bail reform in cook county reform/bail refor… · hearings-and-pretrial-release.aspx ... sample of...

3333

Bail Reform in Cook County

An Examination of General Order 18.8A and Bail in Felony Cases

Office of the Chief Judge May 2019

This page is intentionally left blank for printing purposes.

State of Illinois

Circuit Court of Cook County

Bail Reform in Cook County

An Examination of General Order 18.8A

and Bail in Felony Cases

Office of the Chief Judge Circuit Court of Cook County

50 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 Chicago, Illinois 60602

This page is intentionally left blank for printing purposes

Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 1

Section 1. Pretrial Reform in Cook County ........................................................................................................... 3

General Order 18.8A ......................................................................................................................................... 4

Data Reporting and Measurement ................................................................................................................... 4

Data Source ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Definitions ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Bond Court .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Types of Bonds .............................................................................................................................................. 4

Conditions of Bail .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Case Characteristics ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Race and Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Section 2. Initial Felony Bail Hearing Population .................................................................................................. 7

Section 3. Initial Bail Order ................................................................................................................................. 11

Section 3A. Bail Amount for Initial D-Bond Order .............................................................................................. 21

Section 4. Pretrial Rate of Release ...................................................................................................................... 24

Section 5. Pretrial Release Population ................................................................................................................ 27

Section 6. Preliminary Outcomes and PSA Performance .................................................................................... 30

Court Appearance Rate ................................................................................................................................... 30

Community Safety Rate .................................................................................................................................. 32

New Violent Criminal Activity Rate ................................................................................................................. 34

Section 7. Discussion and Summary ................................................................................................................... 36

Section 8. List of Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 39

1

Executive Summary

Bail Reform in Cook County – An Examination of General Order 18.8A and Bail in Felony Cases1 2 presents data on initial bail decisions for new felony filings in Cook County. These outcomes are analyzed in two 15-month periods – (1) July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017 and (2) October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018. Through implementation of a risk assessment, a Model Bond Court initiative, and Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans’ 2017 General Order 18.8A (G.O. 18.8A), which set forth bail procedures that maintain the presumption of innocence, the Circuit Court of Cook County, in collaboration with the justice system stakeholders, has reduced the population of the jail by over 40% since January 2014. Bail reform in Cook County has promoted justice through an increased release of pretrial defendants who are entitled to bail under Illinois law. Further, it has protected public safety through an increase in No Bail orders for defendants with the greatest risk of new violent criminal activity if released. It should be noted that the increase in pretrial release has not led to an increase in crime. FBI statistics show that, in the post-G.O. 18.8A period of January – June 2018, violent crimes reported in Chicago declined by almost 8% compared to the same period in 20173.

Key findings in this report include:

The average daily confined jail population by month (yellow line in Figure 1) declined by about 26% in the initial years of the Model Bond Court Initiative, from January 2014 to September 2017 (10,064 compared to 7,443). With implementation of G.O. 18.8A, the population decline accelerated. Within 15 months, the population declined by an additional 16%, a total decline in the jail population of 42% between 2014 and the end of 2018 (10,064 compared to 5,799).

* ADP calculations generated by the Office of the Chief Judge (OCJ) Information Services Department using “Sheriff’s Daily Report” (Jan 1, 2014 – Dec. 31, 2018). The Cook County

Sheriff’s Office Bureau of Information and Technology Business Intelligence Unit provides the daily reports to the Office of the Chief Judge. The Daily Report does not provide subcategory breakdown of the inmate population (e.g., pre-trial detainees, sentenced individuals, charged with felony or misdemeanor, etc.). The monthly ADP calculation is the sum of the daily total numbers of inmates on each day of the month divided by the number of days in the month.

** The Confined Population consists of the male and female General Populations, Sheriff’s Women's Justice Residential Program, Pre-Release Treatment Programs, Vocational

Rehabilitation Impact Center (VIRC), and the off-site population confined in jails outside of Cook County. The General Population consists of the population on site at CDOC, excluding Hospital, Sheriff’s Women's Justice Residential Program, Pre-Release Treatment Programs, and VIRC. The Community Corrections population includes VRIC post-release.

1 General Order 18.8A took effect on September 18, 2017. The analysis for the post-implementation period begins on October 1, 2017 to allow for ease and clarity of comparisons. 2 http://www.cookcountycourt.org/Manage/DivisionOrders/ViewDivisionOrder/tabid/298/ArticleId/2562/GENERAL-ORDER-NO-18-8A-Procedures-for-Bail-Hearings-and-Pretrial-Release.aspx 3 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/preliminary-report/tables/table-4/state-cuts/table-4-illinois-through-missouri.xls

2

Felony filings rose slightly in the 15 months after G.O. 18.8A compared to the 15 months prior to the order. Despite this increase, there was a rapid decline in the jail population immediately following G.O. 18.8A.

- In both 15-month time periods, about 10% of defendants were charged with a violent offense. Of these defendants, the percentage released into the community did not substantially change from the pre- to post-G.O. 18.8A period (pre = 43.2% released vs. post = 46.5% released). In other words, G.O. 18.8A did not lead to an appreciable increase in the release of defendants accused of committing a violent offense.

In the post-G.O. 18.8A period, the percentage of I-Bond orders increased across all Race/Ethnicity groups. Overall, the proportion of defendants who received a recognizance bond (I-Bond) more than doubled. The increase was highest among minority groups.

Monetary bonds (D-Bonds) and orders to release on electronic monitoring declined as a share of bail orders. Among those who received a monetary bond, the median bond amount ($1,000) was one-fifth of the bond amount prior to implementation of G.O. 18.8A ($5,000), indicating that monetary bonds, when used, were more affordable.

In the post-G.O. 18.8A period, the use of No Bail to detain defendants at the initial hearing increased eight times from 0.9% to 7.2%. The number of No Bail orders increased from 267 to 2,192 from the pre- to post-implementation period. This outcome is consistent with the guidance in G.O. 18.8A that if a defendant poses a danger to a person or the community, the result should be pretrial detention rather than a high D-Bond that a defendant may be able to post.

- For example, in the two 15-month periods compared in this report, No Bail orders for murder charges increased from 46.5% to 92.3% and for Class X felony charges from 2.7% to 32.7%.

Overall, 83.2% of defendants made all of their court appearances, and 83% remained charge-free prior to case disposition while on pretrial release. A very small fraction (0.6%) of defendants were charged with a new violent offense while on pretrial release.

Overall, the Model Bond Court initiative and the bail reform contained in G.O. 18.8A have allowed more defendants to remain in their communities prior to trial, where they can work, pursue their education, and support their families. The vast majority of released defendants appear in court for all hearings. Bail reform has not led to an increase in violent crime in Chicago.

At an estimated cost to the taxpayers of $142 per day4 to house an inmate in the Cook County Jail, a 42% reduction in the jail population has saved Cook County taxpayers millions of dollars. This could create a substantial pool of money for justice reinvestment to address the unmet needs in the community for the criminal justice population, including assistance with employment, housing, substance use treatment, and mental health services. An increased investment in these services would strengthen efforts to break the cycle of criminal justice involvement by reducing both initial and repeated contact with the criminal justice system.

