Advertisement

American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 443–467 | Cite as

A Meta-Analytic Review of Pretrial Research: Risk Assessment, Bond Type, and Interventions

  • Kristin Bechtel
  • Alexander M. Holsinger
  • Christopher T. Lowenkamp
  • Madeline J. Warren
Article

Abstract

This study makes an attempt to aggregate what we currently know about pretrial decision making and jurisdictions’ responses to the pretrial population. This meta-analysis began with an exhaustive search for pretrial research which may have revealed the most prominent finding—that being a distinct lack of research that utilizes any amount of methodological rigor. The findings of this meta-analysis hold several policy implications for the field of pretrial research and practice. First, future research studies in the field of pretrial need to focus on methodological quality and rigor. Second, it appears that some conditions of release may be related to a defendant’s likelihood of failure to appear. Third, it appears that none of the conditions of release reviewed in this study are related to a defendant’s likelihood of re-arrest while on pretrial release. Finally, it is recommended that the field of pretrial develop a sound research agenda and execute that plan with rigor, transparency, and an approach that favors the continued cumulation of knowledge. Strong conclusions about the impact of pretrial release conditions cannot be made as the quality of the pretrial research, overall, is weak at best.

Keywords

Pretrial Meta-analysis Risk assessment 

References

References identified with an asterisk are studies that were inlcuded in the analysis

