Tag Archives: Brian Nairin

Pretrial Services – Defining Success by Failing More Than 20% of the Time

Posted on by

 

 

What if you only showed up for work 4 out of 5 days a week?  Would that be acceptable to your employer?  What if you only paid 4 out of every 5 bills you received from your local utility?  Would they still keep your power on?  What if you only completed 79% of your tax return?  Would the IRS let you get away with it?   The easy answer to all these questions is ABSOLUTELY NOT!  

So you are probably asking why I am asking such common sense questions.  Well, the truth is what is common sense to most of us is unfortunately not common sense to others.  For example, just this past weekend, an article was written in the Courier-Journal touting the incredible success of the pretrial services program in Jefferson County, Kentucky.  A state that you may or may not know that does not allow commercial bail.  According to a Jefferson County District Court judge, the Pretrial Service Agency in his county gets High-Risk defendants back to court “an amazing 79% of the time….”  Really?  Amazing?  Twenty-one percent of the time, the defendant is pretty much ignoring the authority of the system and doing whatever they want, and that, according to the judge is “amazing” and defines “success?”  Interesting and disturbing to say the least.

The article goes on to show some math to support the so called success of the Pretrial Services Agencies.  However, if you are a common sense person, it is really hard to define these numbers as “success.”  According to the article, 35,186 people obtained pretrial release in Jefferson County.  Each of these individuals went through a so called evidenced based risk assessment by the local Pretrial Services Agency.  Thirteen percent of low-risk defendants did not show up for court….does that sound like success?  Twenty percent of medium risk defendants did not show up for court…does that sound like success?  Twenty one percent of high-risk defendants did not show up for court…once again, does that sound like success?  To the pretrial folks, sure, it is great.  But to the community it is absolutely not.  Especially when almost 20% of the high-risk defendants are re-offending…in other words, several thousand defendants who have been released under pretrial services’ imaginary veil of supervision are ignoring the authority of the courts and in the process are running free to commit more crimes and victims.  And all this happens at a serious financial and social cost to the county and state.  When people fail to appear for court there is a huge financial cost that accompanies that act.  In Dallas, Texas that cost was found to be over $1,700 per defendant.  Applying that number to Jefferson County, based on a failure to appear rate of over 21% for just high risk defendants, the cost to Jefferson County is easily in the millions of dollars.

What makes this story even more disturbing is that this ineffective and costly system of managing criminal defendants (on both the front and back end of the process) is funded 100% by taxpayer dollars.  Yes, those taxpayers in Jefferson County, Kentucky are paying for a government run Pretrial Service Agency to fail 20% of the time.  And just for the record, when these 20% of high-risk defendants don’t show up for court, who do you think goes and gets them?  Who is held accountable and pays the court when they don’t show up?  The answer is no one.  Why?  Because there is no skin in the game and no accountability by any party involved (pretrial services or the defendant).  When a defendant fails to appear, Pretrial Service Agencies have nothing to lose.  The court just issues a bench warrant and it becomes the responsibility of already overburdened law enforcement to get him…which usually happens after they have committed an additional crime.

There is definitely not a simple solution to the challenges facing criminal justice systems like Kentucky.  However, there is a more effective solution.  A solution that is currently in practice in 46 other states;  A solution that gets defendants back to court better than any other form of pretrial release;  A solution that does not cost the taxpayers a single dollar; A  solution that actually generates revenue for the county and state through premium taxes and forfeiture payments; A solution that is based on a real risk assessment and is evidenced based; A solution that lowers recidivism and better protects the community; and finally, a solution that gives crime victims a chance at justice. This solution is the commercial bail bond industry.  It is time for states like Kentucky to start considering ways to more responsibly and effectively maintain the accountability of their criminal justice system and protect the public interest of its communities.

via – Behind the Paper with Brian Nairin: Pretrial Services – Defining Success by Failing More Than 20% of the Time.

Related Posts

Pretrial Fail – Truth and Deception

Posted on by

 

 

 

 

 

If you are a bail bond agent or someone that works in the bail bond industry then you have probably seen the new marketing materials being distributed by a group calling themselves the Justice Policy Institute or JPI…of course not to be confused with PJI (the Pretrial Justice Institute).  While their philosophies seem to be the same, they are different organizations.  The marketing piece that I am referring to is entitled, “Bail Fail: Why the US Should End the Practice of Using Money for Bail.”  As you can probably tell by the title, it is a piece that concerns me both as an individual in the commercial bail bond industry, but even more as a member of my local community.  Why?  Because we all know that releasing someone from jail pretrial on an unsecured promise to return to court is the most ineffective way to ensure the appearance of that defendant in court.  To release them without a financial guarantee of some kind is in essence letting them out for FREE with NO ACCOUNTABILITY to the system.  No accountability to show up for court.  No accountability to pay for their crime.  And ultimately no accountability the victim.