4 https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150507/river-north/tom-dart-says-he-wishes-someone-springfield-had-functioning-brain/

3

Section 1. Pretrial Reform in Cook County Across the United States, criminal justice reform has begun to focus on the financial and human costs of pretrial detention. In Cook County, every detainee charged with a criminal offense has the right to a bail hearing within 24 hours of detention. Detainees also have a right to representation by counsel in court. Moreover, on March 14, 2017, Chief Judge Evans extended free legal representation to defendants while they are in custody at police stations5. Judges making bail decisions must determine whether a defendant should be released into the community and what conditions should be imposed if release is secured. For decades, most defendants were either held without bail or required to post monetary bond to be released from jail. These practices led to a consistently overcrowded Cook County Jail, where the confined population exceeded 10,000 detainees as recently as 2013. In 2013, Chief Judge Evans began work with the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to implement a new risk-assessment tool. The Public Safety Assessment (PSA) was designed by experts in the risk-assessment field using a sample of 750,000 pretrial cases from across the country and was originally implemented and validated by the pretrial system in Kentucky. The intent of the PSA tool is to use administrative criminal justice data to produce risk scores that are predictive of failure to appear (FTA) for hearing dates and of engaging in new criminal (NCA) and new violent criminal activity (NVCA) while on pretrial release. The court may use these scores to assign supervision conditions to manage risk of FTA, NCA, and NVCA. The tool is not meant to support decisions about case management or treatment services while on pretrial release. It is also not intended to provide certainty on whether a defendant will fail to appear or commit an offense if released. Rather, it estimates the probability that a defendant will miss a court date or be arrested for new criminal activity. To generate risk scores, the PSA tool combines nine factors6 into two scale scores that predict FTA and NCA7, as well as a flag for an elevated risk of NVCA. All nine factors are scored using administrative criminal history records. The three scale scores are translated into a PSA-Decision Making Framework (PSA-DMF) supervision recommendation. The PSA-DMF weighs the risk of NCA, FTA, and NCVA to calculate a supervision recommendation to assist judges in setting appropriate supervision conditions if the defendant is released into the community. When setting bond, judges consider multiple factors, including the facts of the case, requirements of Illinois statute, input from the defense and prosecution, and the PSA. The PSA tool, then, is a piece of information available to judges when making bail and supervision decisions. Starting in July 2015, the PSA was implemented for felony defendants on a pilot basis in Central Bond Court at the Leighton Criminal Court Building. Suburban Districts implemented the PSA for felony defendants in August 2016. The PSA has become the cornerstone of pretrial reform efforts in Cook County. By December 31, 2018, Pretrial Services had completed over 90,000 PSAs, representing about 96% of all eligible felony defendants during this period. Research staff from the Office of the Chief Judge and the Adult Probation Department track key outcomes of the bond court process and report on them through the publication of a quarterly Model Bond Court Dashboard available to the public on the Court’s website8.

5 General Administrative Order 2017-01 - Appointment Of The Public Defender Or Designee For Persons In Police Custody

(http://www.cookcountycourt.org/Manage/DivisionOrders/ViewDivisionOrder/tabid/298/ArticleId/2541/GENERAL-ADMINISTRATIVE-ORDER-NO-2017-01-APPOINTMENT-OF-THE-PUBLIC-DEFENDER-OR-DESIGNEE-FOR-PERSONS-I.aspx)

6 Age at current arrest, current violent offense, current violent offense and 20 years old or younger, pending charge at the time of the arrest, prior misdemeanor conviction, prior felony conviction, any prior conviction, prior violent conviction, prior failure to appear in previous two years, prior failure to appear older than two years, and prior sentence to incarceration.

7 In subsequent sections, we also refer to FTA and NCA as Court Appearance Rate and Community Safety Rate, respectively, to emphasize the success of pretrial defendants.

8 http://www.cookcountycourt.org/HOME/ModelBondCourtInitiative.aspx

4

General Order 18.8A On September 18, 2017, Chief Judge Evans issued General Order 18.8A (G.O. 18.8A) to affirm the constitutional presumption of innocence and the statutory presumption in favor of release on non-monetary bail. When monetary bail is deemed necessary to ensure a defendant’s appearance in court, the order provides that the amount set should not be oppressive and should consider a defendant’s ability to pay. In other words, bail is not intended to be punishment and should be affordable. In conjunction with G.O. 18.8A, Chief Judge Evans established a new division of judges – the Pretrial Division – which focuses on bail hearings. A representative of the National Center for State Courts has characterized the creation of this division as “novel.”

Data Reporting and Measurement To assess the impact of G.O. 18.8A9 on felony cases, Sections 2 through 7 of this report compare the first 15 months of full implementation of G.O. 18.8A (October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018) to the prior period (July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017).

Data Source Data for this analysis come from the electronic docket records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Public

Safety Assessments recorded by Adult Probation - Pretrial Services Unit and maintained by the Office of the Chief

Judge (OCJ), and a monthly release file provided by the Cook County Sheriff’s Office to OCJ. OCJ research staff

merged records from these three data sources to create a single analytic data set.

Definitions

Bond Court The initial bail hearing takes place in what is commonly referred to as “bond court,” where individuals who have been arrested are entitled to a hearing before a judge who sets bail and determines the location and date of their next court appearance. The type of bail is based on what the judge believes will assure the appearance of a defendant in court as required, the safety of the community, and compliance by the defendant with all the conditions of bail. When setting bond, judges consider multiple factors, including the facts of the case, requirements of Illinois statute, input from the defense and prosecution, and the PSA.

Types of Bonds

Individual Recognizance Bond (I-Bond) Defendants are to be released on their own recognizance with the promise to return to court for each scheduled court date and comply with all conditions of bail imposed by the judge.

Deposit Bond (D-Bond) Defendants must pay 10% of the bail amount set by a judge in order to secure release from jail.

Cash Bond (C-Bond) Defendants must pay the full face value of the bail amount ordered by a judge in order to secure release from jail.

No Bail Defendants are denied bail and ordered to remain in jail.

9 See http://www.cookcountycourt.org/Portals/0/Orders/General%20Order%20No.%2018.8a.pdf for details.

5

Conditions of Bail A judge may also add non-monetary conditions of bail, such as electronic monitoring by the sheriff or pretrial supervision. The PSA Failure to Appear (FTA), New Criminal Activity (NCA), and New Violent Criminal Activity (NVCA) scale scores are translated into a supervision recommendation if defendants are released on bond. The table below describes the PSA Decision Making Framework supervision recommendations and associated level of monitoring.

PSA-DMF Supervision Recommendation

Recommended Pretrial Monitoring & Conditions

Release No Conditions Release on I-Bond with no conditions

Release, Pretrial Monitoring Pretrial Supervision (court date reminders & checks before each court date)

If Release, Pretrial Supervision 1 Pretrial Supervision & Conditions Monitoring & Monthly face-to-face contact

If Release, Pretrial Supervision 2 Pretrial Supervision & Conditions Monitoring & Biweekly face-to-face contact

If Release, Pretrial Supervision 3 Pretrial Supervision & Conditions Monitoring & weekly face-to-face/phone contact (alternating weeks)

If Release, Pretrial Home Confinement

Pretrial Supervision & Conditions Monitoring & weekly face-to-face/phone contact (alternating weeks) with a curfew

If Release, Court-Ordered Sheriff’s Electronic Monitoring

Electronic Monitoring under Sheriff’s supervision

If Release, Maximum Conditions Any combination of supervision and conditions (that do not include I-Bond)

Numerous statutes, rules, and orders govern bail in Cook County, including Illinois Supreme Court Rules 526-528; Cook County Circuit Court General Orders 8.1 through 8.5, 18.8, and 18.8A; and 725 ILCS 5/110.

Case Characteristics Charge Category For this report, top charge types were categorized as follows: Violent charges include murder, attempted murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery

and aggravated battery.

Person charges include assault, battery, child neglect, and other miscellaneous person offenses.

