Pretrial Research Highlights in 2025

Changing the Initial Appearance Process: Findings from Three Sites
Safety + Justice Challenge (Magnuson, Joplin, Lerch & Richards), May 2025

Data & Methodology: This study examined three jurisdictions—Cook County, Illinois; Lucas County, Ohio; and Multnomah County, Oregon—where changes to the initial appearance process, including increased access to defense attorneys, were made as part of the Safety + Justice Initiative. Researchers used a mixed-methods approach to understand how the changes operate in practice and how they impact pretrial release decisions and outcomes. Researchers relied on process mapping data, in-person observation data, interview data, and administrative data from both local courts and jails via the sheriff’s office.

Analysis & Findings: Several themes were found across study sites, including the following:

• The eligibility criteria for pre-arraignment release—particularly release on recognizance—may contribute to racial and ethnic disparities.
• Consultations with defense counsel before arraignment can increase initial appearance transparency and due process.
• Defense attorneys are a necessary component of initial appearances but, alone, are not sufficient to create a fair and transparent process.
• Collecting more information about people before their initial appearance may encourage less expensive and less restrictive pretrial release.
  

Unequal Scales: California’s Investment Disparity Between Prosecution and Public Defense*
California Office of the State Public Defender (Kaplan, Gundel, Fraser, Lipa, & Yu), May 2025

Data & Methodology: This report reviewed the current funding landscape for trial-level prosecution and public defense in California, including county-level allocations and state-controlled revenue streams that support these functions.

Analysis & Findings: In the last six years, California has allocated more than $1 billion to support prosecution efforts but just $150 million to indigent defense. At the county level, in the 2022–2023 fiscal year, approximately $2.2 billion was allocated to local district attorney’s offices compared to just over $1.2 billion for public defense. This $1 billion gap represents a long-term trend. Since at least 2017, California counties have funded prosecution over defense by margins of around $860 million annually. 

Public Opinion About Judicial Roles and Considerations: A Latent Profile Analysis*
Law and Human Behavior (Desmarais, Zottola & Monahan), June 2025

Data & Methodology: Authors conducted an online survey of 4,861 jury-eligible adults. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of judicial responsibilities and considerations. A latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups based on their ratings, and univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to examine sociodemographic differences.

Analysis & Findings: Four profile groups were identified based on the factors they valued highest:

• The largest group (47 percent of respondents) valued due process, legal standards, expert knowledge, public safety, helping the accused, and community input.
• The second-largest profile (40 percent) also valued legal standards, expert knowledge, and public safety but not public interests and community input.
• The next group (8 percent) generally rated all items as neither important nor unimportant, suggesting ambivalence, no opinion, or limited interest.
• The smallest group (5 percent) rated all items as unimportant.
• These opinion profiles can be used to inform policy and practice.
  

Legal, Quasi-, and Extra-Legal Correlates of Judicial Bail Outcomes*
American Journal of Criminal Justice (McCarthy, Fox & Verona), July 2025

Data & Methodology: This study examined the records of 713 people booked into a county jail in Florida. Jail files and court records were used to examine the relationship between release decisions and legal factors (e.g., prior arrests, seriousness of charged offense), quasi-legal factors (e.g., employment, substance use problems), and extra-legal factors (e.g., race/ethnicity, age).

Analysis & Findings: Analysis showed that release decisions (including if bond was granted and the amount ordered) were consistently associated with legal factors, including prior arrests and history of absconding or violating release conditions. Two quasi-legal factors—substance use and household income—were also related to release decisions, but extra-legal factors were mostly unrelated.

The authors suggest that since quasi-legal factors are often linked with extra-legal factors, judicial decisions may result in disproportionate burdens on the most disadvantaged people facing criminal charges.

Does Variation Across Judicial Circuits Matter? Examining the Role of Bail Schedules and Pretrial Detention on Drug Case Outcomes in Florida*
Journal of Criminal Justice (Mora, Mitchell & Spohn), July 2025

Data & Methodology: This study examined a sample of more than 3,000 felony drug offenses filed in Florida’s Circuit Courts in 2017. Authors estimated multilevel regressions to examine circuit-level variation in release conditions and pretrial detention outcomes, and they estimated predicted probabilities of pretrial and sentencing outcomes by detention status.

Analysis & Findings: Results show significant variation in initial money bond amounts—mostly resulting from judicial district-specific “bail schedules” (a predetermined list of recommended money bond amounts for various criminal charges)—and the likelihood of pretrial detention. Higher initial bond amounts were found to significantly increase the likelihood of detention. Predicted probability models indicated that pretrial detention leads to more punitive pretrial and sentencing outcomes.  