As I read the document and maneuvered through the fact-less claims and statistics, it started to click in my head what the problem was.  The argument being made by JPI is completely faulty.  Bear with me while I explain why.  First, their main premise is that all forms of money bail are bad and ineffective.  But what they really mean is that “commercial bail” or secured release is bad.  Why, because, if all forms of money bail are bad, than they would be criticizing themselves.  What they fail to recognize is that pretrial release programs are “money bail.”  The difference is the money doesn’t come from defendant’s families, but rather from taxpayers.  Who pays for the salaries of the people who work in the pretrial office? Taxpayers do.  Who pays for the office space and the office supplies?  Who pays for the clipboards and pencils that they conduct their evidenced based assessments with?  Taxpayers do.  In fact, everything they do costs taxpayers money.  So to say that they shouldn’t be included in the “money bail” category is extremely myopic and untrue.  

 

That being said, the real discussion that needs to happen in the criminal justice community is not around the money, because at the end of the day the money is part of all forms of release.  The discussion and comparison needs to be around results and effectiveness.  The real conversation needs to be around “secured release” versus “unsecured release” and which method is more effective in achieving its purpose (getting a defendant to court) and which is better at maintaining the highest levels of public safety. And I will have that debate all day long.   And to be honest, that discussion is not much of a debate, because secured release outperforms unsecured release in every dimension possible…especially in the key dimension of getting people to court, where secured release outperforms unsecured release almost 2 to 1.

 

The pretrial community does not want to have that discussion. Why?  Because they can’t win.  They can’t outperform financially secured release and they don’t have the record to compete head to head with us.  So instead, they distract and deflect the truth and force the conversation on to untrue things like how evil and greedy bail bondsmen are and play into that negative image of the bail industry (sound familiar?).

 

So let JPI produce its fancy marketing pieces and denounce “money bail” as evil and unnecessary.  Because, at the end of the day, I know that their argument is not only weak, but devoid of any reliable statistics that matter.   Commercial bail is a profession that exists because it is needed.  It is not around because bail agents are good at lobbying state and local governments. Commercial bail is a profession that exists because it works…and it has to work if you think about it.  On average, bail agents take only 10% of the bail amount as premium.  If the defendant doesn’t appear in court and the bail agent doesn’t get them back, the bail agent is responsible for 100% of the bond.  So even if the bail agent gets 9 out of 10 defendants back (which is much better than pretrial programs get), he would be breaking even and more likely than not losing money because of the cost of doing business.  The very nature of the math, forces the bail profession to be successful and to ensure that defendants appear…because if we don’t, we go out of business pretty fast.
 

Let me end with this.  AIA is comprised of three companies, Allegheny Casualty Company, which has been around for almost 80 years, International Fidelity Insurance Company which has been around for over 107 years, andAssociated Bond, who has been around for 80 years.  We underwrite more bail than any other surety in the country and all three of our companies couldn’t be stronger and more successful.  If anything these three companies are a testament of the effectiveness of bail as a profession and a safe and reliable form of release.  So call it money bail or anything you want, but in the real world the proof is in the pudding and financially secured release through a commercial bail bond does work and it does so better than every other method around….oh yeah and it doesn’t cost taxpayers a thing.

Behind the Paper with Brian Nairin: Pretrial Fail – Truth and Deception.

Pretrial Services Fails Again: Time to Tell the Truth

Posted on by

If you have picked up a paper recently you probably have seen story after story about crowded jails.  Too many crimes being committed, but not enough jail cells to house those that break the law.  So, you are probably wondering why the jails are crowded.  Well the folks at the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI), an organization dedicated to the elimination of commercial bail and other financial means of release, would like you to believe that the jails are crowded because people can’t afford a bail bond.  In fact, according to their own research (which by the way, no one except them has seen), they state that anywhere from 60% to as high as 80% of the pretrial populations sitting in jail are stuck there because they can’t afford a bail bond.