Weapon charges are those contained in 720 ILCS 5/24 and include unlawful sale, possession, or use of a firearm or ammunition. They also include enhancements such as possession on school property or possession by a felon or gang member.

Property charges include offenses such as burglary, theft, and arson.

Drug charges include offenses such as unlawful possession, sale, use, manufacturing, or delivery of controlled substances.

Other charges include but are not limited to DUI, failure to register as a sex offender, and disorderly conduct.

6

Felony Class In Illinois, felonies are those crimes that are punishable by a term of one year or more in state prison (720 ILCS 5/2-7). Felonies in Illinois (other than first-degree murder) are designated by class, including: Class X is the most serious felony class, punishable by four to 20 years and fines up to $25,000.

Class 1 felonies have a minimum sentence of 4 to 15 years, or 4 to 20 years if the charge is second-degree murder, and up to $25,000 in fines.

Class 2 felonies have a minimum sentence of 3 to 7 years and fines up to $25,000.

Class 3 felonies have a minimum sentence of 2 to 5 years and fines up to $25,000.

Class 4 felonies have a minimum sentence of 1 to 3 years10.

Accompanying Matter An accompanying matter indicates that a defendant appeared in bond court with an existing pretrial case for a

violation of bail bond (VOBB) or a post-trial case with a violation of probation (VOP) in addition to the current new

felony case.

Race and Ethnicity Information about defendant race and ethnicity are recorded separately. For race, defendants may report that they are Black, White, Asian, Pacific Islander, or Alaskan Native. For ethnicity, they may report that they are Hispanic or non-Hispanic. This report combines the low frequency race categories of Asian (n=336), Pacific Islander (n=93), Alaskan Native (n=30) into Other race. Defendants whose race information was missing (n=600) were also categorized as Other. A combined Race and Ethnicity variable was created to indicate whether defendants were White and not Hispanic (White, Non-Hispanic), White of Hispanic ethnicity (White, Hispanic)11, Black, or Other Race. Black-Hispanic (n=365) and Black, non-Hispanic (n=39,912) are combined into a single category.

10 730 ILCS 5-4.5-30 through 730 ILCS 5-4.5-45 11 The U.S. Census categorizes individuals as a race (e.g., white, black, etc.) and ethnicity (e.g., Hispanic or non-Hispanic). This report is consistent with that categorization scheme.

7

Section 2. Initial Felony Bail Hearing Population

In the 15 months prior to G.O. 18.8A (July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017), 28,547 initial felony bond hearings of defendants with completed PSAs took place in the Circuit Court of Cook County. In the 15 months subsequent to the order (October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018), this number rose slightly to 30,432 hearings. Tables 1A through 1C describe case factors (top charge type and class and an accompanying matter such as a Violation of Probation or Violation of Bail Bond on an existing case), demographic composition (Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Age), and PSA Risk (PSA-DMF supervision recommendation) of felony defendants who appeared before and after the implementation of G.O. 18.8A. As seen in Tables 1A through 1C, there is considerable stability in the composition of these characteristics during the pre- and post-implementation periods. Table 1A shows the characteristics of these cases, including top felony charge category and class, and whether the new charge was accompanied by the filing of a VOP or VOBB. As seen in Table 1A, top charge category and class were similar during these two time periods. In both time periods, almost half of the PSA cases were drug cases and almost half were Class 4 (the least serious felony class). The proportion of PSA cases with a property offense as the top charge declined slightly. In addition, the number and percent of Class X (the most serious) felonies declined, while murder cases remained under 1%. There is a perception that the decline in jail population is a result of fewer new felony filings; however, the number of new felony cases did not decline from the pre- to post-G.O. 18.8A period. Overall, Table 1A indicates that the decline in the jail population after G.O. 18.8A happened during a time when felony case filings increased. Additionally, the change in release rates (described below) was not due to a significant change in the types of cases being heard in felony bond court.

Table 1A. Distribution of Initial Felony Bail Hearing Cases by Top Felony Charge Category, Top Charge Class and Accompanying Matter: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of General Order 18.8A

Case Characteristics Pre G.O. 18.8A Post G.O. 18.8A

Felony Defendants

Percent Felony Defendants

Percent

Top Charge Category

Violent 2,788 9.8% 3,067 10.1%

Person 248 0.9% 310 1.0%

Weapon 3,982 13.9% 4,302 14.1%

Property 4,651 16.3% 4,070 13.4%

Drug 13,152 46.1% 14,734 48.4%

Other1 3,726 13.1% 3,949 13.0%

Total 28,547 100.0% 30,432 100.0%

Top Charge Class

Class M 127 0.4% 221 0.7%

Class X 3,490 12.2% 2,617 8.6%

Class 1 1,925 6.7% 2,109 6.9%

Class 2 3,561 12.5% 4,772 15.7%

Class 3 4,056 14.2% 4,523 14.9%

Class 4 13,522 47.4% 14,357 47.2%

Felony - Class Missing2 1,866 6.5% 1,833 6.0%

Total 28,547 100.0% 30,432 100.0%

Accompanying Matter3

No VOP or VOBB 24,444 85.6% 25,994 85.4%

VOP or VOBB 4,103 14.4% 4,438 14.6%

Total 28,547 100.0% 30,432 100.0% 1 Other Charges include but are not limited to DUI, failure to register as sex offender, and disorderly conduct.

2 Felony charge class was missing in the electronic administrative record of the Clerk of the Circuit Court.

3 Defendant appearing in bond court with a new felony filing and an accompanying VOP or a VOBB on another pending case.

8

Table 1B depicts basic age, gender, and race/ethnicity data on these two populations, which remained stable over time. In both periods, almost 90% of defendants appearing in bond court hearings were male, 70% were Black, 30% were 25 or younger, and 30% were 26-35 years of age.

Table 1B. Description of Initial Felony Bail Hearing Cases by Defendant Demographics: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O.18.8A

Defendant Demographics Pre G.O. 18.8A Post G.O. 18.8A

Felony Defendants


Percent

Gender Male 25,013 87.6% 26,894 88.4%

Female 3,534 12.4% 3,538 11.6%

Total 28,547 100.0% 30,432 100.0%

Race/Ethnicity

Black 19,264 67.5% 21,013 69.0%

White, Non-Hispanic1 3,952 13.8% 4,089 13.4%

White, Hispanic 4,561 16.0% 5,041 16.6%

Other2 770 2.7% 289 0.9%

Total 28,547 100.0% 30,432 100.0%

Age Category 25 or younger 9,633 33.7% 9,503 31.2%

26-35 8,207 28.7% 9,235 30.3%

36-45 4,908 17.2% 5,279 17.3%

46 or older 5,799 20.3% 6,415 21.1%

Total 28,547 100.0% 30,432 100.0% 1 White, Non-Hispanic defendants reported race as white and ethnicity as not Hispanic or Latino. White, Hispanic defendants reported race as White and ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino.

2 Other race/ethnicity includes Asian (n=336), Pacific Islander (n=93), Alaskan Native (n=30), and missing race (n=600).

9

In the criminal justice system, charging decisions in felony cases are made by law enforcement and the State’s Attorney’s Office. As seen in Figure 2, there is disparity in Race/Ethnicity among those charged with felonies in Cook County. The Court does not play a role in determining which cases are filed and proceed to a bail hearing.

