Guide to Jail Population Review Programs

A jail population review program, sometimes referred to as a “sequential bail review program,” identifies people detained in jail who can safely be released pending the disposition of their case. The process reveals system practices that often contribute to unnecessary and unintentional pretrial detention, especially for people who cannot afford their assigned money bond but can safely be released from custody. Regularly reviewing your pretrial jail population is part of effective pretrial justice.

This guide covers creating a jail population review subcommittee, analyzing relevant jail data, determining the program’s parameters and operational procedures, and identifying relevant performance measures.

A jail population review program is a regular review of jail data—conducted by a collaborative team of criminal legal system and community stakeholders—to identify people who can safely be released from detention. A jurisdiction might be interested in implementing a jail population review program to:

• Address jail overcrowding
• Identify people in jail who are being detained for longer than they reasonably should be (e.g., unindicted cases, people staying longer than an eventual sentence, unnecessary holds)
• Identify people who can safely be released but cannot afford to pay a low money bond amount
• Address racial disparities

Whatever the reason, it’s important to identify and release people who do not need to be detained because the impacts of detention, particularly pretrial detention, are severe.

Groups that endorse the use of a jail population review program include:

• National Association of Pretrial Services Associations [1]
• National Institute of Corrections [2]
• Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research

Impacts of Pretrial Detention

Whether pretrial detention lasts a few hours, a few days, or over weeks, months, or years, a growing body of research shows that its impacts do not stop once a person is released. Instead, people detained before trial are more likely to miss court upon release, receive a harsher sentence, and be arrested—even years after their case has concluded. As a result, detention should be used sparingly, intentionally, and only when a judicial officer determines the person cannot safely remain in the community or could flee the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution.

Harsher sentences

Research reflects a growing consensus that—after controlling for key characteristics such as criminal history and charge—people who are detained pretrial receive harsher punishment than similar people who are released. They are more likely to plead guilty or be convicted, be sentenced to jail or prison, receive longer sentences of incarceration, and be required to pay more in fees related to their case.

Criminogenic effects

Large-scale studies in three states demonstrate that although pretrial detention may decrease rates of arrest in the short term—due simply to the fact that people are locked up—detention often leads to increased recidivism in the long term. Among the reasons for this is that incarceration can lead to loss of employment, instability in housing, and the undermining of family relationships.

Potential impacts on failure-to-appear rates

Although the research is mixed, at least one study found that pretrial detention for just two to three days can increase failure-to-appear rates, particularly for people who would otherwise be likely to return to court, and that longer periods of pretrial detention worsen this effect. Another study showed that people released quickly might reappear at slightly lower rates.

Fiscal impacts

State and county governments spend an estimated $14 billion annually on jail costs for pretrial detention. Notably, a day in jail costs 10 times more than supervising someone on pretrial release. But the fiscal impacts don’t end when the pretrial period is over. Because of the greater number of guilty pleas and convictions among people who are detained, coupled with their longer sentences, taxpayers foot the bill for prolonged incarceration even after cases are adjudicated.

Additional Benefits of a Jail Population Review Program

Beyond the main benefit of identifying people who can be safely released from jail, jail population review programs lead to increased collaboration among stakeholders and to culture change.

Increased collaboration

According to the Center for Justice Innovation (CJI), “One of the most notable strengths of [jail population review programs] is the way they bring together stakeholders from across agencies to speak with one another and make collaborative decisions.” Working collaboratively is key to improving the criminal legal system. Each stakeholder brings their own perspective and expertise, and it is only with the full system view that successful solutions are implemented.

Culture change

When a team of diverse stakeholders comes together regularly to review the jail population and identify people eligible for release, they will inevitably start seeing patterns in the data and recognize that certain types of cases are routinely recommended and not recommended for release. What happens next is culture change. As CJI explains, “If most burglary cases where a bicycle stolen from a garage result in the [jail population review team] recommending pretrial supervision, pretrial supervision for such cases could become the de facto policy in the first place—potentially before pretrial detention ever happens.”

