Report Submitted: 2023

By: Christopher P. Dum, PhD, Elias Nader, PhD, and Starr Solomon, PhD

Priority Area 1: The "Natural Experiment" of COVID-19

Executive Summary

Purpose:

As the research team awarded CJR-2022-001 “Bail Reform in Ohio,” we conducted three rigorous mixed method studies of Ohio bail practices to draw policy-oriented conclusions about bail’s effects on public safety and the lives of Ohio residents. The overall goal of this project is to provide the CJR and AGO with an understanding of three things: 1) the effects of COVID-19 on pre-trial practices, 2) public opinion of bail reform, 3) the life course effects of bail/bond/pretrial detention. This report examines this first topic, Priority Area 1. To address Priority Area 1, we sought to determine the effects of COVID-19 on the use of bond and crime.

Goal: Provide the CJR and AGO with an understanding of how a policy of normalized recognizance release would impact public safety.

Research Question 1: Did the Supreme Court COVID-19 guidelines influence how county courts implemented pre-trial bond practices? Did these counties experience changes in crime during the pandemic and/or under these COVID-19 guidelines encouraging pre-trial release?

Methods: 

We collected two types of administrative data to answer these research questions. First, in order to examine if pre-trial practices changed as a result of this guidance, we sought incidentlevel data from county courts in Ohio, ranging from January 2016 to December 2022. This time period allowed us a sufficient range to examine trends both pre- and post-COVID-19. We utilized a case-study design to explore the pre-trial practices in one urban county (Summit) and one rural county (Columbiana). The second type of administrative data we collected was crime data from the Ohio Incident Based Reporting System, or OIBRS. This data was provided by the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services upon request to match the county data we were able to collect.

Findings:

Findings for our urban case study in Summit County indicate that there were no significant changes in pre-trial practices in the county for either total crime, violent crime, or non-violent crime types. In addition, while crime was increasing prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, it experienced an overall decrease in incidents after the pandemic. There were no changes in Summit County for violent crime after the pandemic, but non-violent crime significantly decreased.

Findings for our rural case study in Columbiana County indicate that the use of pre-trial bonds was increasing prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and continued to increase immediately after the Ohio Supreme Court issuance of COVID-19 guidelines. In the longer term, since April 2020, there has been a decrease in the usage of pre-trial bonds. This might indicate that the county is returning to the norm of practices that existed prior to the pandemic. This pattern was true for total crime incidents, violent crime incidents, and non-violent crime incidents.

In addition, for Columbiana County, crime trends were decreasing prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and immediately after the start of the pandemic across total crime, violent crime, and non-violent crime incidents. In the longer term, since April 2020, there has been an increase in crime in the county. Given the significant decreases in crime both prior to the pandemic and immediately after, this may be attributed to a return to the norm in crime incident trends that existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recommendations:

Given the context and results of the study, we provide several policy recommendations. The first set refer to pre-trial practices:

1. Ohio counties should continue to consider bail reform practices in line with the COVID19 pandemic guidelines issued by the Ohio Supreme Court, as there was no evidence of resultant crime increases as a result of this ‘natural experiment’. The second set of policy recommendations refer to the institutionalization of data practices across the state, which can help to ensure Ohio improves its reliance on data and evidence for making policy decisions in the area of bail reform.
2. Establish a centralized database that tracks pre-trial release processes in a standardized format in all Ohio counties.
3. Establish a legislative committee composed of legislators, criminal justice practitioners, and criminal justice scholars to study the effects of pre-trial release decisions on crime rates in all Ohio counties.

View Full Report

Executive Summary Priority Area 2:

Public Opinion on Bail Reform

Purpose:

As the research team awarded CJR-2022-001 “Bail Reform in Ohio,” we conducted three rigorous mixed method studies of Ohio bail practices to draw policy-oriented conclusions about bail’s effects on public safety and the lives of Ohio residents. The overall goal of this project is to provide the CJR and AGO with an understanding of three things: 1) the effects of COVID-19 on pre-trial practices, 2) public opinion of bail reform, 3) the life course effects of bail/bond/pretrial detention. This report examines this second topic, Priority Area 2. To address Priority Area 2, we sought to determine how supportive Ohio residents were of bail reform.

Goal: Provide the CJR and AGO with an understanding of Ohioans’ support of recognizance release bail reform related to Senate Bill 182 and House Bill 315 (134th General Assembly).

Research Question 2: What are Ohio residents’ current opinions regarding bail reform legislation and how do case-specific factors, such as legal and extra-legal variables, influence support for recognizance release?

