U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Experiment in Bail Reform - Evaluating Pretrial Release Service Agencies in Federal District Courts

NCJ Number
93959
Author(s)
L A Sherwood-Fabre
Date Published
1984
Length
536 pages
Annotation
This dissertation examines the impact of the Bail Reform Act of 1966 and the creation of 10 experimental pretrial services agencies (PSA) on bail decisions in the Federal district courts. It also explores two other proposed reforms, elimination of surety bonds and preventive detention of dangerous defendants.
Abstract
The analysis of the effects of PSA's and any differences between PSA's supervised by the probation office and those under an independent board was based on information obtained during site visits and data the PSA's were required by Congress to collect. The final data set included three groups: convicted defendants both before and after the PSA's began operating (1975-81), convicted defendants in five comparison districts (1973-74 and 1975-76), and nonconvicted defendants interviewed by the PSA's during and after 1976. The PSA's did increase release rates and the use of own recognizance as desired by the congressional mandate. However, programs under an independent board were more effective in achieving this goal than those supervised by the probation office. The study also compared the pretrial experiences of defendants in one district located in a State which has eliminated surety bonds with defendants prosecuted in other districts having the same type of pretrial agency. Overall, the results suggested that a 10 percent deposit bond, and in some cases release on recognizance, did not differ from surety bonds in effectiveness in deterring pretrial misconduct. Analysis of definitions of dangerousness in a Washington, D.C., preventive detention law and a proposed Federal law indicates that such statutes cannot provide the needed formal law that would affect rates of pretrial misconduct. Tables, research instruments, and approximately 150 references are supplied.