Exploring Alternatives to Cash
Bail: An Evaluation of Orange
County’s Pretrial Assessment and
Release Supervision (PARS)
Program
Published: 06 December 2019
Volume 45, pages 363–378, (2020)
Cite this article
American Journal of Criminal JusticeAims and scopeSubmit
manuscript
Matt Barno,
Deyanira Nevárez Martínez &
Kirk R. Williams
3452 Accesses
12 Citations
2 Altmetric
Explore all metrics
Abstract
This evaluation examines the impact of a pretrial risk assessment and supervised release program
on pretrial release rates, judicial bail determinations, and failure to appear (FTA) rates among
non-violent felony defendants in Orange County, CA. The results indicate that program
implementation was not associated with a significant increase in pretrial release rates. However,
defendants who received supervised release under the program were significantly less likely to
FTA than similarly situated defendants who were released on cash bail. The results therefore
suggest that pending bail reform measures in California and elsewhere, which replace cash bail
with risk assessment screening and non-monetary supervised release, can be implemented
without sacrificing appearances in court.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check
access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Pretrial detention and conviction
Article 08 January 2022
The Effect of a Pre-Arraignment Legal Representation Pilot on Pretrial Release
and Criminal Case Outcomes
Article Open access19 November 2024
Inspecting ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’: The Pitfalls of an Austerity
Managerialist Approach to Offender Supervision
Chapter © 2018
Notes
1. Bail refers to “the process of releasing a defendant from jail or other governmental
custody [prior to trial] with conditions set to reasonably assure public safety and court
appearance” (Pretrial Justice Institute 2015, p.2). In the U.S., defendants must typically
post a cash “bond” in order to meet bail requirements and obtain pretrial release (Pretrial
Justice Institute 2015, p.2). The bond is returned only if the defendant appears for all
scheduled court dates, thereby providing an incentive for the defendant to attend all
required court appearances.
2. S.B. 10 excludes misdemeanor arrestees from automatic pretrial release if they are
suspected of certain specified crimes, such as domestic violence offenses (Cal.
Stat. 2018).
3. Statistics-based risk assessment instruments are instruments whose predictive validity has
been established through statistical analysis techniques.
4. These are the only months in 2015 for which release data on all PARS-eligible
defendants were available from the .OC. Superior Court.
5. This item asks whether an arrestee has been employed or served as a primary caregiver
continuously for the 2 years prior to his or her arrest.
References
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective
rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–
52. [Link]
Article Google Scholar
Appleman, L. I. (2012). Justice in the shadowlands: Pretrial detention, punishment, & the
sixth amendment. Washington & Lee Law Review, 69, 1297–1369.
Google Scholar
Ayres, I., & Waldfogel, J. (1993). A market test for race discrimination in bail
setting. Stanford Law Review, 46(5), 987.
Article Google Scholar
Bechtel, K., Flores, A. W., Holsinger, A. M., & Christopher, T. L. (2016). Trademarks,
press releases, and policy: Will rigorous research get in the way? Federal Probation,
80(1), 22–29.
Google Scholar
Bechtel, K., Holsinger, A. M., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Warren, M. J. (2017). A meta-
analytic review of pretrial research: Risk assessment, bond type, and
interventions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(2), 443–
467. [Link]
Article Google Scholar
Bechtel, K., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Holsinger, A. (2011). Identifying the predictors of
pretrial failure: A meta-analysis. Federal Probation, 75(2), 78–86.
Google Scholar
Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS]. (2010). State court processing statistics data
limitations. Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of
Justice. [Link] (Accessed 13 February
2019).
Cadigan, T. P., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2011). Implementing risk assessment in the federal
pretrial services system. Federal Probation, 75(2), 30–34.
California [Cal.] Constitution [Const.] art. I, § 3.
California Senate Bill [S.B.] 10, Chapter 244 (Cal. Stat.
2018). [Link]
bill_id=201720180SB10 (Accessed 13 February 2019).
Cooprider, K. (2009). Pretrial risk assessment and case classification: A case
study. Federal Probation, 73(1), 12–15.
Google Scholar
Danner, M. J. E., VanNostrand, M., & Spruance, L. M. (2015). Risk-based pretrial
release recommendation and supervision guidelines.
Luminosity. [Link]
corrections/[Link] (
Accessed 13 February 2019).
DeMichele, M., Baumgartner, P., Barrick, K., Comfort, M., Scaggs, S., & Misra, S.
(2018a). What do criminal justice professionals think about risk assessment at
pretrial? [Link] (Accessed 9 October 2019).
DeMichele, M., Comfort, M., Misra, S., Barrick, K., & Baumgartner, P. (2018b). The
intuitive-override model: Nudging judges toward pretrial risk assessment
instruments. [Link] (Accessed 9 October 2019).
Demuth, S. (2003). Racial and ethnic differences in pretrial release decisions and
outcomes: A comparison of Hispanic, Black, and White felony arrestees. Criminology,
41(3), 873–908. [Link]
Article Google Scholar
Dobbie, W., Goldin, J., & Yang, C. S. (2018). The effects of pretrial detention on
conviction, future crime, and employment: Evidence from randomly assigned
judges. American Economic Review, 108(2), 201–
240. [Link]
Article Google Scholar
Eskridge, C. (1981). Predicting and protecting against failure to appear in pretrial
release: The state of the art. Washington, D.C.: Pretrial Services Resource Center.
Google Scholar
Goldkamp, J. S., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1988). Development of bail/pretrial release
guidelines in Maricopa County Superior Court, Dade County Circuit Court and Boston
Municipal Court. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice. [Link] (Accessed 13
February 2019).
Goldkamp, J. S., & Vilcica, E. R. (2009). Judicial discretion and the unfinished agenda of
American bail reform: Lessons from Philadelphia’s evidence-based judicial strategy. In
A. Sarat (Ed.), Special issue: New perspectives on crime and criminal justice (Vol. 47,
pp. 115–157). U.K.: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Chapter Google Scholar
Goldkamp, J. S., & White, M. (2006). Restoring accountability in pretrial release: The
Philadelphia pretrial release supervision experiments. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 2(2), 142–181. [Link]
Article Google Scholar
Harris, P. (2006). What community supervision officers need to know about actuarial risk
assessment and clinical judgment. Federal Probation, 70(2), 8–14.
Google Scholar
In re Humphrey 19 Cal. App. 5th 1006 (Cal. App. 5th 2018).
Kamins, B. (2019). Bail, discovery and speedy trial: The new legislation. New York Law
Journal. [Link]
speedy-trial-the-new-legislation/?slreturn=20190518193747 (accessed 18 June 2019).
Latessa, E. J., & Lovins, B. (2010). The role of offender risk assessment: A policy maker
guide. Victims and Offenders, 5(3), 203–
219. [Link]
Article Google Scholar
Lomax, R. G., & Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2012). An introduction to statistical concepts.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Lowenkamp, C. T., Lemke, R., & Latessa, E. (2008). The
development and validation of a pretrial screening tool. Federal
Probation, 72(3), 2–9.