What Really Prevents Court Appearance? Survey Findings from People Who Failed to Appear in Two Counties
Crime and Justice Institute, February 2025

Data & Methodology: People booked into jail on a failure to appear warrant in Jefferson County, Kentucky, and Salt Lake County, Utah, were surveyed on why they missed their last court date. The questions covered several categories, including awareness of the court date and process, conflicts with transportation or childcare, and perceptions of the justice system and possible outcomes. Researchers connected the survey responses with administrative records to compare people’s reasons with their charges, risk levels, and other characteristics.

Analysis & Findings: Most people cited more than one reason for missing court hearings. The two most common reasons were forgetting the court date followed by unawareness of the scheduled court appearance. A lack of transportation was also a common reason for missing court. The least-reported reasons included fear of going to court and a belief that the outcome would not be fair.

Some respondents reported that they missed court because they did not understand the pretrial process, or they believed they were innocent of the charges. People with more serious charges were more likely to report intentionally avoiding court.

Of those who gave only one reason for a recent missed appearance, 32 percent said they were unaware of the court appearance, 28 percent cited a lack of transportation, and 19 percent said they forgot the date.

New National Data Help Fill 20-Year Data Gap: Offense Data for People in Local Jails
Prison Policy Initiative (Widra), April 2025

Data & Methodology: The Jail Data Initiative (JDI) collects, standardizes, and aggregates individual-level records from more than 1,000 jails in the U.S. every day. The Prison Policy Initiative analyzed this data set for a detailed, national view of the one-day jail population and bookings over a full year; “top” charges versus all charges; and trends by sex, jail size, and region. This was the first such analysis done in more than two decades.

Analysis & Findings: The following were among the key findings:

• One-third of annual jail admissions are for misdemeanor charges.
• Many people are jailed for “technical violations” of community supervision, not new criminal charges.
• People frequently face multiple charges, with low-level charges “stacked” onto their top charge.
• People facing more charges face higher money bond amounts, are more likely to be jailed for longer periods of time, and are more likely to be convicted.
• Most people are jailed for nonviolent offenses.
• Three quarters of women in jail are facing nonviolent charges.
  

Toward Safety, Liberty, and Equity: A Community-Centered Framework for Redesigning Minnesota’s Pretrial System
Minnesota Justice Research Center (Hall, Page & Simonton), February 2025

Data & Methodology: The authors employed four types of qualitative research—system actor interviews, community engagement, site visits, and legal analysis—to study Minnesota’s pretrial system and produce recommendations for improvement. Quantitative analyses were conducted using data from the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Analysis & Findings: Roughly 56 percent of people in Minnesota jails are held pretrial—charged, but not convicted, and presumed innocent. The 80 counties outside the Twin Cities metro area had the highest rates of pretrial detention. Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native Minnesotans are overrepresented in the state’s pretrial populations. System actors and community members interviewed in the study agreed that, given the negative consequences associated with pretrial detention, Minnesota’s pretrial system “is not working as it should.”  

Beyond Bail: A National Survey of Pretrial Justice Reform in the United States
The Bail Project (Mitman, George & Cherson), March 2025

Data & Methodology: The authors used publicly available legislative and judicial tracking to create a state-by-state index of relevant activities related to “bail reform.”

Analysis & Findings: This report provides a descriptive analysis of legislative changes and court decisions or rulings that shifted jurisdictions and states away from wealth-based detention toward pretrial systems that treat all people fairly and reduce unnecessary incarceration. Where applicable, the report also assesses the impacts and consequences of the reforms.  

Examining Changes in Fatal Violence Against Women After Bail Reform in New Jersey
American Journal of Preventive Medicine (Riley, Adhia, Kajeepeta, Simes & Jahn), April 2025

Data & Methodology: This study used a synthetic control method to assess the impact of New Jersey’s 2017 systemic pretrial law changes on the rates of fatal violence against women. The changes involved a shift toward a pretrial system in which release was determined using a risk-based approach rather than based on a person’s ability to pay a cash bond. Researchers created a weighted combination of 21 control states with no similar pretrial changes from 2015 to 2019. Data from the National Violent Death Reporting System, including variables on intimate partner violence (IPV)-related homicides, pregnancy-associated homicides, and overall homicides of adult women, were examined.

Analysis & Findings: According to the report, “There were no significant changes in IPV-related homicides, pregnancy-associated homicides, and all homicides among adult women—overall and within racialized groups—in the 3 years after NJ’s reform.”  

Policy Shifts in Pretrial Detention: Lessons from the 2019 Harris County, Texas Misdemeanor Bail Policies
Duke Law Wilson Center for Science and Justice (Bass-Patel), June 2025

Data & Methodology: This report analyzed case outcomes in Harris County, Texas, for a period before new pretrial release policies were adopted (2015–2019) and for a period after their adoption (2019–2024). These policies eliminated the cash “bail schedule” (a predetermined list of recommended money bond amounts for various criminal charges) for most misdemeanors.

