also indicate if the defendant's pretrial release status was revoked by the courts for any reason (including a failure to appear or rearrest). The NPRP study did not collect data on defendant's community ties, income, or history of drug and alcohol use. As the literature review shows, these factors are important factors in understanding pretrial success and failure.

This study focused specifically on data which measured judges' decisions regarding bond conditions and bond revocation, defendants' rearrest and court appearance records, defendants' demographic characteristics, and their criminal histories.

62

3.5 Conceptual Definitions and Operational Measures of Variables

3.5.1 Pretrial Outcomes

Pretrial outcome refers to whether an individual successfully complies with his/her conditions of release and remains at liberty while awaiting trial. Three measures of outcome used are bond revocation, failure to appear in court, and rearrest.

Bond revocation is the ultimate measure of failure. It is a judicial decision and a form of social control which results in the defendant being taken into custody. Bond revocation is operationalized as the response to the question "Was the Defendant's Release Revoked?" A "yes" answer denotes pretrial failure. "No" denotes pretrial success.

Rearrest occurs when a defendant is arrested for a new offense unrelated to the first charge, while on pretrial release. Rearrest is measured using the response to the question, "Was the Defendant Rearrested?" The possible responses are "yes," denoting pretrial failure, and "no," denoting pretrial success.

Failure to Appear (FTA) for court is a violation of bond. This procedural violation is precipitated when the defendant fails to appear for a scheduled court date. This variable is operationalized by the response to the question "Did the defendant make all court appearances?" A "no" answer indicates pretrial failure, while "yes" denotes pretrial success.

63

Both FT A and rearrest are usually used in pretrial studies as reliable and valid indicators of pretrial outcomes. This study also uses them as intervening variables to examine bond revocation.

3.5.2 Criminal History

Criminal history is the history of an individual's involvement with the criminal justice system. This includes items such as past convictions, type of crime committed, past bond forfeitures, and past failures to appear for court. These variables are typically used in studies to depict criminal history and have high face validity. For purposes of this study, three indicators of criminal history are used. These include prior failures to appear for court, the total number of prior adult felony convictions, and the nature of the most serious current charge.

The response to the questionnaire "Most Serious Current Charge," is used here. The NPRS data has broken these down into 15 categories (Receded Most Serious Charge). The 15 charges (Murder, Rape, Robbery, Assault, Burglary, Motor vehicle theft, Drug trafficking/distribution, Other drug, Other crime against person, Other property crimes, Public order, Felony traffic, Other felony, Misdemeanor and Weapons) were coded into three categories: Violent Charge (Murder, Rape, Robbery, Assault, other crime against person, Weapons) Nonviolent Charge (Burglary, Motor Vehicle Theft, Other Property Crimes, Felony Traffic, Other Felony), Drug Charge (Drug Trafficking/distribution, other Drug).

64

The response to the questionnaire "Number of Prior Adult Felony Convictions" is used. The actual number is collapsed into four categories: no prior convictions, one prior conviction, two prior convictions, and three or more prior convictions. For the logistic regression, the actual number of prior felony adult convictions is reported. The greater the number of convictions, the greater the degree of criminality is assumed. Past failure to appear is measured by the response to the questionnaire "Has the Defendant Ever Failed to Make Court Appearance?" These are coded Yes and No. In the Case of Failure to Appear, a positive response to the questionnaire assumes a person has a more extensive criminal background. In the cases of Prior Adult Felony Convictions, the higher the number of prior convictions, the greater the degree of criminality is assumed. 3.5.3 Bond Conditions

Bond conditions refer to the pretrial release conditions which judges impose on defendants. They are conceptualized here internally as the type of bond that is set and the level of supervision attached to the bond. The setting of bond is a form of social control exercised by the judge. Bonds tend to fall into two basic types: those that require a cash deposit and those which do not. Either of these types may also carry mandated conditions of supervision for release. These conditions of supervision are imposed by the judge in the hope that they will lessen the risk of future bond revocation and reincarceration. These conditions of

65

supervision may range from various types of reporting, to drug monitoring and, in some cases, engagement in treatment.

