Overview of the Colorado Pretrial Assessment Tool (CPAT) for the Colorado Association of Pretrial Services (CAPS) 2013 Spring Training Conference

Transcription

1 Overview of the Colorado Pretrial Assessment Tool (CPAT) for the Colorado Association of Pretrial Services (CAPS) 2013 Spring Training Conference by Michael R. Jones Pretrial Justice Institute April 12, 2013 What is Empirically-Developed Pretrial Risk Assessment? What are empirically-developed PRAIs? Assesses chances of two types of misconduct: (1) violate public safety and (2) nonappearance in court Have the most optimal set of items and how to weight them What risk factors are measured on a PRAI? Criminal history and system involvement Stability and Community Ties (residence, employment, substance abuse) Why is it important to know someone s risk level? Informs pretrial program s, prosecutor s, and defense attorney s recommendations/requests Informs court s decision (1) about whom to release or detain, and (2) which release conditions to order How effective are PRAIs? Do a good job of differentiating an individual defendant s pretrial risk while minimizing bias Outperform subjective, non-statistical judgment by offering objectivity and standardization What are the challenges and limitations of pretrial risk assessment? Do not predict perfectly, so complement discretion Limited overrides are okay Updating is necessary 1

2 Who Thinks It s a Good Idea? Criminal justice system stakeholders Nationally Colorado The public Nationally Colorado System Support for Pretrial Risk Assessment Empirically-based pretrial risk assessment is supported in resolution or policy by: National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (national pretrial standards; 2004) American Bar Association (national pretrial standards; 2007) National Association of Counties (2010) American Probation and Parole Association (2010) American Jail Association (2011) Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (2011) American Council of Chief Defenders (2011) International Association of Chiefs of Police (2011) National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (2012) National Sheriffs Association (2012) Conference of State Court Administrators (2012) Conference of Chief Justices (2013) Allows judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, detentions staff, and pretrial services staff to know statistically how much weight to assign to statutory and research-based factors to determine each individual defendant s level of pretrial risk HB from the CO Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice 2

3 Public Support for Pretrial Risk Assessment Over ¾ of called voters and focus group members support using risk-based screening tools ( they are effective ) instead of cash bail bonds ( unjust ). Findings hold over age, sex, conservative or liberal, and geographic region (Lake Research, 2012). For pretrial matters, voters say they would pay the most attention to judges and law enforcement officials, followed by crime victims groups and the sheriffs association. Bail bondsmen and the bail bond industry are last (Lake Research, 2012). The Old Way 3

4 The CPAT New and Improved Way First empirically-derived pretrial risk assessment tool in Colorado Developed using data from defendants in ten CO counties 12-item instrument The items are the most accurate predictors of pretrial misconduct in CO Items are scored based on information obtained from: Interview with the defendant Databases (CO Judicial Branch; NCIC/CCIC) Total score ranges from 0 (lower risk) to 82 (higher risk) CPAT Items and Scoring 4

5 CPAT Risk Scoring Risk Category Risk Score Public Safety Rate Court Appearance Rate Percent of Defendants 1 0 to 17 91% 95% 20% 2 18 to 37 80% 85% 49% 3 38 to 50 69% 77% 23% 4 51 to 82 58% 51% 8% (Average) 30 78% 82% 100% Decision-Making 5

6 CPAT Doeses and Does Nots Does give a global/overall degree of pretrial risk Does remove complete reliance on subjective determinations of risk Provides empirical data that top charge is not a very good predictor of pretrial risk Provides empirical data that counting priors (FTAs, convictions) is less predictive than are other criminal history measures Does not predict perfectly Does not indicate what type of bond and specific conditions of bond (including $) to use to manage risk Next Steps Develop a matrix of release conditions for the system (pretrial services program, court, prosecution, defense, detentions) Utilizes top charge and risk level Top Charge CPAT Risk Category All Other Offenses Misdemeanors Non-Violent Felonies Domestic Violence DUI Violent Felony 1 (lower) None None None None Basic N/A 2 None None Basic Basic Basic N/A 3 Basic Basic Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced N/A 4 (higher) Basic Basic Enhanced Intensive Intensive N/A Track HB

7 CO Bail Practices Three purposes/outcomes of Bail: 1. Maximize public safety and 2. Maximize court appearance while 3. Maximizing release CO Bail Practices (cont.) Across different risk levels, secured bonds did not achieve better outcomes than did unsecured bonds for the first two purposes/outcomes of bail: (1) maximizing public safety* and (2) maximizing court appearance. * Differences would not be expected for public safety because of CO forfeiture law. Risk Category Public Safety Rate Unsecured PR/PRCo Bond Secured Surety/Cash Bond Court Appearance Rate Unsecured PR/PRCo Bond Secured Surety/Cash Bond 1 93% 90% 97% 93% 2 84% 79% 87% 85% 3 69% 70% 80% 78% 4 64% 58% 43% 53% Average 85% 76% 88% 81% + All statistical comparisons showed no statistically significant differences. All ps >

8 CO Bail Practices (cont.) However, secured bonds performed substantially worse than did unsecured bonds for the third purpose/outcome of bail - maximizing release. That is, secured bonds contributed to substantially more pretrial detention because (a) fewer defendants were released. Pretrial Risk Category Percent of Defendants Released + Unsecured Bond Secured Bond 1 (lower) 93% 83% 2 95% 65% 3 96% 54% 4 (higher) 88% 46% Average 94% 61% + All statistical comparisons were statistically significant. All ps < CO Bail Practices (cont.) Additionally, secured bonds contributed to substantially more pretrial detention because (b) longer times to post bond. 8

9 Contact Information Michael R. Jones Pretrial Justice Institute