  1. American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ares, C., Rankin, A., & Sturz, H. (1963). The Manhattan bail project: An interim report on the pre-trial use of pre-trial parole. New York University Law Review, 38, 67–95.Google Scholar
  5. *Austin, J., Bhati, A., Jones, M., & Ocker, R. (2011). Florida pretrial risk assessment instrument. Denver: The JFA Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Austin, J., & Murray, T. (2009). Re-validation of the actuarial risk assessment instrument for Harris County pretrial services. Washington: The JFA Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Austin, J., Krisberg, B., & Litsky, P. (1984). Evaluation of the field test of supervised pretrial release final report. Washington: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  8. *Austin, J., Ocker, R., & Bhati, A. (2010). Kentucky Pretrial risk assessment instrument validation. Denver: The JFA Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Bechtel, K., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Holsinger, A. (2011). Identifying the predictors of pretrial failure: A meta-analysis. Federal Probation, 75(2).Google Scholar
  10. *Bhati, Avi. (2012). Allegheny County, Pennsylvania: Pretrial risk assessment development and validation study. Washington: Pretrial Justice Institute.Google Scholar
  11. *Block, M. (2005). The effectiveness and costs of secured and unsecured release in California’s large urban counties: 1990–2000. Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.pbus.com/resource/resmgr/imported/12005%20Block%20Bail%20Report.pdf.
  12. *Britt, C. L., Gottfredson, M. R., & Goldkamp, J. S. (1993). Drug testing and pretrial misconduct: An experiment on the specific deterrent effects of drug monitoring defendants on pretrial release. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 29(1), 62–78.Google Scholar
  13. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). Data advisory: State court processing statistics data limitations. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  15. Cadigan, T. (1991). Electronic monitoring in federal pretrial release. Federal Probation, 55(1), 26–30.Google Scholar
  16. *Cadigan, T. P., Johnson, J. L., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2012). The re-validation of the federal Pretrial Services Risk Assessment (PTRA). Federal Probation, 76(2), 3–9.Google Scholar
  17. Cadigan, T. P., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2011a). Preentry: The key to long-term criminal justice success? Federal Probation, 75(2), 74–77.Google Scholar
  18. Cadigan, T., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2011b). Implementing risk assessment in the federal pretrial services system. Federal Probation, 75(2).Google Scholar
  19. Clarke, S. (1988). Pretrial release, concepts, issues and strategies for improvement. Research in Corrections, 1(3), 1–40.Google Scholar
  20. *Clarke, S. H., Freeman, J. L., & Koch, G. G. (1976). The effectiveness of bail systems: An analysis of failure to appear in court and rearrest on bail. Chapel Hill: Institute of Government.Google Scholar
  21. *Cohen, T. (2008). Commercial surety bail and the problem of missed court appearances and pretrial detention. Bureau of Justice of Statistics Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  22. *Cohen, T.H. (2012). Pretrial release and misconduct in Federal District Courts, 2008–2010 (NCJ 239243). Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved December 27, 2014, from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/prmfdc0810.pdf.
  23. Cook, T., & Leviton, D. (1980). Reviewing the literature: A comparison of traditional methods with meta-analysis. Journal of Personality, 48(4), 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cooprider, K. (2009). Pretrial risk assessment and case classification: A case study. Federal Probation, 73(1), 12–15.Google Scholar
  25. Crozier, T. (2000). The court hearing reminder project: If you call them they will come. King County, Washington: Institute for Court Management Court Executive Development Program.Google Scholar
  26. *Cuvelier, S. J., & Potts, D. W. (1993). Bail classification profile project Harris County, Texas. Final Report. State Justice Institute, Grant number: SJI-89–049.Google Scholar
  27. Desmarais, S. L., & Singh, J. P. (2013). Risk assessment instruments validated and implemented in correctional settings in the United States. Lexington: Council of State Governments.Google Scholar
  28. Farnworth, M., & Horan, P. (1980). Separate justice: An analysis of race differences in court processes. Social Science, 9, 381–399.Google Scholar
  29. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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. Studies in law, politics, and society volume 47: New perspectives on crime and criminal justice (pp. 115–157). Bingly, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. *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.Google Scholar
  32. *Gottfredson, M. R. (1974). An empirical analysis of pre-trial release decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 287304.Google Scholar
  33. *Helland, E., & Tabarrok, A. (2004). The fugitive: Evidence on public versus private law enforcement from bail jumping. Journal of Law and Economics, 47, 93122.Google Scholar
  34. Herian, M., & Bornstein, B. (2010). Reducing failure to appear in Nebraska: A field study. The Nebraska Lawyer, 13(8), 11–14.Google Scholar
  35. *Hickert, A. O., Worwood, E. B., & Prince, K. (2013). Pretrial release risk study, validation, & scoring: Final report. Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah.Google Scholar
  36. Hunt, M. (1997). How science takes stock. New York: Russell-Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. *Jones, M. R. (2013). Unsecured bonds: The as effective and most efficient pretrial release option. Washington: Pretrial Justice Institute.Google Scholar
  39. Kutateladze, B., Andiloro, N., Johnson, B., & Spohn, C. (2014). Cumulative disadvantage: Examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology, 52(3), 514–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. *Latessa, E., Smith, P., Lemke, R., Makarios, M., & Lowenkamp, C. (2009). Creation and validation of the Ohio risk assessment system: Final report. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati.Google Scholar
  41. Levin, D. (2007). Examining the efficacy of pretrial release conditions, sanctions, and screening with the state court processing statistics dataseries. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  42. *Levin, D. J. (2012). Development of a validated pretrial risk assessment tool for Lee County, Florida. Washington: Pretrial Justice Institute.Google Scholar