Two measures of bond conditions are used here: type of bond and type of supervision. The type of bond is determined from the response to the questionnaire "Type of Pretrial Release." Type of bond has two categories:

Financial Conditions and Release on Recognizance (ROR). Financial Conditions means that the defendant must post some sort of cash or property bond. Release on Recognizance (ROR) means that no financial conditions are imposed. Financial conditions are more demanding, more stringent for the defendant than non-financial conditions. Release on Recognizance (ROR) will be scored 0, while Financial Conditions will be scored as 1.

Types of supervision refers to conditions which the judges impose as conditions of release. These typically are no reporting, report by phone, report in person, drug testing, and other conditions such as curfew. In general, the more conditions to which the defendant must adhere, the greater the degree of social control the judge attempts to exert.

1. No Conditions. The defendant has no additional conditions of supervision beyond the universal conditions of avoiding rearrest and attending all court sessions. This is coded=O if no conditions, coded= 1 if there are conditions. 2. Call-in reporting. The defendant is required to report by phone to a pretrial officer on a periodic basis. This variable is operationalized by response to

66

the questionnaire "Pretrial Releasee to Call Pretrial Service Agency?" The answer to this question may be Yes or No. A "yes" answer indicates that the defendant is required to report by phone periodically. A yes response is coded=I. A no=O.

3. Report-in-Person. The defendant is required to report in person to a pretrial officer on a periodic basis. This variable is operationalized by response to the questionnaire "Pretrial Releasee. To Visit Pretrial Service Agency?" The answer to this question may be Yes or No. A "yes" answer means the defendant is required to report in person periodically. It is coded yes=I. No=O.

4. Assignment to Drug Monitoring/Treatment. The defendant is required, as a condition of release, to give periodic urine samples or to attend a drug treatment program. This variable is operationalized as the response to the questionnaire "Pretrial Release Drug Monitoring/Treatment?" The possible response to this question may be Yes or No. A "yes" answer means the defendant is required to give urine samples for drug testing. A no=O, and yes=I.

5. Other. This variable pertains to other types of supervision that might be assigned. These could include a variety of conditions, but often indicate a curfew. This variable is operationalized by the response to the questionnaire "Other Type of Condition Imposed?" This is coded yes=I, no=O.

Type of supervision is measured by adding the number of different conditions to which the defendant must adhere. Possible responses range from 0

67

to 5, denoting the highest level of supervision and the highest level of social control.

3.6 Demographic Variables

Three demographic variables-race, gender and age-are used. Race is operationalized by the responses to the questionnaire "Race?" in which the possible responses are White, African-American, Native American, and Asian. Race is also operationalized by the response to the questionnaire "Latino Origin?" Responses include Latino, Not Latino. These two variables are combined and re-coded to yield the variables. White Latinos and African-American Latinos are combined into the variable Latino. This recoding of these variables is consistent with that used by other criminal justice researchers (see, e.g., Maxwell, 1999), allowing comparison with other related researchers. These variables are scored:

White=I, African-American=Z, Latino=S and Other=6. Gender is operationalized by response to the questionnaire "Gender?" in which the possible responses are male= 1 and female=Z, Age is operationalized by response to the questionnaire "Age at Time of Arrest?" The actual age is given. Both actual age and five categories of age (H~-20 years old, 21-30 years old, 31-40 years old, 41-50 years old and 51-60 years old) are used.

68

This study differs from prior works in the following ways:

1. A multitude of factors relating to pretrial success and failure will be examined, as well as the interrelationship between them. We will examine social demographics, past behaviors of criminal defendants and their relationship to failure to appear, commission of new offenses, and revocation of bond.

2. The behaviors of judges as wen as defendants will be examined. Judges have considerable discretionary leeway in decisions to revoke bond. While it is the defendant's behavior, failure to appear for court, or commission of a new offense, that brings the defendant before the judge for a revocation decision, the judge's decision is made with independence and discretion. We win examine the bond revocation decision to see if, controlling for other factors, judges treat members of different racial groups differently.

