Comparing the relationships between money bail, pretrial risk scores, and pretrial outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: There has been much discussion around the use of both money bail and pretrial risk assessment instruments. We examine how bail and risk scores compare in terms of their associations with failure to appear in court and rearrest during the pretrial period. HYPOTHESES: Our research questions included whether bail and risk scores differed between people who did and did not experience pretrial outcomes and whether pretrial scores were associated with outcomes when controlling for bail and other relevant covariates. METHOD: To examine these associations, we drew a sample of 492 people (33% women; 60% Black) booked into county jail in a jurisdiction not yet using a pretrial risk assessment instrument to inform release decisions. We completed the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) for this sample and collected data on failure-to-appear and rearrest incidents for 1 year following initial bookings. We examined the associations between bail amount, failure to appear, and rearrest and between PSA subscale scores, failure to appear, and rearrest. RESULTS: Bail amount was not associated with either failure to appear or rearrest. People who failed to appear or were rearrested had higher bail amounts, on average, than people who did not. In contrast, PSA subscale scores were significantly associated with outcomes in the expected direction. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not support the use of money bail for ensuring that people return to court and avoid rearrest. Instead, our findings suggest that using pretrial risk assessment, instruments could result in more accurate and appropriate release decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Results of the Brief Jail Mental Health Screen Across Repeated Jail Bookings.

OBJECTIVE: The Brief Jail Mental Health Screen (BJMHS) is widely used at intake in county jails to identify detainees who may have serious mental illness and who should be referred for further mental health evaluation. The BJMHS may be administered multiple times across repeated jail bookings; however, the extent to which results may change over time is unclear. To that end, the authors examined the odds of screening positive on the BJMHS across repeated jail bookings. METHODS: Data were drawn from the administrative and medical records of a large, urban county jail that used the BJMHS at jail booking. The study sample comprised BJMHS results for the 12,531 jail detainees who were booked at least twice during the 3.5-year period (N=41,965 bookings). Multilevel logistic modeling was used to examine changes over time overall and within the four decision rules (current psychiatric medication, prior hospitalization, two or more current symptoms, and referral for any other reason). RESULTS: Results show that the odds of a positive screen overall increased with each jail booking, as did the odds of referral for any other reason. In contrast, the odds of screening positive for two or more current symptoms and prior hospitalization decreased. There was no change in the odds of screening positive for current psychiatric medication across bookings. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show that BJMHS results changed across bookings. Further research is needed to determine whether changes reflect true changes in mental health status, issues with fidelity, the repeated nature of the screening process, or other factors.

Prevalence rates, reporting, and psychosocial correlates of stalking victimization: results from a three-sample cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Public health and criminal justice stalking victimization data collection efforts are plagued by subjective definitions and lack of known psychosocial correlates. The present study assesses the question of stalking victimization prevalence among three groups. Psychosocial risk and protective factors associated with stalking victimization experiences were assessed. METHODS: Archival data (n = 2159) were drawn from a three-sample (i.e., U.S. nationwide sexual diversity special interest group, college student, and general population adult) cross-sectional survey of victimization, sexuality, and health. RESULTS: The range of endorsement of stalking-related victimization experiences was 13.0-47.9%. Reported perpetrators were both commonly known and unknown persons to the victim. Participants disclosed the victimization primarily to nobody or a family member/friend. Bivariate correlates of stalking victimization were female gender, Associates/Bachelor-level education, bisexual or other sexual orientation minority status, hypertension, diabetes, older age, higher weekly drug use, elevated trait aggression, higher cognitive reappraisal skills, lower rape myth acceptance, and elevated psychiatric symptoms. Logistic regression results showed the strongest factors in identifying elevated stalking victimization risk were: older age, elevated aggression, higher cognitive reappraisal skills, lesser low self-control, increased symptoms of suicidality and PTSD re-experiencing, and female and other gender minority status. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral approaches to epidemiological and criminal justice stalking victimization are recommended. Victimization under reporting to healthcare and legal professionals were observed. Further research and prevention programming is needed to capitalize on data concerning personality and coping skills, sexual diversity, and trauma-related psychiatric symptoms.