  43. Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variable of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, T. A. Lewis, & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83–127). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Lipsey, M. W., Chapman, G. L., & Landenberger, N. A. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lowenkamp, C. T., & Bechtel, K. (2007). Meeting pretrial objectives: A validation of the Summit County pretrial risk assessment instrument (SCPRAI). Unpublished manuscript. Google Scholar
  47. Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., Brusman-Lovins, L., & Latessa, E. J. (2004). Assessing the inter-rater agreement of the level of service inventory revised. Federal Probation, 68(3), 34–38.Google Scholar
  48. *Lowenkamp, C. T., & VanNostrand, M. (2013). Assessing pretrial risk without a defendant interview. New York: Laura and John Arnold Foundation.Google Scholar
  49. Lowenkamp, C. T., VanNostrand, M., & Holsinger, A. (2013). The hidden costs of pretrial detention. Houston: The Laura & John Arnold Foundation.Google Scholar
  50. *Lowenkamp, C. T., Lemke, R., & Latessa, E. (2008). The development and validation of a pretrial screening tool. Federal Probation, 72(3), 2–9.Google Scholar
  51. *Lowenkamp, C. T., Whetzel, J. (2009). Federal pretrial risk assessment. Federal Probation, 76(2), 33–36.Google Scholar
  52. Mamalian, C. A. (2011). State of the science of pretrial risk assessment. Pretrial Justice Institute.Google Scholar
  53. Maxfield, M., & Baumer, T. (1991). Final report: Evaluation of pretrial home detention. Bloomington: University of Indiana.Google Scholar
  54. McCoy, C. (2007). Caleb was right: Pretrial decisions determine mostly everything. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 12(135).Google Scholar
  55. *Morris, R. G. (2013). Pretrial release mechanisms in Dallas County, Texas: Differences in failure to appear, recidivism/pretrial misconduct, and associated costs of FTA. Dallas: University of Texas at Dallas.Google Scholar
  56. National Institute of Justice. (2001). Pretrial services programming at the start of the 21st century: A survey of pretrial services programs. Washington: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  57. *Nice, M. (2006). Court appearance notification system: Process and outcome evaluation. Multnomah County, OR: Multnomah County Budget Office.Google Scholar
  58. Oleson, J. C., Lowenkamp, C. T., Wooldredge, J., VanNostrand, M., & Cadigan, T. (2015). The sentencing consequences of federal pretrial detention. Crime and Delinquency. doi: 10.1177/0011128714551406. first published on September 26, 2014.Google Scholar
  59. Oleson, J. C., Lowenkamp, C. T., VanNostrand, M., Cadigan, T., & Wooldredge, J. (2015). The effect of pretrial detention on sentencing in two federal districts. Justice Quarterly. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2014.959035. first published online September 25, 2014.Google Scholar
  60. Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8(2), 157–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. *Phillips, M. T. (2011). How release type affects failure to appear. New York City: Criminal Justice Agency Research Brief No. 27.Google Scholar
  62. *Phillips, M. T. (2014). New York’s credit card bail experiment. New York City: Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.Google Scholar
  63. *Pretrial Justice Institute. (2014). Pretrial Justice Bibliography. Retrieved from http://www.pretrial.org/download/pji-reports/PJI%20Pretrial%20Bibliography.pdf.
  64. *Pretrial Justice Institute (2012). The Colorado pretrial risk assessment tool (CPAT), Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  65. Reaves, B. A. (2013). Felony defendants in large urban counties, 2009. Washington: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  66. Reitler, A. K., & Sullivan, C. J. (2014). The effect of detention status on sentence severity in U.S. district courts. Unpublished manuscript. George Mason University.Google Scholar
  67. Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 615–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. *Robinson, C. R., VanBenschoten, S., Alexander, M., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2011). A random (almost) study of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest (STARR): Reducing recidivism through intentional design. Federal Probation, 75(2), 57–63.Google Scholar
  69. *Rosenbaum, D. I., Hutsell, N., Tomkins, A. J., Bornstein, B. H., Herian, M. N., & Neeley, E. M. (2012). Court date reminder postcards: A benefit-cost analysis of using reminder card to reduce failure to appear rates. Judicature, 95(4), 177–187.Google Scholar
  70. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rouse, M., & Eckert, M. (1992). Arraignment date notification and arraignment appearance defendants released on desk appearance tickets: A summary of findings. New York: NYC Criminal Justice Agency.Google Scholar
  72. Siddiqi, Q. (2002). Prediction of pretrial failure to appear and an alternative pretrial release risk-classification scheme in New York City: A reassessment study. New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency.Google Scholar
  73. Silver, E., & Miller, L. L. (2002). A cautionary note on the use of actuarial risk assessment tools for social control. Crime and Delinquency, 48(1), 138–161.Google Scholar
  74. Ulmer, J. T. (2012). Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Quarterly, 29, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. VanNostrand, M. (2003). Assessing risk among pretrial defendants in Virginia. Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services.Google Scholar
  76. VanNostrand, M., & Keebler, G. (2009). Pretrial risk assessment in the federal court. Washington: Office of Federal Detention Trustee.Google Scholar
  77. VanNostrand, M. & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2013). Assessing pretrial risk without defendant interview. Laura and John Arnold Foundation.Google Scholar
  78. VanNostrand, M., Rose, K., & Weibrecht, K. (2011). State of the science of pretrial release recommendations and supervision. Pretrial Justice Institute.Google Scholar
  79. *Wheeler, G. R., & Fry, G. (2013). Project ORANGE JUMPSUIT: Evaluation of effects of pretrial status on case disposition of Harris County felony and misdemeanor A/B defendants. Google Scholar
  80. Winterfield, L., Coggeshall, M., & Harrell, A. (2003). Development of an empirically-based risk assessment instrument: Final report. Washington: Urban Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristin Bechtel
    • 1
  • Alexander M. Holsinger
    • 2
  • Christopher T. Lowenkamp
    • 3
  • Madeline J. Warren
    • 4
  1. 1.Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for JusticeBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminal Justice and CriminologyUniversity of Missouri Kansas CityKansas CityUSA
  3. 3.Administrative Office of the US CourtsProbation and Pretrial Services OfficeWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for JusticeBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations