Employing standardized risk assessment in pretrial release decisions: Association with criminal justice outcomes and racial equity.

OBJECTIVE: We examined efforts by a Mississippi court to base pretrial release decisions on risk assessment rather than primarily on bond. HYPOTHESES: (a) Pretrial detention will be shorter than that associated with prevailing bond practices in the same counties. (b) Rearrest rates will be lower than a similar pretrial population in a nearby southern state. (c) False positive rates for predicting rearrests will be higher for African American than Caucasian participants. (d) Pretrial detention will be longer for African American participants because of higher risk scores or assessment overrides. METHOD: Pretrial defendants (N = 521) completed the Risk and Needs Triage (RANT) within 2 weeks of arrest, and outcomes examined included the length of pretrial detention, index case dispositions, and rearrest rates. RESULTS: (a) Pretrial detention averaged approximately 60 days compared with prevailing detentions averaging approximately 90 and 180 days in the same counties. (b) Pretrial rearrest rates were 17 percentage points higher than a similar pretrial population; however, representative comparison data are unavailable to confidently measure recidivism impacts. (c) Positive predictive power did not differ by race in predicting pretrial rearrests, SE = .04, 95% CI [.11, -.06], z = .61, p = .54, d = .08. (d) Despite comparable risk scores, African American participants were detained significantly longer than Caucasian participants (M = 60.92 vs. 45.58 days), p = .038, d = .18, 95% CI [.01, .36], and were less likely to receive a diversion opportunity (11% vs. 23%), p = .009, V = .17. CONCLUSION: The observational design precludes causal conclusions; however, risk assessment was associated with shorter pretrial detention than prevailing bond practices with no racial disparities in risk prediction. Greater attention to risk assessment may reduce racial inequities in pretrial conditions. Representative comparison data are needed to measure the recidivism impacts of pretrial reform initiatives. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

California drug courts: outcomes, costs and promising practices: an overview of Phase II in a statewide study.

The rapid expansion of drug courts in California and the state's uncertain fiscal climate highlighted the need for definitive cost information on drug court programs. This study focused on creating a research design that can be utilized for statewide and national cost-assessment of drug courts by conducting in-depth case studies of the costs and benefits in nine adult drug courts in California. A Transactional Institutional Costs Analysis (TICA) approach was used, allowing researchers to calculate costs based on every individual's transactions within the drug court or the traditional criminal justice system. This methodology also allows the calculation of costs and benefits by agency (e.g., Public Defender's office, court, District Attorney). Results in the nine sites showed that the majority of agencies save money in processing an offender though drug court. Overall, for these nine study sites, participation in drug court saved the state over 9 million dollars in criminal justice and treatment costs due to lower recidivism in drug court participants. Based on the lessons learned in Phases I and II, Phase III of this study focuses on the creation of a web-based drug court cost self-evaluation tool (DC-CSET) that drug courts can use to determine their own costs and benefits.