3. A national database, covering many types of jurisdictions around the country, rather than that of a local area, will be studied. The use of a much larger database increases the generalizability of the study.

4. Most studies focus on the "back end" of the criminal justice process: trials, sentencing and incarceration or court supervision. Yet we know that decisions made at the "front end" of the criminal justice process can influence decisions that are reached later on in the process. If we can learn more about how the "front end" of the process works, we may discover means of achieving better outcomes at the "back end" of the process.

69

The bond revocation decision is an area that is unencumbered with strict guidelines and seems to allow for a range of judicial discretion. This study win be unique in that it will examine the behavior of judges after we have controlled for all of the other factors except race.

3.7 Study Design

This study focused specifically on data which measure judges' decisions regarding bond conditions and bond revocation, defendants' rearrest and court appearance records, and defendants' demographic characteristics and their criminal histories.

This paper studies the relationship between the dependent variable Bond Revocation and independent variables which include demographics, criminal history and the type of bond and bond conditions of supervision that are assigned to a defendant. The dependent variable, Bond Revocation, is nominal, binary and dichotomous. The independent variables are nominal, ordinal, and ratio in character. It assumed that there is correlation among these variables.

The study examines:

1. The relationship between criminal history and bond conditions;

2. The relationship between social demographics and bond conditions;

3. The relationship between bond conditions and failure to appear;

4. The relationship between bond conditions and rearrest;

70

5. The relationship between bond conditions and bond revocation;

6. The relationship between social demographics and failure to appear;

7. The relationship between social demographics and rearrest;

8. The relationship between social demographics and bond revocation;

9. The relationship between criminal history and failure to appear;

10. The relationship between criminal history and rearrest;

11. The relationship between criminal history and bond revocation;

12. The relationship between failure to appear and bond revocation;

13. The relationship between rearrest and bond revocation.

3.8 Specification of the Research Procedure

Crosstabs and logistic regression procedures were performed to determine

the bivariate and multivariate relationships among the variables.

Crosstabs were performed to determine the relationships between:

Race, gender, and age to the type of bond conditions; Race, gender, and age to Failure to Appear,

Criminal history to Failure to Appear;

Bond to Failure to Appear;

The type of bond to Rearrest;

Race, gender, and age to the Rearrest; Criminal history to Rearrest;

71

Race, gender, and age to Bond Revocation; Criminal history to Bond Revocation;

The type of bond to Bond Revocation; Failure to Appear to Bond Revocation; Rearrest to Bond Revocation.

Additionally, a multiple regression procedure is also desirable because it is hypothesized that covariance occurs and we wish to know how the variables covary and to what degree they contribute to the outcome. This allows us to look at the amount of the variable that is explained collectively and the discrete contribution of each individual variable when the other variables are held constant. In other words, to determine the relative contribution of each.

Logistic regression was selected because of the nature and level of the data in the variables, particularly the dependent variable. Logistic Regression was seen as the most appropriate method. In ordinary linear regression, the dependent variable is continuous. It utilizes a method known as Ordinary Least Squares (OLS). It is not suitable when the dependent variable is dichotomous (Agresti, 1984, 1990; Menard, 1995; Wright, 1995).

The research questions examined in this paper ask questions that can only be answered yes or no. Was bond revoked, yes or no? Did the defendant fail to appear, yes or no? Was the Defendant rearrested, yes or no? The dependant variable has only two values-it is dichotomous. Logistic Regression is specifically

72

designed for use in such situations. It uses a method known as Maximum Likelihood Estimation for dependent variables that take only two values. With logistic regression, the probability of an event occurring is estimated. This focuses on the results of the odds of an event occurring or not occurring-in this case of a bond being revoked or not revoked (Wright, 1995; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996; Aldrich and Nelson, 1984; Delvlaris, 1992).

It is necessary to employ a procedure that can explain the effects of each of these independent variables upon the dependent variable, while at the same time examining any interactions between the independent variables. It is also necessary to employ a statistical procedure that is appropriate for the levels of data that

occur in these discrete variables. Logistic Regression meets these assumptions, and it will predict the likelihood of membership in one of the independent variables resulting in a given outcome (Wright, 1995; Tabachnick & Fidell,

1996).

Thus a model can be constructed as follows:

Y=bxl+bx2+bx3+bx4 +bxl S+a+error

Where:

a 'intercept/ignore constant in equation Y 'dependent variable

xl-x15 'independent variables

73

The following procedures were performed:

One: A logistic regression was performed to determine the relationship of 13 independent variables (Race, Gender, Age, Prior Felony Conviction, Current Charge, Prior Failure to Appear, Type of Release, Drug Monitoring, Phone PTS, Visit PTS, Other Conditions, Total Conditions, and Rearrest) to the dependent variable Failure to Appear (FTA).

Two: A logistic regression was performed to determine the relationship of 11 independent variables (Race, Gender, Age, Prior Felony Conviction, Current Charge, Prior Failure to Appear, Type of Release, Drug Monitoring, Phone PTS, Visit PTS and Other Conditions, Total Conditions) to the dependent variable Rearrest.

Three: A logistic regression was performed to determine the relationship of 10 independent variables (Race, Gender, Age, Prior Felony Conviction, Current Charge, Type of Release, Drug Monitoring, Phone PTS, Visit PTS and Other Conditions, Total Conditions) to Bond Revocation.

The results of these procedures were further analyzed, evaluated and compared to determine the extent to which membership in any of the categories expressed by the independent variables may predict Bond Revocation, Failure to Appear, and Rearrest. The results of these findings are analyzed and considered in light of their application to practice in the fields of criminal justice and social work.

4. STATISTICAL PROCEDURES

4.1 The Sample

This sample is drawn from the National Pretrial Survey of 1992, which contains 13,206 cases drawn from 40 urban counties, sampled from the 75 most populous counties in the country. However, this study is concerned only with those defendants who were released following their arrest and pending trial. When only those who were released were selected from the sample, a data set of8,120 entries remained. This study is also concerned only with adult defendants. When the juvenile defendants (less than 18 years old) were omitted, a sample of 6,754 cases remained. The crosstabs procedures are performing using SPSS 11.0.

4.1.1 Demographics

The sample was predominantly male with African-Americans constituting the largest group Males account for 5,425 (82.2%) of this sample, while females account for 1,178 (17.8%). Whites number 2,008 (30.4%), African-Americans number 3,295 (49.9%), and Latinos number 1,301 (19.7%). Forty-nine percent of the males were African-American, 30% were white and 24% were Latino. Fiftyfive percent of the females were African-American, 32% were white and 13% were Latino. The numbers for Asians (66, or 1.0%) and Native Americans (18, or .3%) were negligible and were therefore not included in the remainder of the analysis.

74

75

The sample was predominantly a young group, with a median age of 20 years and a mean age of23.0 years (Standard deviation .933). Ages ranged from 18 to 59. There were 1,295 individuals between 18 and 20 (19.2%), 2,962 (43.8%) between 21 and 30, 1,808 (26.8%) between 31 and 40,571 (8.4%) between 41

and 50 years, and 122 (1.8%) between 51 and 60 years. There were no defendants older than 59 years.

Table I illustrates the gender and racial characteristics of the sample:

TABLE I

GENDER AND RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE

Male

Female

Total

White

1634 (30.1%)

374 (31.7%) 647 (54.9%) 157 (13.3%) 1178 (17.8%)

2008 (30.4%) 3294 (49.9%) 1301 (19.7%) 6603 (100%)

African-Amer. 2647 (48.8%) Latino 1144 (21.1 %)

Totals

5425 (82.2%)

76

4.1.2 Criminal History

The group comprising the sample was a predominantly low-risk group, most of whom had no prior failures-to-appear and no prior adult felony convictions; many were charged with nonviolent offenses. A large majority of the defendants, 2,371 (64.1 %), had no prior failures-to-appear for court, while a minority, 1,329 (35.9%) had failed to appear for court in prior cases. The Number of Adult Felony Convictions was recoded into four groups: a majority of the defendants, 4,390 (71 %), had no prior adult felony convictions. There were 761 (12.4%) who had one prior felony conviction, 379 (6.2%) who had two prior felony convictions, and 610 (9.9%) who had three or more felony convictions. The Most Serious Current Charge was collapsed into three categories: violent, nonviolent and drug offenses. The largest number of the defendants (43.2%) were charged with nonviolent offenses, while 23.8% were charged with violent offenses and 33.0% were charged with drug offenses.