Not all jail population review programs are alike. They will focus on different populations, have different goals, and achieve different results based on local circumstances. However, there are common steps to develop such a program:

• Create a subcommittee. Bring together a collaborative group of system and community stakeholders.
• Educate. The group should understand the value and purpose of jail population review programs.
• Analyze jail data. Before creating the program, the subcommittee should conduct a jail overview by analyzing who is detained in the local jail and why they are there.
• Identify goals. Clarify the goals of the jail population review program to help ensure it meets local needs.
• Develop a process. Create the parameters and process by which the population will be reviewed and identified for potential release. Work out the operations of the day-to-day program, including how recommendations for release are forwarded to judicial officers and the mechanics of releasing people from jail.

Each of these steps is discussed below.

Collaborative Team

Jail population review programs have been found to strengthen a jurisdiction’s foundation of collaboration across criminal legal system agencies and contribute to changing the culture and policies of pretrial release decisions.

Building a collaborative team

Experience demonstrates that cross-agency collaboration can result in significant gains. Identifying a project champion and team lead is a priority for achieving success.

Project champion
The project champion provides consistent positive energy to the effort and inspires others by communicating a persuasive vision and path. The project champion:

• Advocates for the project goals with peers, other policymakers and partners, and the media
• Chairs the jail population review team, conducts meetings, approves work plans, signs off on requests for data and information, and lends political standing to the project as a whole
• Works with the team lead to assess progress and, as needed, to address concerns or challenges that may hamper the team’s success
• Is often the public face of the project
• Motivates team members to stay involved

Team lead
The team lead is the glue that holds this effort together and the engine that moves it forward. Consulting regularly with the project champion, the team lead:

• Creates a work plan and schedules meetings
• Ensures that team members’ concerns and questions are addressed
• Works with staff from member agencies and offices to get data and information
• Ensures that tasks are assigned and completed
• Makes certain that the team (including committees or other subgroups) has the information, resources, and other assistance needed to complete their work

People serving in these roles must be able to work together and possess practical communication skills, exhibit problem-solving skills, adapt to changing timelines and priorities, and, most importantly, inspire, motivate, and coach the team to achieve its intended goals.

Determining team membership

While team membership may vary depending on the team’s purpose, stakeholders often include:

• Defense counsel or a representative from the public defender’s office
• Jail administration
• Judicial officer(s)
• Law enforcement
• Pretrial services
• Prosecution
• Representative from the clerk’s office
• Representative from the Information Technology department who works with the jail data management system
• Someone with lived experience of the criminal legal system

Once the team’s goals have been identified, additional stakeholders may need to be invited. For instance, if the goal is to connect people with services in the community, you may want to include representatives from community organizations on the team. As the team develops the jail population review process, it should have representation from every necessary system stakeholder to ensure systemic trust, transparency, and buy-in.

Getting to know your team

Learning as much as possible about each member can increase the likelihood of the entire team’s success. Even if you think you know the members well, you may not know their views about this type of program or the goals they wish to achieve.

Having the team lead conduct individual meetings or interviews with each team member before the first team meeting prepares both the team lead and project champion to understand each member’s perspective and, potentially, overcome specific concerns. It is also an opportunity for the team lead to ensure each member fully understands the goals of the jail population review team and to begin building a productive working relationship with individual members.

Use the Pre-Meeting Questions (PDF) resource as a guide.

Overview of Meetings

The team should anticipate holding multiple meetings to work through the activities described in this section. Any work that can be done prior to the first meeting or between meetings will reduce the number of subcommittee meetings needed. The team’s ultimate goal is to create the policies and procedures for the jail population review program.

The first meeting

You can adapt these proposed agenda items to your jurisdiction’s needs, although it is recommended that the team accomplish the following at its first meeting:

• Introduce one another (if needed)
• Understand the basics of a jail population review program
• Discuss why such a program would benefit the jurisdiction
• Collect outstanding questions from the group
• Review the process the team will use to develop the program
• Review the jail overview (below)

Download and edit our sample presentation (PPT) for your first meeting.

