Overview
The purpose of the collaboration between Measures for Justice (MFJ) and the Los Angeles County Public Defender (LAPD) was to explore the impact of releasing individuals from custody without bail as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Evaluating the Impact of $0 Bail: A Research Partnership Between Measures for Justice and the L.A. Public Defender’s Office
Purpose
The partnership had three goals, including:
- To gain a better understanding of how cash bail affects clients’ outcomes, through the investigation of three research questions;
- To contribute to the office’s ability to identify and address client needs, by employing a mixed method approach of quantitative data analysis and client and attorney interviews; and
- To contribute to the broader knowledge base focused on pretrial release and reform.
In particular, the three research questions posed were to explore how non-monetary release impacts:(i) a client’s return to court,(ii) a client’s case outcomes, and(iii) a client’s system involvement while on release.Through these questions we identified areas of further investigation, and opportunities for improvement in data collection.
Methods
To meet the objectives of the partnership, MFJ employed both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. In the quantitative work, we relied on case level data from the office’s case management system (referred to as DMS) and supplemental information related to release types from the LA County courts case management system (referred to as TCIS), for the key input and outcome fields of interest, and data related to COVID-19 statistics from the county to account for the context in which these cases took place. Quantitative analyses involved the use of propensity score matching to create reliable comparisons, and logistic regression models to test the effects of release on the outcomes of interest – return to court, case conviction, and new offenses while on release.
In addition, the team conducted semi-structured interviews with office attorneys (n=10) and clients (n=12) to better understand the impact of criminal case processing and release while awaiting disposition. Using an interpretive phenomenological approach, each participant’s lived experience was considered individually and analyzed alongside others for patterns and shared themes across groups.
Key Findings
The key quantitative findings raise questions about the effectiveness of monetary bail as proposed, and offer new avenues for research and improved data collection.
Return to court. There is no statistically significant relationship between release type and missed appearances. That is, individuals released on their own recognizance are no more or less likely to return to court than those released on monetary bail. The strongest case- and client-related predictors of missed appearance were current offense type (violent, less likely), prior failure to appear (more likely), and prior conviction (more likely), which aligned with the expectations of the attorneys interviewed and their strategy for advocating for release. Interview participants also pointed to the benefit of better communication (phone calls, text reminders) and mechanisms to lessen the burden on clients (“977 appearances,” transportation support) to make their court appearances.
Case Disposition.There is a small relationship between release and the likelihood of conviction, but it is moderated by the severity (felony vs. misdemeanor) of the case. Clients released on their own recognizance in felony cases were 2 percentage points less likely to be convicted than clients held on bail. However, for misdemeanor cases, clients released on their own recognizance were 5 percentage points more likely to be convicted. These findings, and those of the qualitative interviews with clients and attorneys both highlight the complex nature of plea negotiations and the impact release has on the ability for an individual to participate meaningfully in their own defense.
New charges while released. There is no statistically significant relationship between release type (monetary vs. nonmonetary release) and whether a client was charged for a new offense that occurred while they were released. It is also worth noting that the overall rate of new offenses while on release was relatively low.
Key Recommendations
With these findings and experience in mind, MFJ has made the following recommendations to the L.A. Public Defender’s Office:
- Continue to improve data collection and training. Improve and train on data collection – particularly around the research questions the office and clients have. Make use of court data where possible and reliable, and use saved energy to collect additional client information and program participation to show the improvements and good behavior of clients.
- Provide top-down policy guidance. Provide top-down guidance for consistency across the office – on data collection, and County wide policies that can be used to a clients’ advantage (e.g. $0 bail, changes in circumstance, Humphrey, 977s), and on the best practices in using available resources in communication with clients.
- Invest in resources. Invest in resources – both programmatic and technological. Expand office level partnerships, hire support staff, and support social workers to allow attorneys to focus on the legal aspects of their case. For example, the office is already investing in resources to support the review of evidence, and providing additional social worker staff to connect individuals to alternative case outcomes and support services. Further, adopt technological tools that can aid in opening lines of communication and connection between clients and attorneys.
- Further research. Continue to explore questions that the office attorneys have around the impact of policies on client experiences and outcomes. Data collection is valuable only if the data can be used to improve the practices of the office or the broader system, and have a beneficial impact on clients through change. Continue to ask attorneys what they are interested in knowing about clients, and demonstrate the value of data to establish an understanding and commitment to the collection of reliable, consistent, and usable data.
If you are interested in more information about this research report and our partnership with the L.A. Public Defender’s Office, we encourage you to contact us.