4.1.3 Bond Conditions

The type of pretrial release was conceptualized in terms of the bond conditions which judges imposed on defendants. Although two measures of bond conditions were proposed, only one could be used. The first measure proposed examined the types of financial conditions judges imposed for release: nonfinancial and financial. The majority, 3,834 (56.7%), received non-financial releases, while 2,515 (39.6%) received financial conditions of release. A small

77

number, 193, or 2.9%, were granted emergency release. While these latter releases may be actions taken by jail officials to relieve overcrowding, the study is not explicit in this regard. These participants were excluded from this study.

The second measure of bond conditions proposed was the type of supervision judges imposed upon the defendants, that is, whether the defendants were subject to drug monitoring, report by phone, report in person, or other conditions. When frequency counts for these conditions were run, however, it was discovered that data existed for only a small number of cases, about 2%. Furthermore, even these data were incomplete, as only positive responses to the questions were recorded. There were no "no" answers recorded. The remaining data were listed as missing/unknown. Of the total number of participants, 313 were identified as having to call in to a pretrial officer as a pretrial condition, while 502 defendants were required to report to an officer in person, and 128 were identified as being mandated to drug monitoring. A determination could not be made as to whether or not there were "no" responses for other conditions, given the coding system that was used. Consequently the extent of these bond conditions among the defendants could not be determined.

4.1.4 Outcome Measures

In assessing pretrial outcomes, this study looked at whether or not defendants on pretrial release were rearrested, failed to appear in court for scheduled appearances, or had their release revoked. Most defendants had positive

78

outcomes, that is, they were successes rather than failures. The vast majority appeared for scheduled court appearances, were not rearrested for a new offense, and did not have their bonds revoked.

Some 1,720 defendants (25.5%), however, failed to appear for at least one scheduled court appearance, 769 defendants (13.1 %) were rearrested, and 729 defendants (13.8%) had their bonds revoked and were taken into custody.

4.2 Demographic Variables and Bond Conditions

The first research question concerns the relationship between the demographic variables sex, race, and age and the type of bond, financial or nonfinancial, which was meted out to the defendant. The results are displayed in Table n.

4.2.1 Sex and Bond Conditions

A relationship was found between sex and the type of bond. Judges were more likely to grant non-financial release to females than males: 63.9% of female defendants were given non-financial release, while 59.6% of males were granted non-financial release.

The males' non-financial release count was 3,115, expected count 3,154.4.

Females' non-financial release: count 717, expected count 677.6. (pearson chisquare Value 7.019, Idf, Asymp. Sig., [2-sided] .008.)

79

4.2.2 Race and Bond Conditions

A relationship was found between race and the type of bond. Judges gave 65.5% of Latino defendants non-financial release, 61.0% African-American defendants were granted non-financial conditions of release, while 56.4% of white defendants were granted non-financial release. Latinos fared better than AfricanAmericans, who fared better than whites.

The white non-financial release count was 1,065, expected count 1,141.7.

African-American non-financial release: count 1,869, expected count 1,854.4. Latino non-financial release: count 819, expected count 756.9. (pearson chisquare Value 26.236, 2 df, Asymp. Sig, [2-sided] .000.)

4.2.3 Age and Bond Conditions

Although a slightly higher percentage of defendants over the age of 50 and under the age of21 received non-financial release, differences between age groups were not statistically significant. Age and type of bond were not related, with none of the various age groups differing greatly from the average.