A jail overview is a high-level data analysis of who is in your jail, why they are there, and how long they stay.

Starting with Data

Understanding who is in your jail pretrial and why they are there is an essential initial step in identifying the goals of the jail population review team. Before the first or second meeting,  prepare a jail overview for the team to set the stage and anchor the work. Dispelling myths and preconceived notions of who is in your jail validates the necessity of creating this new program.

This historical overview of your jail population will also serve as a baseline that documents your pretrial population before implementing a jail population review team and the impact of post-implementation strategies. Analyzing and understanding your jail data also helps your system understand what drives your jail population. For example, are you housing people on pretrial warrants from another jurisdiction who are waiting to be transferred to the jurisdiction that issued the warrant? Is it costing your jurisdiction more to house people who are in custody on low monetary conditions of release than the amount of the financial condition?

A jail population analysis may also indicate racial and ethnic disparities in your system. If identified, this is an opportunity for criminal legal system stakeholders to identify what drives disparities and strategies for reducing them. This may result in the need to develop a separate subcommittee to focus solely on this issue.

The most important question the team should strive to answer as they review the jail data is, Do we have people detained in our jail who should not be there?

Finding data for the jail overview

To complete your jail overview, request jail information from the owner of the data. In most jurisdictions, this will be the sheriff’s office, department of corrections, or county IT. Jails keep records of the number of people booked, housed, and released from their facilities. They also capture demographics, charges, pretrial release conditions, case dispositions, and length of jail stay. Depending on what data is captured by your jail, you may need to supplement it with additional information from the courts or other sources.

Download and edit the sample Jail Overview Questions (DOC) to guide you in your data collection.

Meeting With Jail Data Contacts

When you meet with your jail data contacts, bring your list of jail overview questions to guide your discussion about the specific data you seek. Your objectives are to understand the capacity of the jail system to provide data and the extent to which your jail data contact can help collect the data. Start the conversation by asking some general questions:

• Do you produce and distribute any regular reports about the jail population?
• Do any of those regular reports answer these questions?
• If not, do you have staff who can run ad-hoc reports?
• Have you provided jail data to policymakers before?

The following are tips for your meeting with the jail data contacts:

• Be as specific as possible in your request. For instance, request data on all people booked into the jail during the past five years and all people sitting in the jail on January 1 or June 1 of this year (whichever is most recent).
• Request records without any personally identifying information such as name or date of birth (i.e., de-identified data).
• Explain how the information will be used and that it will not be shared publicly.
• Specify the format in which you’d like to receive the data. A spreadsheet is often the most convenient format.
• Note that while jails may record data by charges, you want an analysis of people. So, either your data analyst or the data owner may need to summarize each person’s charges.

How to Present the Jail Overview

Once the data is collected, it’s time to create a handout and present the jail overview to the jail population review team. Don’t be surprised if they question the accuracy, as this may be the first time they have received a jail overview, and they may be startled by what the data reveal. Select a member of your team to create a visual of charts and graphs to present to the jail population review team.

The following are suggestions for presenting your data:

• Your jail population review team will be made up of all learning types. Try to present data in multiple formats to reach people who want to see, hear, and interact.
• If your meeting is held in a room with a computer and projector, prepare slides for review. Keep bullets and words to a minimum for high visual impact.
• Present your data clearly. Label all charts, figures, graphs, and axes accurately.
• Highlight important discoveries, for example, sudden increases or decreases over months or years.
• Be clear and concise in your language. Use short sentences and avoid complicated jargon.
• Rehearse your presentation. You may want to ask someone from outside the team to review your overview, to determine if they can understand the data without explanation.
• Create a printable handout version of your slides with titles, notes, and data sources.
• Don’t try to answer all questions in one meeting. A jail overview should provide a high-level summary and lead to follow-up questions that can be addressed in future meetings.