The first question I have is where is the research?  Show us the breakdowns of these populations and prove that people truly are “languishing” away in prison because of the bail bondsmen, who by the way do not set bail — that’s the judge’s job.  The problem is that there isn’t any research…at least none actually done by PJI…and to be honest, none that supports them as an effective source of pretrial release.  If PJI only took the time to actually research the make-up of the jail populations as opposed to touring the country pitching national associations to sign resolutions of questionable merit and veracity supporting their FREE criminal welfare programs, they would see that the jail populations are comprised of many different types of individuals…most of whom can’t be released on bail…not because they can’t afford it, but rather because they don’t qualify.  For example, some sitting in the county jail right now are the following types of individuals:

–  Those being held on immigration violations – do not qualify for bail

–  Those waiting to be transferred to a state prison – do not qualify for bail

–  Those waiting to be transferred to another jail in another state or county – do not qualify for bail

–  Those being held on probation violations or “blue warrants” – do not qualify for bail

–  Those actually serving out their sentence in a county jail – do not qualify for bail

–  Those that are deemed too dangerous for the community or are a flight risk – do not qualify for bail

–  Those whose bail was set so inordinately high that they were never intended to be released anyway

–  For those that do have a bail bond set, affording one is not a problem.  With flexible financing and payment

options, bail bonds can be purchased quite readily.

So why are jails overcrowded if it is not that people can’t afford a bail bond?  We think that is a good question and one that should be answered through research as opposed to just pointing at the usual easy target, the bail bondsman.  In fact, a recent article in the Charleston Daily Mail, uncovered that probation and parole violations accounted for 38% of the jail population in a West Virginia jail (see the article by clicking the link: Parole violations add to jail woes).  While this is only one glimpse into jail populations in West Virginia, it just goes to show that there are many reasons for jail overcrowding and not just the one of “not being able to afford a bail bond.”  In fact, the Texas Public Policy Foundation recently commented on the topic of jail overcrowding by stating the following:

“The most important preliminary step available to counties seeking to reduce unnecessary pretrial incarceration is to review their jail population data to determine the number of defendants who are locked up solely because they could not afford a commercial bail bond.”

For years the anti-commercial bail PJI has targeted bail agents for extinction. We are a solution, not the problem with the criminal justice system.  In fact, the bail industry is the only entity that “guarantees” performance in the criminal justice system…and if we don’t perform we pay the court.  How does PJI respond when pretrial service agencies fail to perform, which they so frequently do?    Now that is a question that needs an answer.  What do you think?

via Behind the Paper with Brian Nairin: Pretrial Services Fails Again: Time to Tell the Truth.

FREE BAIL BONDS: Good for Monopoly, but Not Good in Real Life

Posted on by

The first thing most people think about when they hear the phrase “Get out of jail free” is the game of Monopoly. But unfortunately, that fond childhood memory and association is being replaced by the inadequacies of government sponsored pretrial release programs. I recently read a great article (click here to read the article) by Dr. David Muhlhausen of the Heritage Foundation, discussing how Pretrial Service Agencies are able to tap into the $357 million provided through the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program.

These grants are also tapped into by local police departments. As you would expect, these local police departments are required to provide documentation around annual performance measures describing how their programs are doing. Just as any business would operate, you invest money in a product or a division, you track performance and then make a determination of how to improve the product or process or discontinue it. So far so good, right? Well, here comes the kicker. Unlike the accountability and tracking required by local police departments, Pretrial Service Agencies have no requirement for reporting performance results. Yep, that is what I said, go ahead and read that last sentence a second and a third time. PRETRIAL SERVICE AGENCIES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REPORT PERFORMANCE RESULTS. Almost makes you want to go out and start a pretrial service office doesn’t it?

In a time of economic depression (oh I’m sorry, I mean recession) across the country and what seems to be a never ending cycle of joblessness, how can our tax dollars be distributed so carelessly with no accountability? How can our elected officials continue to support an entity that doesn’t report results because those results would be so poor that they would look even more foolish than they already do? How can our state and local governments continue to support a government entity that substantially underperforms compared to a more efficient, effective and proven private sector approach (commercial bail)? These are questions that continue to baffle me and everyone I know both in and outside the bail bond profession.

While we continue to be amazed by the ineptitude of the thinking (or lack of it all together) that goes into these programs, there is a ray of hope on the horizon. Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) has sponsored a bill that would require Pretrial Service Agencies that receive any federal taxpayer funding to report their results. These are outlined specifically in the Muhlhausen article. I hope you join us in supporting this new Act (HR 1885) and encourage your own state representatives to do the same.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

via Behind the Paper with Brian Nairin: FREE BAIL BONDS: Good for Monopoly, but Not Good in Real Life.