A total of3,824 defendants (60.4%) were awarded non-financial conditions of release, including 62.4% of those 18-20,59.6% of those 21-30, 59.7% of those 31-40,61.0% of those 41-50, and 64.7% of those 51-60. None of the groups differed greatly from the average. (Pearson chi-square Value 4.122, 4 df, Asymp. Sig . .390.)

80

TABLE II DEMOGRAPHICS AND TYPE OF BOND

Variable

Non-Financial

Financial

GENDERa
Male 3115 (59.6%) 2108 (40.4%)
Female 717 (63.9%) 405 (36.1%)
RACEb
White 1065 (56.4%) 822 (43.6%)
African-American 1869 (61.0%) 1196 (39.0%)
Latino 819 (65.5%) 432 (34.5%)
AGE
18-20 years 771 (62.4%) 465 (37.6%)
21-30 1663 (59.6%) 1128 (40.4%)
31-40 997 (59.7%) 672 (40.3%)
41-50 326 (61.0%) 208 (39.0%)
51-60 77 (64.7%) 42 (35.3%) a significant at the 0.01 level b significant at the .001 level

81

4.3 Relationship of Criminal History to Bond Conditions

A sub-question examined the relationship between criminal history and the type of release imposed by the judge. The relationship between criminal history, as measured by prior failures to appear, the number of adult felony convictions, and the nature of the current charge and type of bond is displayed in Table III. As can be seen from viewing Table III, judges gave non-financial release to the majority of defendants in all categories of criminal history. The impact of criminal history on the release decision among the various measures gave mixed results. 4.3.1 Prior Failure to Appear and Type of Bond

There was no appreciable difference in prior failure to appear and type of bond: 754 defendants (63.3%) who had prior failures to appear received nonfinancial releases, compared with 1,412 defendants (61.6%) who had no prior FTA and who also received non-financial conditions. The results were not statistically significant.

Non-financial release: prior FTA, count 754, expected count 740.4; no prior FTA, count 1,412, expected count 1,425.6. (pearson chi-square Value .997, 1df, Asymp. Sig, [2-sided] .318.)

4.3.2 Number of Previous Adult Felony Convictions and Type of Bond

There is a statistically significant difference between the number of previous adult felony convictions and type of bond. Of those defendants with no previous adult felony convictions, 2,533 (60.7%) were granted non-financial release. Of those defendants with only one previous adult felony conviction, 416

82

defendants (59.1%) were granted non-financial conditions of release. Of those defendants with two previous adult felony convictions, 185 defendants (52.4%) were granted non-financial release. Of those defendants with three or more previous adult felony convictions, 317 defendants (57.3%) were granted nonfinancial conditions of release. The percentage of those defendants receiving nonfinancial conditions of release decreased initially for those with one or two convictions, but rose again with three or more convictions. However, a majority of an groups were granted non-financial conditions of release-including those with three or more convictions. (Pearson chi-square Value 10.990,3 df, Asymp. Sig .

. 012.)

4.3.3 Current Charge and Type of Bond

There is a statistically significant relationship between the nature of the current charge and type of bond. Judges were less likely to grant non-financial release to defendants with violent charges. Of the 1,557 defendants with violent charges, 903 (58.0%) were granted non-financial conditions. Of the defendants with nonviolent charges, 1,698 (62.9%) were granted non-financial conditions. Of the defendants with drug charges, 1,233 (59.0%) were granted non-financial conditions of release. Defendants with nonviolent charges fared better than those with drug charges, who fared better than those with violent charges.

Non-financial release counts: violent charges, count 903, expected count 940.2; nonviolent charges, count 1,698, expected count 1,631.1; drug charges,

83

count 1,233, expected count 1,262.7. (Pearson chi-square Value 12.420,2 df, Asymp, Sig .. 002.)