Jail Overview Examples
Here are some examples of jail overviews prepared by the APPR team for different jurisdictions:

• Example 1 from a small rural county in the South (PDF)
• Example 2 from an urban county in the Midwest (PDF)

Identify the Program Goals

Now it’s time to clearly identify the goals of your program. Identifying your goals is critical because they will help you define program parameters, program operations, and measures for success.

Possible goals

The goals of your program may present themselves as you review the jail data and discuss the team’s greatest concerns. Below are the goals of other jail population review programs:

• In St. Louis County, Missouri, the initial goals were expediting case processing and moving cases toward disposition. As a result, they initially focused on people who had been in jail pretrial for at least 100 days.
• In Pima County, Arizona, the program is focused on moving people out of jail who can be safely released. As such, the jail population review team examines reentry considerations and ways to support people once released.
• For Maine Pretrial Services, the goal was to identify detained individuals who require follow-up, avoid unnecessary pretrial detention, and guarantee uniform data tracking across all counties and case managers.
• In Ramsey County, Minnesota, the program will provide a process to consistently review the jail list to identify people in custody who have been unable to pay their low monetary bonds. This process will provide a second look at those cases for possible release or modification of conditions.

Identifying Program Parameters

The team can effectively target people whose cases warrant examination and intervention by defining clear and relevant program parameters. This ensures that the team’s efforts are directed toward the most pertinent issues within the jail population. Some of the factors that you may consider include:

• Type of Offense: People charged with nonviolent offenses, especially those related to minor infractions or certain nonviolent misdemeanors, are often prioritized for review. This allows the program to focus on cases where incarceration may not be the most effective response.
• Time in Jail: People who have spent an extended period in pretrial detention, particularly those whose cases have exceeded a predetermined time frame, can be included in the review. This recognizes the importance of swift justice and avoiding undue delays in the legal process.
• Monetary Bond Amount: Those who are unable to meet their bond requirements, especially when their financial constraints prevent their release, are prime candidates for review. This ensures that detention is not prolonged solely due to financial limitations.
• Case-Specific Considerations: The program should allow for case-by-case consideration of people who may not be the population of focus but exhibit unique circumstances or characteristics warranting a review. This flexibility is essential for addressing the diverse needs of the jail population.

Consider incorporating a holistic approach to determining parameters for the jail population review program. Evaluate people’s stability, potential for supportive services, and community ties. This comprehensive assessment can contribute to a more nuanced and effective selection process, promoting fairness and addressing the unique needs of each participant.

Operations

Developing operations for a jail population review program requires careful planning and collaboration. The program operations should be grounded in a systematic approach, encompassing predetermined parameters, case reviews, informed recommendations, and timely releases.

Review process

The process should include a thorough and unbiased review of eligible cases involving a multidisciplinary team, including legal, mental health, and law enforcement representatives. Alternatively, assigning a knowledgeable staff person can streamline the review process if a team isn’t available. Due to the time-sensitive nature of this process, many jurisdictions hire staff dedicated to the process to ensure it is executed consistently and efficiently and all stakeholders receive the necessary information to make an informed decision.

The review should consider all relevant information, including current charges, past criminal history, and any mitigating factors. If your jurisdiction uses a pretrial assessment tool, the results of that assessment should also be included.

Mecklenburg County’s (NC) collaborative approach to jail review has helped reduce pretrial detention equitably and efficiently. Learn more about their program.

Recommendation framework

Develop a structured process for formulating recommendations based on the review, considering alternatives to incarceration. Encourage collaboration between stakeholders to ensure comprehensive and informed decision making.

Not every eligible case will be recommended for release. All interested stakeholders should meet and identify a recommendation framework to guide decisions. Consider the following:

• Is the person suitable for release to pretrial services or other diversion programs?
• Does the person have community supports (such as family, employment, housing, etc.)?
• Does the person have needs that can be met in the community?
• Has something changed in the person’s circumstances that would encourage a judge to reconsider the original money bond amount?