Analysis & Findings: Study results included the following:

• Fewer people were rearrested in misdemeanor cases after the policy changes.
• The rate of repeat arrests remained stable (around 23 percent) before and after the policy changes.
• The number of people arrested for misdemeanor offenses declined by almost 14 percent during the entire period (2015 to 2024).
• About 14 percent of people were given a cash bond following the changes compared to more than 85 percent before the changes.
• About 90 percent of people were not jailed pretrial in misdemeanor cases compared to less than 40 percent before the changes.
• From 2015 to 2023, there was a significant decrease (from 68 to 24 percent) in cases resolved through a guilty plea and a large increase (from 31 to 74 percent) in cases dismissed.
• Black and Brown people were arrested at disproportionately higher rates than white people, but they were jailed and released pretrial at similar rates.
  

The Hidden Harms of Bond Reform: Examining the Impact of Bond Reform on Restrictive Conditions of Release*
Journal of Criminal Justice (Eife, Schlesinger, Carlisle, Pendleton & de Wet), July 2025

Data & Methodology: To examine the impact of pretrial bond reform, authors conducted nonparticipant observations of a bond court in Cook County, Illinois, before and after the adoption of Order 18.8A (2017), a policy requiring bond to be set in affordable amounts. The differences were compared using logistic regression models.

Analysis & Findings: According to the report, “Bond reform may reduce initial rates of incarceration, but expand the carceral state by increasing pretrial requirements.”

Following the adoption of Order 18.8A in Cook County:

• Rates of restrictive conditions of release increased,
• Nonfinancial release on recognizance and no-bond orders mandating pretrial detention increased, and
• Being Black was a top predictor of assignment to electronic monitoring.
  

Locked Up and Awaiting Trial: Testing the Criminogenic and Punitive Effects of Spending a Week or More in Pretrial Detention*
Criminology & Public Policy (DeMichele, Silver & Labrecque), February 2025

Data & Methodology: This study employed a doubly robust difference-in-differences design. The authors assessed criminal activity prior to and after the charge for which people were admitted to jail between 2017 and 2018 by examining jail admission data (limited to adults admitted to jail for a new crime) and criminal history and state-level court records.

Authors compared individuals who were detained 1 day or less during pretrial—used as a viable control group because of their minimal exposure to the conditions of pretrial confinement—to individuals detained for more than 7 days. Regression analyses and sensitivity tests were performed to ensure like-like comparisons.

Analysis & Findings: The study found that “pretrial detention increases the odds for someone to miss a court appearance or be arrested by roughly 50% and increases the odds of convictions by 36%.” As such, pretrial detention can be counterproductive to community safety. The findings align with earlier analyses showing that spending more than one day in pretrial detention increased the odds of negative pretrial outcomes compared to being booked and released in less than 24 hours.

This research builds on the authors’ 2023 study, which was discussed in the APPR story,  The Benefits of Early Release from Pretrial Detention.  

The Role of Race, Gender, and Poverty on Length of Pretrial Jail Stays: A Multi-Site Analysis
Criminology & Public Policy (Ouellette, Huebner, Giuffre, Slocum & Schaefer), February 2025

Data & Methodology: This study analyzed jail admission and release data (2016–2019) from two metropolitan jurisdictions to understand lengths of stay, and it used an intersectional perspective to model potential differences among race, gender, and residence in a high-poverty area. Authors employed a mixed methods analysis, including bivariate differences between people with short, moderate, and long lengths of stay; multinomial logistic regression to estimate the effect of demographics, criminal history, charge characteristics, and year on length of stay; multiplicative interaction terms to measure the conditional effects of race, gender, and poverty; and tests of second differences to determine whether the interaction effects were statistically significant for combinations of race, gender, and poverty.

Analysis & Findings: Results showed that, in both study locations, “Black men are the most likely to have long lengths of stay, but that length of stay varies depending on the intersection of gender, race, and neighborhood poverty.” Black individuals were more likely to have longer pretrial jail stays compared to white individuals. This is of significance in that “the length of pretrial incarceration further stratifies Black men as it is significantly associated with an increased risk of conviction and incarceration.”  

The Distribution of Carceral Harm: County-Level Jail Incarceration and Mortality by Race, Sex, and Age
Demography (Luck), October 2024

Data & Methodology: This study employed negative binomial models to “assess the relationship between jail incarceration and race- and sex-specific mortality” based on county-level mortality and county-level, race-specific jail incarceration data. The author also employed a regression approach to measure standard errors and confidence intervals for race and sex ratios.