Methods:

We conducted a web-based survey of a representative sample of 1,000 Ohio residents to gauge general and specific opinions regarding bail and pre-trial release preferences. Specifically, we conducted a 24 factorial survey experiment in which we varied four independent variables— offense history, offense seriousness, the gender of the accused, and the race of the accused—to determine how the main effects of these factors influenced support for recognizance release and perceived public safety. Participants were recruited from YouGov’s opt-in survey panel, which contained approximately 15,000 to 20,000 Ohio residents.

Findings:

Approximately 40% of respondents indicated they would support recognizance release oriented bail legislation consistent with Senate Bill 182/House Bill 315 (134th General Assembly). On average, Ohioans indicated they would be generally supportive of recognizance release bail reform, but worried that approving recognizance release bail legislation would result in an increase in crime or decrease in personal safety. Experimental results from multivariable models assessing the main effects of legal and extra-legal variables on pre-trial release preferences suggested legal variables (i.e., violent offense, second offense) reduced support for pre-trial release and increased preferences for pre-trial detention. However, approximately 41% of respondents indicated they would choose recognizance release and 44% would choose secured bond across experimental scenarios. Moreover, Ohioans appeared to be supportive of recognizance release-oriented bail reform generally and when they were provided information about case-specific legal variables.

Recommendations:

We provide four data-driven policy recommendations:

1. Use recognizance release for first-time non-violent offenders.
2. Use questions with general and specific wording to best gauge Ohioans’ short-term opposition or support for bail reform and other criminal justice issues.
3. Provide information on aggregate trends on case-specific legal variables when assessing opposition or support for bail reform and other criminal justice policy issues.
4. Conduct state-level longitudinal research to best understand trends for bail reform and other criminal justice policy opposition or support in Ohio.

View Full Report

Priority Area 3

Executive Summary

Purpose:

As the research team awarded CJR-2022-001 “Bail Reform in Ohio,” we are conducting three rigorous mixed method studies of Ohio bail practices in order to draw policy-oriented conclusions about bail’s effects on public safety and the lives of Ohio residents. The overall goal of this project is to provide the CJR and AGO with an understanding of three things: 1) the effects of recognizance bonds, 2) public opinion of bail reform, 3) the life course effects of bail/bond/pretrial detention. Specifically, this report examines this third topic, Priority Area 3. Previous research finds that pretrial detainment leads to negative outcomes for individuals in many areas (Digard & Swavola, 2019; Dobbie et al., 2018). Priority Area 3 in the RFP concerns if and how these collateral consequences manifest in Ohio.

Goal: Provide the CJR and AGO with an understanding into “if” and “how” pretrial detainment affects Ohioans in ways seen in other locations.

Research Question 3: What are the effects of pretrial detainment on life course outcomes of Ohioans? Specifically, what areas of life (e.g., maintaining employment, maintaining family relationships, monitoring health conditions) are affected by pretrial detainment and how are these effects experienced?

Methods:

We interviewed Ohioans who were arrested and detained until case disposition and Ohioans who were released into the community until case disposition. Participants were recruited through personal and professional contacts, organizations in Ohio that work with justice-involved individuals, and web-based support groups for justice-involved individuals. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using a combination of deductive and inductive analysis.

Findings:

We find that individuals who were detained pretrial experienced substantially worse outcomes than those who were released. Pretrial detention had negative effects on employment, mental and physical health, physical safety, social bonds, and the ability to mount a legal defense. These experiences, which can be understood as pains of imprisonment, serve to punish individuals who are detained, despite the presumption of innocence that they should be afforded.

Recommendations:

1. Reduce the number of arrests that can lead to pretrial detention, by instead utilizing treatment and diversion, especially for crimes of drug use.
2. Recognizance release should be the norm and conditional release an exception. If a judge is going to deny bail, it should be based on a significant concern for public safety that outweighs the limitations placed on the accused. If the concern is about an individual’s flight risk, the court should refrain from using bail and instead use alternatives for tracking, such as electronic monitoring.
3. The bail decision should be made as soon as possible in order to provide minimal disruption to the accused.
4. Bail amounts should be asset-based and calculated in accordance with the individual’s financial resources.
5. The justice system should provide information and guidance for how bail should be paid, in order to minimize stress on support networks and decrease the amount of time an individual spends in detention.
6. If an individual is to be detained pretrial for any reasons, the conditions of confinement should not be punishing and should provide access to health care, ensure safety, provide access to employment opportunities/unemployment assistance, and should facilitate visits and communication with support networks and legal counsel.

View Full Report