Figure 2. Distribution of Race/Ethnicity within Top Charge Class among New Felony Filings: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O. 18.8A

10

Table 1C shows the distribution of PSA-DMF recommendations of supervision levels of defendants during the two periods. The distribution is similar in both periods. About 35% of defendants were assessed at the lowest risk levels (No Conditions or Pretrial Monitoring), and about 15% were assessed at the highest risk level, Maximum Conditions. About half of defendants fell in the intermediate risk recommendation categories of Pretrial Supervision, Pretrial Home Confinement, or Electronic Monitoring by the Sheriff. The proportion of defendants assessed as having an elevated likelihood of committing a violent offense while on pretrial release (the Violence Flag) remained stable at about 8%.

Table 1C. Description of Initial Felony Bail Hearing Cases by PSA-DMF Supervision Recommendation and New Violent Criminal Activity Flag: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O.18.8A

PSA Supervision Recommendation and New Violent Criminal Activity Flag

Pre G.O. 18.8A Post G.O. 18.8A Felony

Defendants Percent Felony

Defendants Percent

PSA-DMF Supervision Recommendation1

If Release, Maximum Conditions 4,214 14.8% 4,998 16.4%

If Release, Sheriff's Electronic Monitoring 1,774 6.2% 2,065 6.8%

If Release PTS Home Confinement 494 1.7% 558 1.8%

If Release, PTS Supervision Level 1-3 11,407 40.0% 11,996 39.4%

If Release, Pretrial Monitoring 5,318 18.6% 5,478 18.0%

Release, No Conditions 5,340 18.7% 5,337 17.6%

Total 28,547 100.0% 30,432 100.0%

PSA New Violent Criminal Activity Flag2

No VOP or VOBB 26,322 92.2% 27,853 91.5%

VOP or VOBB 2,225 7.8% 2,579 8.5%

Total 28,547 100.0% 30,432 100.0% 1 See definition of Conditions of Bail above for explanation of each condition.

2 The New Violent Criminal Activity Flag indicates that the defendant was flagged as having an elevated risk for committing a violent offense while on pretrial release.

11

Section 3. Initial Bail Order

Figures 3 compare the distribution of initial bail orders (IBOs) 15 months prior to and after implementation of G.O. 18.8A (pre-G.O. 18.8A, n = 28,547; post-G.O. 18.8A, n = 30,432) for felony defendants with a completed PSA who appeared in a bond courtroom. Despite stability across the pre- and post-implementation periods in distribution of case factors, PSA Risk, and defendant demographic composition:

The frequency of I-Bonds nearly doubled from 26.3% to 51.8%;

Orders to Sheriff’s EM fell from 23.8% to 9.8%;

The frequency of D-Bonds decreased from 48.5% to 31.2%; and

No Bail orders increased eight-fold, from 0.9% to 7.2%.

12

As explained in Section 2, the Court does not control the racial composition of those arrested by law enforcement and charged by the prosecutor in Cook County. Additionally, a defendant’s Race/Ethnicity is not a factor considered by judges, but the Court recognizes that there is considerable national attention on addressing racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. With this in mind, Figures 4A through 7C highlight the rates of change in bond types by Race/Ethnicity between the pre- and post-implementation periods. However, when making bail decisions, judges must consider multiple factors, including the facts of the case, requirements of Illinois statute, input from the defense and prosecution, top charge, top charge class, and the PSA risk levels and supervision recommendation, factors which are not reflected in the raw differences in bail orders between racial/ethnic groups. To see the effect on the reduction of Racial/Ethnic disparities within the distribution of initial bail orders when accounting for top charge category, top charge class, and PSA risk level, please refer to Appendices 1A through 1D (http://www.cookcountycourt.org/HOME/BailReform.aspx) . Figure 4A shows:

I-Bonds increased from the pre-

to post-implementation across all Race/Ethnicity groups.

The rate of increase was highest for

Black defendants (117.3% increase); followed by defendants of Other Race/Ethnicity (111.2%); White, Hispanic defendants (80.2%); and White, Non-Hispanic defendants (51.8%).

Figure 4B demonstrates that G.O. 18.8A has contributed to a reduction in Racial/Ethnicity disparity for orders to I-Bonds.

13

Figure 4C shows the percentage of I-Bond orders by Top Charge Class and Race/Ethnicity in both the pre- and post-G.O. 18.8A periods.

Figure 4C. I-Bond Orders By Top Charge Class and Race/Ethnicity: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O. 18.8A1

1 Bail orders by top charge for defendants of Other Race/Ethnicity were not presented in this figure due to low numbers in both the pre (770) and the

post periods (289).

Figure 5A shows:

D-Bonds decreased from the pre-

to post-implementation across all Race/Ethnicity groups.

The rate of decrease was highest

among defendants of Other Race/Ethnicity (40.8% decrease) followed by; Black defendants (38.5%); White, Hispanic defendants (32.4%); and White, Non-Hispanic defendants (28.4%).

14

Figure 5B demonstrates that G.O. 18.8A has contributed to a reduction in Racial/Ethnicity disparity for orders to D-Bonds.

Figure 5C shows the percentage of D-Bond orders by Top Charge Class and Race/Ethnicity in both the pre- and

post-G.O. 18.8A periods.

Figure 5C. D-Bond Orders By Top Charge Class and Race/Ethnicity: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O. 18.8A1

1 Bail orders by top charge for defendants of Other Race/Ethnicity were not presented in this figure due to low numbers in both the pre (770) and the

post periods (289).

15

Figure 6A shows: Orders to Sherriff’s EM also

decreased across all Race/Ethnicity groups from the pre- to post-implementation period.

The rate of decrease was highest

among White, Hispanic defendants (64.5% decrease); followed by White, Non-Hispanic defendants (61.0%); Black defendants (57.2%); and defendants of Other Race/Ethnicity (47.3%).

Figure 6B shows that G.O. 18.8A was associated with a small reduction in the disparity in orders to Sheriff’s Electronic Monitoring between White, Hispanics and White, Non-Hispanics.

16

Figure 6C shows the percentage of Sheriff’s Electronic Monitoring orders by Top Charge Class and Race/Ethnicity in both the pre- and post-G.O. 18.8A periods.

Figure 6C. Orders to Sheriff’s EM By Top Charge Class and Race/Ethnicity: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O. 18.8A1

1 Bail order by top charge for defendants of Other Race/Ethnicity were not presented in this figure due to low numbers in both the pre (770) and the

post periods (289).

17

Figure 7A shows: Orders to No Bail increased across

all Race/Ethnicity groups from the pre- to post-implementation period.

The highest rate of increase accrued

among defendants of Other Race/Ethnicity (766.7% increase); followed by Black defendants (710%); White, Non-Hispanic defendants (566.7%); and White, Hispanic defendants (500%).

Figure 7B shows that the disparity between White, Non-Hispanic defendants and White, Hispanic defendants narrowed.

18

Figure 7C shows the percentage of No Bail orders by Top Charge Class and Race/Ethnicity in both the pre- and post-G.O. 18.8A periods.

Figure 7C. No Bail Orders By Top Charge Class and Race/Ethnicity: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O. 18.8A1

1 Bail order by top charge for defendants of Other Race/Ethnicity were not presented in this figure due to low numbers in both the pre (770) and the

post period (289).

Tables 2A through 2C relate the initial bail order for defendants in the pre- and post-G.O. 18.8A periods to case factors, demographic characteristics, and PSA Risk. The use of I-Bonds increased substantially across all top charge categories, jumping, for instance, from 41.7% for drug charges pre-implementation to 73.0% post-implementation. Except for weapon charges, corresponding decreases were observed in the use of Sheriff’s EM and D-Bonds between the two time periods. The increase in No Bail orders was concentrated in violent charges, increasing from about 6% of bail orders for the charge category to over 40%. This is consistent with G.O. 18.8A guidelines that findings of dangerousness permit No Bail. Table 2A shows that lower charge class severity (i.e., Class 4 felonies are less severe than murder and Class X felonies) was related to increased issuance of I-Bonds. Although No Bail orders increased in each charge class during the pre- and post-implementation periods, the increase in No Bail was most pronounced for murder (pre = 46.5% vs. post = 92.3% of orders) and Class X felony charges (pre = 2.7% vs. post = 32.7% of orders).