Analysis & Findings: Increases in county-level jail incarceration were associated with increases in mortality among Black and white populations, ranging from 1.4 to 1.9 percent across all age groups. This relationship peaks in late adulthood (ages 50–64), when increases in jail rates are associated with roughly 3 percent increases in mortality across all race–sex groups. However, patterns vary at the intersection of race, sex, and age, with more distinct and consistent impacts among women than men. Findings showed that Black men aged 65 or older fare dramatically worse than their white male and Black female counterparts.  

Bernalillo County Second Judicial District Court Preventive Detention Motion Review
University of New Mexico Institute for Social Research (Guerin), October 2024

Data & Methodology: Authors reviewed felony court cases in New Mexico’s Second Judicial District Court where a Public Safety Assessment (PSA) was completed and where a preventive detention motion was filed between July 2017 and June 2023‚ for a total of 6,698 cases. Analyses were performed using variables including, but not limited to, the PSA score category, the new criminal activity and failure to appear scaled score, the new violent criminal activity flag, the most serious charge, and the detention hearing result.

Analysis & Findings: Study results indicate that judges granted about 60 percent of pretrial detention motions requested by the district attorney, most often in cases of violent crime. People were detained in jail for an average of four months before being released. Forty-three percent of people who were detained through the pretrial detention motion process had their cases dismissed. Authors found this result “surprising given that these cases were considered serious enough by the prosecution to have warranted a preventive detention motion.”  

Effectiveness of Drug Testing Requirements on Pretrial Supervision Outcomes*
Journal of Criminal Justice (Foudray, Lowder & Wilson), March 2025

Data & Methodology: Authors conducted a “retrospective non-equivalent comparison group study, using propensity score matching and instrumental variable analysis, to examine the effect of pretrial drug testing on pretrial supervision outcomes.” The data set included a matched sample of 291 people ordered to pretrial drug testing and 748 people not ordered to drug testing.

Analysis & Findings: Findings showed that drug testing increased the odds of pretrial failure. Specifically:

• People who received drug tests were half as likely to complete pretrial supervision, and they were more likely to be arrested on new charges and on new drug charges;
• More frequent drug tests resulted in a higher likelihood for new arrest; and
• Graduated supervision outcomes were not affected by pretrial drug testing. 
  

“Justice by Geography”: Improving Pretrial Electronic Monitoring in Maryland
Justice Policy Institute, April 2025

Data & Methodology: Researchers contacted leaders in each of Maryland’s 24 jurisdictions (23 counties and Baltimore City) to learn more about how pretrial services operate and whether they use electronic monitoring (EM) to supervise pretrial clients. They also interviewed seven people who had been ordered to EM and two people whose family members were ordered to EM.

Analysis & Findings: Key findings included the following:

• Supervision and EM practices vary widely across the state.
• EM use is on the rise, though not uniformly.
• Many jurisdictions unnecessarily limit pretrial release eligibility.
• Some jurisdictions are restructuring supervision conditions to be less restrictive.
• People with lived experience of EM see benefits to release on EM but also report that it imposes a significant burden.
  

Rikers Island and Mental Health: Pathways Toward Community-Based Diversion and Jail Population Reduction
Data Collaborative for Justice and Katal Center for Equity, Health, & Justice (Rempel, Rodriguez, Bock, Zeitz, Sayegh & Dominguez), November 2025

Data & Methodology: This study examined New York City mental health court participation data from a variety of city and state sources. The goal was to obtain updated information about the mental health needs of the 7,000 people held in New York City’s jails on a given day and to identify a continuum of safe and effective jail diversion strategies for this population. Authors also conducted four case studies of people experiencing mental health needs while incarcerated in the city’s Rikers Island facility. Analysis is primarily descriptive.

Analysis & Findings: The analysis found that:

• Approximately 60 percent of people held in the city’s jails received mental health services, and 22 percent were diagnosed with a serious mental illness;
• Of the nearly 500 women jailed at Rikers, 87 percent have mental health needs, compared to 58 percent of men;
• People with mental health needs are held longer than those without such needs (281 vs. 212 days); and
• A jail intake flag for mental health needs predicted a jail stay of 34 days longer than people who were not flagged.
  

Smart Decarceration: Is It Possible to Detain Fewer People and Reduce Arrests?*
Crime and Delinquency (DeMichele, Silver & Labrecque), November 2024

Data & Methodology: This study utilized a random forest imputation (a process of using algorithms to find missing data and replace it with plausible substitute values) to forecast new arrests for people detained by the court. Authors compared release and new arrest rates between the predicted outcomes and observed release decisions.

Analysis & Findings: Findings indicate that a risk-based release approach may reduce the detained population by 7 percent and reduce new arrests by 13 percent compared to current practices that include a reliance on financial conditions of release.