TABLEUI

CRIMINAL HISTORY AND TYPE OF BOND

Variable

Non-Financial

Financial

Fatlare to Appear
PriorFTA 754 (63.3%) 437 (36.7%)
NoPriorFTA 1412 (61.6%) 881 (38.4%)
Adult Felony Coav."
No Convictions 2533 (60.7%) 1639 (39.3%)
1 Conviction 416 (59.1%) 288 (40.9%)
2 Convictions 185 (52.4%) 168 (47.6%)
3 or More Convictions 317 (57.3%) 236 (42.7%)
Type of Charge"
Violent 903 (58.0%) 654 (42.0%)
Nonviolent 1698 (62.9%) 1003 (37.1%)
Drug 1233 (59.0%) 858 (41.0%)
a significant at the 0.01 level 84

4.4 Bond Conditions and Pretrial Outcomes

This section examines whether the types of bond which judges granted to defendants had a bearing on pretrial outcomes-failure to appear, rearrest, and bond revocation. The results are displayed in Table IV. As noted from viewing the tables, defendants with financial releases did better on pretrial release than those who were released with non-financial conditions.

4.4.1 Type of Bond and FTA

Defendants who were required to post a financial bond had a higher success rate, appearing for all their scheduled court appearances, than those who were granted non-financial release. Of those defendants granted non-financial release, 1,079, or 28.6% of the total, failed to appear for at least one of their scheduled court appearances. Of those defendants required to post bond, 445, or 17.8% of the total, failed to appear for court. Failed to appear: non-financial, count 1,079, expected count 920.3. Financial, count 445, expected count 603.7. (Pearson chi-square Value 102.280,2 df Asymp. Sig .. 000.)

4.4.2 Type of Bond and Rearrest

Defendants who were released with financial conditions were less likely to be rearrested. Of the 2,344 defendants who received financial conditions of release, 258 (11.0%) defendants were rearrested. Of the 3,198 defendants who were granted non-financial conditions of release, 442 (13.8%) defendants were rearrested. While the differences between the two groups were not large, they were statistically significant at the .002 level.

85

Rearrest: non-financial count 442, expected count 403.9; fmancial258, expected count 296.1. (Pearson chi-square Value 9.708, 1 df, Asymp, Sig .. 002.) 4.4.3 Type of Bond and Bond Revocation

Judges also revoked the bonds of defendants with non-financial release at a higher rate than those who were required to post a bond. Of the 2,101 defendants who received financial conditions of release, 224 (10.7%) defendants had their bonds revoked. Of the 2,838 defendants who were granted non-financial conditions of release, 431 (15.2%) defendants had their bonds revoked. Of those revoked: non-financial, count 431, expected count 376.4; financial, count 224, expected count 278.6. (Pearson chi-square Value 21.491, Idf, Asymp. Sig .. 000.)

TABLE IV

TYPE OF BOND AND PRETRIAL OUTCOMES

Outcome Var,

Non-Financial Release

Financial Release

Failure to Appear Rearrested Revoked

1079 (28.6%) 442 (13.8%) 431 (15.2%)

445 (17.8%) 258 (11.0%) 224 (10.7%)

an significant at the .002 level

86

4.5 Demographics. Criminal Behavior, and Pretrial Outcomes

This section examines the effects of variables representing demographics and criminal history on pretrial outcomes: failure to appear, rearrest, and bond revocation. As Tables V and VI show, both demographic characteristics and criminal history are related to failure to appear in court.

4.5.1 Race and Failure to Appear

A relationship was found between race and failure to appear. Latinos were more likely to fail to appear for court than African-Americans, who were more likely to fail to appear for court than whites. Twenty-two percent of whites failed to appear for court, 28.5% of African-Americans failed to appear, while 30.4% of Latinos failed to appear.

These were the counts: failure to appear: white, count 372, expected count 514.4; African-American, count 929, expected count 844.1; Latino, count 391, expected count 333.5. (pearson chi-square Value 78.374, 2 df, Asymp, Sig .. 000.) 4.5.2 Sex and Failure to Appear

A relationship was found between sex and failure to appear. Males were more likely to fail to appear for court than females. Of male defendants, 26.5% failed to appear for court, compared with 22.3% of female defendants. The count for males failing to appear was 1,452; the expected count was 1,412.3. The count for females failing to appear for court was 267; the expected count was 306.7. (pearson chi-square Value 9.084, 1 df, Asymp, Sig .. 003.)