19

Table 2A. Initial Bail Order Distribution by Top Charge Category, Top Charge Class, and the Presence of an Accompanying Matter: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O.18.8A

Top Charge Category Period Total

Initial Bail Order Distribution

I-Bond Sheriff's EM D-Bond C-Bond No Bail

Person-Violent Pre G.O. 18.8A 2,788 4.2% 10.5% 78.7% 0.2% 6.4%

Post G.O. 18.8A 3,067 8.7% 7.9% 41.5% 0.1% 41.8%

Person Pre G.O. 18.8A 248 5.6% 10.5% 78.2% 0.4% 5.2%

Post G.O. 18.8A 310 12.9% 11.9% 54.2% … 21.0%

Weapon Pre G.O. 18.8A 3,982 2.2% 5.1% 89.1% 2.8% 0.8%

Post G.O. 18.8A 4,302 15.6% 10.4% 61.3% 0.0% 12.6%

Property Pre G.O. 18.8A 4,651 25.4% 28.2% 46.0% 0.1% 0.2%

Post G.O. 18.8A 4,070 46.9% 14.4% 35.6% 0.1% 3.1%

Drug Pre G.O. 18.8A 13,152 41.7% 26.8% 31.2% 0.3% 0.1%

Post G.O. 18.8A 14,734 73.0% 8.5% 18.0% 0.0% 0.5%

Other1 Pre G.O. 18.8A 3,726 16.6% 38.3% 44.4% 0.1% 0.6%

Post G.O. 18.8A 3,949 53.5% 10.6% 33.2% … 2.7%

Top Charge Class Period Total I-Bond Sheriff’s EM D-Bond C-Bond No Bail

Class M Pre G.O. 18.8A 127 … 1.6% 52.0% … 46.5%

Post G.O. 18.8A 221 … 0.9% 6.8% … 92.3%

Class X Pre G.O. 18.8A 3,490 12.7% 24.1% 59.5% 1.0% 2.7%

Post G.O. 18.8A 2,617 22.0% 8.3% 37.0% 0.1% 32.7%

Class 1 Pre G.O. 18.8A 1,925 16.4% 23.5% 58.2% 0.8% 1.1%

Post G.O. 18.8A 2,109 39.9% 12.4% 39.3% … 8.4%

Class 2 Pre G.O. 18.8A 3,561 13.0% 22.2% 63.6% 0.6% 0.6%

Post G.O. 18.8A 4,772 35.8% 13.7% 41.7% 0.1% 8.7%

Class 3 Pre G.O. 18.8A 4,056 24.6% 18.2% 55.6% 1.2% 0.4%

Post G.O. 18.8A 4,523 43.5% 10.7% 39.8% 0.0% 6.0%

Class 4 Pre G.O. 18.8A 13,522 36.2% 26.3% 37.1% 0.3% 0.2%

Post G.O. 18.8A 14,357 68.7% 8.5% 22.0% 0.0% 0.8%

Missing Class2 Pre G.O. 18.8A 1,866 20.8% 21.5% 56.0% 0.2% 1.4%

Post G.O. 18.8A 1,833 43.9% 8.2% 39.9% … 8.0%

Accompanying Matter3 Period Total I-Bond Sheriff’s EM D-Bond C-Bond No Bail

Only New Case Pre G.O. 18.8A 24,444 29.9% 24.6% 44.0% 0.6% 0.9%

Post G.O. 18.8A 25,994 55.7% 8.5% 29.2% 0.0% 6.5%

New Case + a VOP or VOBB

Pre G.O. 18.8A 4,103 4.7% 18.7% 74.9% 0.6% 1.0%

Post G.O. 18.8A 4,438 29.0% 17.3% 42.5% … 11.2% 1Other Charges include but are not limited to DUI, failure to register as sex offender, and disorderly conduct.

2 Felony charge class was missing in the electronic administrative record of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. 3 Defendant appearing in bond court with a new felony filing and an accompanying VOP or a VOBB on another pending case.

Finally, Table 2B shows an increase in the likelihood of receiving I-Bonds within Race and Ethnicity. In particular, between the pre- and post-implementation periods, the percentage of Black defendants receiving I-Bonds doubled (pre = 23.1%, post = 50.2%). The percentage of White, Non-Hispanic and White, Hispanic increased less, moving from 38.6% to 58.6% for White, Non-Hispanic defendants and from 29.3% to 52.8% for White, Hispanic defendants. Detailed information in Appendix Tables 1A through 1D provides comparisons of bond orders by Race and Ethnicity, top charge category, top charge class, and PSA risk. Table 2 should not be used to make causal comparisons between and within the four Race and Ethnicity groups, as they do not control for the role of other important factors such as charge class, charge category, and risk level. Please consult Appendix Tables 1A through 1D for a breakdown of Race and Ethnicity by charge class, charge category and risk level.

20

Table 2B. Initial Bail Order Distribution by Defendant Demographics: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O.18.8A

Gender Period Total

Initial Bail Order Distribution - Row Percent


Male Pre G.O. 18.8A 25,013 23.4% 23.9% 51.1% 0.6% 1.0%

Post G.O. 18.8A 26,894 49.5% 10.1% 32.5% 0.0% 7.9%

Female Pre G.O. 18.8A 3,534 46.8% 22.9% 29.7% 0.2% 0.4%

Post G.O. 18.8A 3,538 69.1% 8.0% 20.7% 0.1% 2.2%

Race/Ethnicity Period Total I-Bond Sheriff’s EM D-Bond C-Bond No Bail

Black Pre G.O. 18.8A 19,264 23.1% 25.0% 50.4% 0.6% 1.0%

Post G.O. 18.8A 21,013 50.2% 10.7% 31.0% 0.0% 8.1%

White, Non-Hispanic1 Pre G.O. 18.8A 3,952 38.6% 19.0% 41.6% 0.2% 0.6%

Post G.O. 18.8A 4,089 58.6% 7.4% 29.8% 0.1% 4.0%

White, Hispanic Pre G.O. 18.8A 4,561 29.3% 22.8% 46.0% 0.9% 1.0%

Post G.O. 18.8A 5,041 52.8% 8.1% 33.1% 0.1% 6.0%

Other2 Pre G.O. 18.8A 770 24.9% 24.3% 49.7% 0.4% 0.6%

Post G.O. 18.8A 289 52.6% 12.8% 29.4% … 5.2%

Age Group Period Total I-Bond Sheriff’s EM D-Bond C-Bond No Bail

25 or Younger Pre G.O. 18.8A 9,633 25.2% 17.6% 55.4% 0.8% 1.1%

Post G.O. 18.8A 9,503 47.7% 9.6% 33.6% 0.0% 9.0%

26-35 Pre G.O. 18.8A 8,207 24.2% 22.8% 51.2% 0.7% 1.0%

Post G.O. 18.8A 9,235 47.8% 9.2% 35.1% 0.0% 7.8%

36-45 Pre G.O. 18.8A 4,908 23.7% 28.2% 46.8% 0.4% 0.8%

Post G.O. 18.8A 5,279 51.2% 10.5% 31.6% 0.0% 6.7%

46 or Older Pre G.O. 18.8A 5,799 33.2% 31.6% 34.5% 0.1% 0.6%

Post G.O. 18.8A 6,415 64.1% 10.5% 21.4% 0.0% 4.0% 1 White, Non-Hispanic defendants reported race as white and ethnicity as not Hispanic or Latino. White, Hispanic defendants reported race as White and ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino.

