Objective Risk Criteria

Both the ABA and NAPSA strongly urge pretrial services programs to use objective criteria to assess the risk that a defendant will fail to appear at future court dates or be rearrested while awaiting trial. The ABA standards state that pretrial services information “should be organized according to an explicit, objective and consistent policy for evaluating risk and identifying appropriate release options” (Standard 10-4.2 (g)). Furthermore, the development of those options “should be based on detailed agency guidelines developed in consultation with the judiciary to assist in pretrial release decisions. Suggested release options should be supported by objective, consistently applied criteria contained in the guidelines”(Standard 10-4.2 (h)). The NAPSA standards also call for the use of objective criteria in a pretrial program’s risk assessment (Standard XI.A.3) “to remove the individual bias [of the pretrial interviewer]... This is the only way to remove arbitrariness and approach equal treatment for all defendants” (Commentary to Standard XI.A.4).

Survey of Pretrial Programs Series:  Objective Risk Criteria

PJI has recently released the fourth national survey of pretrial services programs. Previous surveys were conducted in 1979, 1989, and 2001.

Listed below are the findings relating to the risk assessment procedures of pretrial programs.

Both the ABA and NAPSA strongly urge pretrial services programs to use objective criteria to assess the risk that a defendant will fail to appear at future court dates or be rearrested while awaiting trial. The ABA standards state that pretrial services information “should be organized according to an explicit, objective and consistent policy for evaluating risk and identifying appropriate release options” (Standard 10-4.2 (g)). Furthermore, the development of those options “should be based on detailed agency guidelines developed in consultation with the judiciary to assist in pretrial release decisions. Suggested release options should be supported by objective, consistently applied criteria contained in the guidelines”(Standard 10-4.2 (h)). The NAPSA standards also call for the use of objective criteria in a pretrial program’s risk assessment (Standard XI.A.3) “to remove the individual bias [of the pretrial interviewer]... This is the only way to remove arbitrariness and approach equal treatment for all defendants” (Commentary to Standard XI.A.4).

Data from the 2008 survey shows that fewer than about one in four pretrial programs rely exclusively on objective criteria. An additional 64 percent combine objective and subjective criteria, and 12 percent use subjective criteria only.

The ABA standards state that the risk assessment scheme used by pretrial programs should “include factors shown to be related to the risk of flight or of threat to the safety of any person or the community” (Standard 10-4.2 (g)). Research has shown that factors that increase the likelihood that a defendant will fail to reappear, or will be rearrested, in one jurisdiction may not necessarily be relevant in another, even neighboring, jurisdiction. Ideally, each jurisdiction should develop its own risk assessment instrument based on local research and after consultation with key system officials — particularly the judiciary.

Results of the 2008 survey show that 42 percent of pretrial programs developed their risk assessment instruments based on the program’s own research and data—an increase from the 25 percent reported in the 2001 survey.  About a quarter incorporated local judgment into the development of the instrument, and 35 percent adapted their risk assessment procedures from another jurisdiction.

This section contains the specific chapters of each set of standards related to this topic, documents submitted by programs as examples, related publications, and results from PJI’s Survey of Pretrial Programs series.