Release protocols

To ensure a streamlined and effective release protocol, it is important to establish a transparent process for initiating a judicial review. This process should designate the responsible parties for initiating the review and outline the procedural steps involved. Clear communication channels between the jail, judiciary, and relevant stakeholders should also be established to facilitate seamless coordination and release. Regular communication and information sharing among these entities can expedite the release process and minimize delays.

Establishing collaboration with community organizations is equally important to provide comprehensive support and resources to individuals upon release. By partnering with these organizations, vital assistance can be offered, such as housing, employment opportunities, counseling, and other essential services to promote pretrial success. Overall, these measures can enhance the efficiency and efficacy of the release protocol and better serve people as they reintegrate into their community.

Different Approaches

Different approaches will apply depending on the makeup of each jurisdiction. Below are examples for a rural jurisdiction and for a statewide process.

Rural jurisdiction

A judiciously designed jail population review initiative can still be effective and impactful in a rural pretrial program with limited resources. In Indiana, Cass County Court and Pretrial Services (CCCPS) analyzes its jail population on a daily basis and cross-references data with its information management system to provide stakeholders with current information on a person’s risk level, bond amount, pretrial status, incarceration status, offense type, and holds. Information is shared with community corrections, probation, and the community corrections advisory board on a monthly basis.

CCCPS also uses this analysis as its “look-back”/jail population review process to identify reasons the court may decide to change its initial release decision, such as a person’s inability to pay a bond the court assumed the person would be able to pay, the resolution of a warrant or hold that prevented release, changes in residential stability or behavioral health, or pretrial detention that has lasted longer than the sentence for the underlying offense. In the event that CCCPS identifies a person who meets the criteria outlined above, the court is notified, and a hearing is requested. Judicial officers also receive monthly reports that include information for all people detained pre-adjudication, with corresponding supplemental information, such as days incarcerated and the date of the last hearing, to help ensure timely court processing and due process. See an example of Cass County’s Monthly Jail Analysis (PDF).

Statewide process

Connecticut Department of Correction’s Pretrial Services team provides jail re-interview services to gather additional information about people who are held on bond after arraignment. Collaborating with the people detained, their families, and their references, the dedicated staff facilitate the bond process and develop release plans for people who have substance use or mental health issues, taking into account treatment needs and the family’s capacity to post bond. When pretrial release is deemed suitable, the information is conveyed to the court for consideration at a bond modification hearing. This enables people to access treatment swiftly and helps alleviate crowding in jail.

Outcome Measures

Outcome measures help determine the extent to which your desired goals for the jail population review are being accomplished. The jail population review team should spend time determining what measures they would like to track, how to track them, and what case management system will be used to collect them. The team will also need to determine the reporting structure for the measures and how often reporting will occur. You may want to consider a weekly reporting structure to identify and address potential issues as quickly as possible. Data also allows the team to determine resource needs for the program’s sustainability.

Some performance measures your team might consider are:

• Number of cases eligible for review based on the jail population review parameters
• Number and percentage of eligible cases reviewed
• Number and percentage of cases recommended for modification
• Number and percentage of cases recommended for modification that are released

The team may decide to launch the jail population review program with, initially, only a few identified data metrics. As the program progresses, other outcome measures that would be beneficial to track may be determined by system stakeholders.

NOTE: In the few instances where a jail population review program has been evaluated (PDF), the number of people released through the process represented a tiny proportion of the overall jail population. However, the impact of such a program should be measured not only by the number of people released but also by the related goals, such as reducing case delay, helping people access supportive services, and impacting the culture of pretrial release decisions.

Once the subcommittee completes all of the steps and has memorialized the policies and procedures that will govern the operation of the jail population review program, they will need to present it to the broader policy team for review and approval.

Communicate with All Stakeholders

After the new jail population review program is approved, you will need to decide the best way to present the new program to the most relevant stakeholders, including judicial officers, prosecutors, and defense counsel. Communicating with these stakeholders is important for obtaining their buy-in and input about how the program will operate. You should also let the broader community know about this program because it will potentially impact them (in a positive way); additionally, family and community support for an individual’s release can be incorporated into the program design.