2 Other race/ethnicity includes Asian (n=336), Pacific Islander (n=93), Alaskan Native (n=30), and missing race (n=600)

Finally, greater risk of pretrial failure (i.e., If Released, Maximum Conditions has more risk than Release, No

Conditions) was associated with a reduction in use of I-Bonds and an increase in the use of No Bail orders (Table

2C).

Table 2C. Initial Bail Order Distribution by PSA-DMF Supervision Recommendation and New Violent Criminal Activity Flag: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O.18.8A

1 See Definitions – Conditions of bail above for explanation of each condition.


PSA-DMF Supervision Recommendation1 Period Total

Initial Bail Order Distribution - Row Percent


If Release, Maximum Conditions

Pre G.O. 18.8A 4,214 4.5% 15.4% 75.2% 0.4% 4.6%

Post G.O. 18.8A 4,998 12.9% 15.4% 41.2% … 30.4%

If Release, Sheriff's Electronic Monitoring

Pre G.O. 18.8A 1,774 11.2% 32.1% 56.0% 0.3% 0.4%

Post G.O. 18.8A 2,065 27.7% 30.0% 37.6% … 4.6%

If Release, PTS Home Confinement

Pre G.O. 18.8A 494 9.3% 23.7% 65.2% 1.4% 0.4%

Post G.O. 18.8A 558 41.2% 12.5% 41.8% 4.5%

If Release, PTS Supervision Level 1-3

Pre G.O. 18.8A 11,407 21.5% 29.7% 48.0% 0.5% 0.4%

Post G.O. 18.8A 11,996 57.8% 8.4% 30.3% 0.0% 3.4%

If Release PTS Monitoring

Pre G.O. 18.8A 5,318 33.9% 24.2% 40.9% 0.7% 0.2%

Post G.O. 18.8A 5,478 64.5% 5.4% 28.3% 0.0% 1.8%

Release, No Conditions Pre G.O. 18.8A 5,340 52.6% 14.6% 31.9% 0.8% 0.2%

Post G.O. 18.8A 5,337 72.0% 4.2% 23.0% 0.0% 0.8%

PSA Violence Flag2 Period Total I-Bond Sheriff’s EM D-Bond C-Bond No Bail

No Violence Flag Pre G.O. 18.8A 26,322 28.3% 24.7% 45.8% 0.6% 0.5%

Post G.O. 18.8A 27,853 55.8% 9.7% 30.1% 0.0% 4.4%

Violence Flag Pre G.O. 18.8A 2,225 1.9% 12.2% 79.7% 0.4% 5.8%

Post G.O. 18.8A 2,579 8.4% 11.4% 42.5% … 37.7%

21

Section 3A. Bail Amount for Initial D-Bond Order

Section 3A presents information on the initial bail amounts for 23,321 felony defendants12 with a completed PSA who appeared in a bond courtroom from July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018 and received a D-Bond. As seen in Figure 8, D-Bond amounts decreased after the implementation of G.O. 18.8A, suggesting that D-Bond amounts after G.O. 18.8A were considerate of defendants’ ability to pay. In particular:

The frequency of D-Bonds between $1 through $500 increased from 7.4% to 36.8%; and D-Bonds requiring more than $5,000 to be posted decreased from 39.3% of all D-Bond orders to 12.8%.

Table 3A shows that across all case factors (Charge Category, Charge Class, and Presence of an Accompanying Matter), the 10% median dollar amounts for D-Bonds decreased from the pre- to post-implementation period of G.O. 18.8A. In addition, a graded relationship remained such that greater charge category and class severity were associated with higher D-Bond amounts.

12 Of the 58,979 defendants who appeared in a bond court, 23,321 received a D-Bond. The current analysis excludes data for 42 defendants (16 from the pre- and 26 from the post-implementation periods), because the D-Bond amount was missing in the administrative data.

22

Table 3A. Median 10% D-Bond Amount by Top Charge Category, Top Charge Class, and the Presence of an Accompanying Matter: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O.18.8A

Case Characteristics

Pre G.O. 18.8A (n=13,821) Post G.O. 18.8A (n=9,458)

Felony Defendants

10% Median Dollar

Amount Felony

Defendants

10% Median Dollar

Amount

Charge Category

Violent 2,191 $12,500 1,268 $3,000

Person 194 $10,000 168 $2,000

Weapon 3,547 $7,500 2,635 $1,200

Property 2,138 $3,500 1,445 $1,500

Drug 4,098 $2,500 2,638 $500

Other1 1,653 $2,500 1,304 $1,000

Felony Charge Class

Murder 65 $75,000 15 $10,000

Class X 2,076 $8,000 964 $3,000

Class 1 1,118 $7,500 823 $2,000

Class 2 2,260 $7,500 1,985 $1,500

Class 3 2,255 $5,000 1,795 $1,000

Class 4 5,003 $2,500 3,148 $500

Felony - Class Missing2 1,044 $4,000 728 $2,000


Only New Felony Charge 10,749 $5,000 7,580 $1,000

New Charge and VOP or VOBB2 3,072 $5,000 1,878 $1,000 1 Other Charges include, but are not limited to, DUI, failure to register as sex offender, and disorderly conduct. 2 Felony charge class was missing in the electronic administrative record of the Clerk of the Circuit Court 3 Defendant appearing in bond court with a new felony filing and an accompanying VOP or a VOBB on another pending case.

Further, as seen in Table 3B, differences in median bond amounts by Race/Ethnicity and other demographic factors observed during the pre-implementation period were not present in the post-implementation period. In the post-implementation period, Black defendants had lower D-Bond amounts (median = $1,000) than their White, Non-Hispanic (median = $1,500) counterparts. This change may reflect increased attention to ability to pay, as White, Non-Hispanic defendants may have, on average, more financial resources than Black defendants13.

Table 3B. Median 10% D-Bond Amount by Defendant Demographics: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O.18.8A

Defendant Demographics


Felony Defendants

10% Median Dollar Amount

Felony Defendants

10% Median Dollar Amount

Gender Male 12,773 $5,000 8,726 $1,000

Female 1,048 $2,500 732 $1,000

Race/Ethnicity

Black 9,699 $5,000 6,492 $1,000

White, Non-Hispanic1 1,645 $3,000 1,217 $1,500

White, Hispanic 2,094 $5,000 1,763 $1,000

Other2 383 $5,000 85 $1,000

Age Category

25 and younger 5,330 $5,000 3,187 $1,000

26-35 4,198 $5,000 3,238 $1,000

36-45 2,295 $4,000 1,664 $1,000

46 and older 1,998 $3,000 1,369 $1,000 1 White, Non-Hispanic defendants reported race as white and ethnicity as not Hispanic or Latino. White, Hispanic defendants reported race as White and ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino


13 The American Community Survey estimates, for instance, that in 2017 the median household income for White households was $73,839; for Black or African American households, median income was $37,045. Over one-quarter (25.2%) of Black or African American residents in Cook County were living in poverty. In contrast, 10.1% of White, non-Hispanic residents were living in poverty. U.S. Census Bureau; generated by OCJ; using American FactFinder, Database name; <http://factfinder.census.gov>; accessed on April 22, 2019.

23

Finally, Table 3C reveals that except for the highest risk defendants, the supervision recommendation appeared to be unrelated to D-Bond amount in the post-implementation period.

Table 3C. Median 10% D-Bond Amount by PSA-DMF Supervision Recommendation Level and PSA Violence Flag: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O.18.8A

PSA-DMF Supervision Recommendation Level and New Violent Criminal Activity Flag


Felony Defendants

10% Median Dollar

Amount Felony

Defendants

10% Median Dollar

Amount


If Release, Maximum Conditions 3,162 $10,000 2,053 $3,000

If Release, Sheriff's EM 993 $3,000 774 $1,000

If Release PTS Home Confinement 321 $5,000 233 $1,000

If Release, PTS Supervision Level 1-3 5,469 $4,000 3,624 $1,000

If Release, Pretrial Monitoring 2,172 $3,000 1,550 $1,000

Release, No Conditions 1,704 $4,000 1,224 $1,000


No Violence Flag 12,049 $4,000 8,367 $1,000

Violence Flag 1,772 $10,000 1,091 $3,000 1 See Definitions – Conditions of bond above for explanation of each condition.


24

Section 4. Pretrial Rate of Release

From July 1, 2016, through December 31, 2018, 58,979 felony defendants with a completed PSA appeared in bond court. All defendants were observed from the initial bail order date until case disposition or February 28, 201914. Figure 9 shows that, by February 28, 2019, a larger percentage of post-G.O. 18.8A defendants had secured release than their pre-G.O. 18.8A counterparts (pre = 71.6% vs. post = 80.5%). The percentage of released defendants in the post-G.O. 18.8A period (80.5%) is likely to rise because they had bail hearings closer to February 28, 2019 and thus had less time on average to secure pretrial release. This reduced period of time may explain the higher rate of release for defendants with I-Bonds during pre-implementation (pre = 98.9% vs. post = 96.1%) and lower rate of orders to Sheriff’s EM (pre = 84.5% vs. post = 73.6%). Despite having less time on average to secure release, defendants from the post-G.O. 18.8A period with D-Bond orders secured release at a substantially greater rate than those from the pre-implementation period. This strongly suggests an increase in affordability of D-Bonds.

* Defendants who received an I-bond on their new case may remain detained on other pending cases.

** A non-admission to Sheriff's EM may be because a defendant (1) has a more restrictive bond (e.g., unpaid D-Bond on a current case or a No Bail Hold on another active pre-trial or probation case); (2) is determined to be ineligible for Sheriff's EM (e.g., no place to stay or active IDOC or out of jurisdiction warrant); or (3) refuses placement on Sheriff's EM. Additionally, the defendant may have been placed on Sheriff's EM after the end of the

current reporting period (February 28, 2019). ^ Defendants who received an initial No Bail order secured a bailable bond during a subsequent court date that resulted in an initial pretrial release from custody.

14 This observation period allows on average less time for defendants whose bail hearings occurred in the post-G.O. 18.8A period to secure pretrial release

than those with initial bail hearings in the pre-G.O. 18.8A period.

25

As seen in Table 4A, the likelihood of pretrial release increased from the pre- to post-implementation period, irrespective of charge category or class or the presence of an accompanying matter. In both periods, defendants with less severe top charge categories and classes were more likely to secure pretrial release. Defendants from the post-G.O. 18.8A with drug charges, for instance, were released nearly 90% of the time, whereas those with violent charges were released 46.5% of the time (which is only a 3 percentage-point increase from the pre-G.O. 18.8A period).

Table 4A. Pretrial Rate of Release by Top Felony Charge Category, Charge Class, and Accompanying Matter: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of General Order 18.8A


Pre G.O. 18.8A (n=28,547) Post G.O. 18.8A (n=30,432) Felony

Defendants Number Released

Pretrial Rate of Release

Felony Defendants

Number Released


Charge Category

Violent 2,788 1,205 43.2% 3,067 1,426 46.5%

Person 248 121 48.8% 310 191 61.6%

Weapon 3,982 2,415 60.6% 4,302 3,288 76.4%

Property 4,651 3,059 65.8% 4,070 3,103 76.2%

Drug 13,152 10,502 79.9% 14,734 13,065 88.7%

Other1 3,726 3,133 84.1% 3,949 3,431 86.9%

Charge Class

Class M 127 18 14.2% 221 27 12.2%

Class X 3,490 1,994 57.1% 2,617 1,477 56.4%

Class 1 1,925 1,258 65.4% 2,109 1,639 77.7%

Class 2 3,561 2,154 60.5% 4,772 3,474 72.8%

Class 3 4,056 2,874 70.9% 4,523 3,654 80.8%

Class 4 13,522 10,782 79.7% 14,357 12,791 89.1%

Class Missing2 1,866 1,355 72.6% 1,833 1,442 78.7%


No VOP or VOBB 24,444 18,984 77.7% 25,994 22,511 86.6%

New Charge and VOP or VOBB 4,103 1,451 35.4% 4,438 1,993 44.9% 1 Other Charges include but are not limited to DUI, failure to register as sex offender, and disorderly conduct.


3 Defendant appearing in bond court with a new felony filing and an accompanying VOP or a VOBB on another pending case The likelihood of pretrial release also increased for members of all demographic groups. For instance, as seen in Table 4B, before G.O. 18.8A, 78.8% of White, Non-Hispanic defendants were released. After implementation, 84.8% were released. Similarly, the percentage of Black defendants released increased from the pre- to post-implementation period from 68.6% to 78.6%.

Table 4B. Pretrial Rate of Release by Defendant Demographics: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of General Order 18.8A


Pre G.O. 18.8A (n=28,547) Post G.O. 18.8A (n=30,432) Felony

Defendants Number Released


Felony Defendants

Number Released


Gender Male 25,013 17,431 69.7% 26,894 21,326 79.3%

Female 3,534 3,004 85.0% 3,538 3,178 89.8%

Race/ Ethnicity

Black 19,264 13,208 68.6% 21,013 16,521 78.6%

White, Non-Hispanic1 3,952 3,102 78.5% 4,089 3,467 84.8%

White, Hispanic 4,561 3,554 77.9% 5,041 4,267 84.6%

Other2 770 571 74.2% 289 249 86.2%

Age Category

25 and younger 9,633 6,597 68.5% 9,503 7,455 78.4%

26-35 8,207 6,058 73.8% 9,235 7,459 80.8%

36-45 4,908 3,557 72.5% 5,279 4,279 81.1%

46 and older 5,799 4,223 72.8% 6,415 5,311 82.8% 1 White, Non-Hispanic defendants reported race as white and ethnicity as not Hispanic or Latino. White, Hispanic defendants reported race as White and ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino.

2 Other race/ethnicity includes Asian (n=336), Pacific Islander (n=93), Alaskan Native (n=30), and missing race (n=600)

26

Table 4C shows that lower PSA risk was associated with an increased likelihood of securing pretrial release.

Table 4C. Pretrial Rate of Release by PSA-DMF and New Violent Criminal Activity Flag Risk: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of General Order 18.8A

PSA-DMF Supervision Recommendation Level and New Violent Criminal Activity Flag


Felony Defendants

Number Released


Felony Defendants

Number Released



If Release, Max Conditions 4,214 1,695 40.2% 4,998 2,333 46.7% If Release, Sheriff's EM 1,774 1,040 58.6% 2,065 1,408 68.2% If Release PTS Home Confinement

494 278 56.3% 558 371 66.5%

If Release, PTS Supervision Level 1-3

11,407 8,034 70.4% 11,996 10,147 84.6%

If Release, Pretrial Monitoring

5,318 4,397 82.7% 5,478 5,017 91.6%

Release, No Conditions 5,340 4,991 93.5% 5,337 5,228 98.0%


No Violence Flag 26,322 19,688 74.8% 27,853 23,466 84.2% Violence Flag 2,225 747 33.6% 2,579 1,038 40.2%

1 See Definitions – Conditions of bail above for explanation of each condition.


Detailed information on pretrial rate of release by defendant demographics, case factors, and PSA risk may be found in Table 3 of the Appendix.

27

Section 5. Pretrial Release Population

Section 5 describes the 44,939 defendants (pre-G.O. = 20,435; post-G.O. = 24,504) with a completed PSA who appeared in bond court from July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018 and secured pretrial release by February 28, 2019. As seen in Figure 10, the I-Bond became the prevailing initial bond order associated with pretrial release during the post-implementation period. Prior to implementation, 36.3% of pretrial releases were by an initial I-Bond. In the post-implementation period, over 60% of pretrial releases were by an I-Bond. This increase coincided with a decrease in the use of Sheriff’s EM, which dropped from 28.1% of bail orders for those released during pre-implementation to under 10% during post-implementation. Additionally, D-Bonds decreased by about eight percentage points during the same period.

28

As seen in Tables 5A through 5C, the composition of case factors, PSA risk, and defendant demographics remained stable between the pre- and post-implementation periods.

Table 5A. Pretrial Release Population by Top Felony Charge Category, Charge Class, and Accompanying Matter: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of General Order 18.8A


Felony Defendants


Percent

Top Charge Category

Violent 1,205 5.9% 1,426 5.8%

Person 121 0.6% 191 0.8%

Weapon 2,415 11.8% 3,288 13.4%

Property 3,059 15.0% 3,103 12.7%

Drug 10,502 51.4% 13,065 53.3%

Other1 3,133 15.3% 3,431 14.0%

Total 20,435 100.0% 24,504 100.0%

Top Charge Class

Class M 18 0.1% 27 0.1%

Class X 1,994 9.8% 1,477 6.0%

Class 1 1,258 6.2% 1,639 6.7%

Class 2 2,154 10.5% 3,474 14.2%

Class 3 2,874 14.1% 3,654 14.9%

Class 4 10,782 52.8% 12,791 52.2%

Felony - Class Missing2 1,355 6.6% 1,442 5.9%

Total 20,435 100.% 24,504 100.0


No VOP or VOBB 18,984 92.9% 22,511 91.9%

VOP or VOBB 1,451 7.1% 1,993 8.1%

Total 20,435 100.0% 24,504 100.0% 1 Other Charges include but are not limited to DUI, failure to register as sex offender, and disorderly conduct.



Table 5B. Pretrial Release Population by Defendant Demographics: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of General Order 18.8A


Felony Defendants


Percent

Gender Male 17,431 85.3% 21,326 87.0%

Female 3,004 14.7% 3,178 13.0%

Total 20,435 100.0% 24,504 100.0%

Race/Ethnicity

Black 13,208 64.6% 16,521 67.4%

White, Non-Hispanic1 3,102 15.2% 3,467 14.1%

White, Hispanic 3,554 17.4% 4,267 17.4%

Other2 571 2.8% 249 1.0%

Total 20,435 100.0% 24,504 100.0%

Age Category 25 or younger 6,597 32.3% 7,455 30.4%

26-35 6,058 29.6% 7,459 30.4%

36-45 3,557 17.4% 4,279 17.5%

46 or older 4,223 20.7% 5,311 21.7%

Total 20,435 100.0% 24,504 100.0% 1 White, Non-Hispanic defendants reported race as white and ethnicity as not Hispanic or Latino. White, Hispanic defendants reported race as White and ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino.


29

Table 5C. Pretrial Release Population by PSA-DMF Supervision Recommendation and PSA Violence Flag: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of General Order 18.8A


Felony Defendants


Percent


If Release, Maximum Conditions 1,695 8.3% 2,333 9.5%

If Release, Sheriff's Electronic Monitoring 1,040 5.1% 1,408 5.7%

If Release PTS Home Confinement 278 1.4% 371 1.5%

If Release, PTS Supervision Level 1-3 8,034 39.3% 10,147 41.4%

If Release, Pretrial Monitoring 4,397 21.5% 5,017 20.5%

Release, No Conditions 4,991 24.4% 5,228 21.3%

Total 20,435 100.0% 25,504 100.0%


No VOP or VOBB 19,688 96.3% 23,466 95.8% VOP or VOBB 747 3.7% 1,038 4.2%

Total 20,435 100.0% 25,504 100.0% 1 See definition of Conditions of Bail above for explanation of each condition.


30

Section 6. Preliminary Outcomes and PSA Performance

Judges considering pretrial release must determine the likelihood that a defendant will appear in court and remain arrest-free. While preceding sections of this report have examined what happened at the bail hearing and which defendants were released, this section presents three preliminary outcomes:

Court Appearance Rate: The percentage of felony defendants who are released pretrial and attend all scheduled court dates.15

Community Safety Rate: The percentage of felony defendants who are released pretrial and are not charged

with a new offense while released.16 New Violent Criminal Activity Rate: The percentage of felony defendants released pretrial and who are

charged with a new violent criminal offense while released. These measures provide information on the extent to which the PSA successfully predicts whether a defendant will return for scheduled hearing dates and avoid criminal activity while on pretrial release. Defendants who secured pretrial release were observed until case disposition or until February 28, 2019. Defendants released closer to this date had less time to fail to appear or commit new criminal offenses. On average, defendants with initial bail hearings after G.O. 18.8A had less time (Avg. = 154 days) in the community than defendants from the pre-implementation period (Avg. = 243 days). Additionally, a greater percentage of defendants from the pre-implementation (89%) period had disposed cases than those from the post-G.O. 18.8A period (63%). As such, the pre-G.O. 18.8 population has fewer defendants with pending cases who could fail to appear while released than defendants from the post-G.O. 18.8A period.

Court Appearance Rate As seen in Figure 11, more than 8 of 10 felony defendants who appeared in bond court and secured pretrial release in both the pre- and post-G.O. 18.8A implementation periods appeared for all scheduled court hearings to date. Additionally, higher failure-to-appear risk was associated with lower court appearance rates. This graded relationship supports the validity of the PSA as a predictor of court appearance in Cook County.

15 Court Appearance Rate is 1 - FTA rate. A defendant is credited with an FTA if a warrant for arrest is issued on a scheduled hearing date and it is not quashed on the same date. 16 Community Safety Rate is 1 – NCA rate. A defendant is credited with NCA if a new charge is filed in Cook County after the initial bail hearing date.

31

As seen in Table 6A and 6B, Court Appearance Rates remained stable across pre- and post-implementation periods within case factors and defendant demographics. See Appendix Table 4 for detailed information on court appearance by defendant demographics, case factors, and PSA risk.

Table 6A. Court Appearance Rate Among Felony Defendants Who Secured Pretrial Released by Top Charge Category, Top Charge Class, and Presence of an Accompanying Matter: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O.18.8A


Pre G.O. 18.8A (n=20,435) Post G.O. 18.8A (n=24,504) Defendants

Released Pretrial

Defendants Appearing at All Scheduled Court

Dates

Court Appearance

Rate

Defendants Released Pretrial


Dates

Court Appearance

Rate

Charge Category

Violent 1,205 1,050 87.1% 1,426 1,262 88.5% Person 121 109 90.1% 191 165 86.4%

Weapon 2,415 2,172 89.9% 3,288 2,896 88.1%

Property 3,059 2,339 76.5% 3,103 2,259 72.8% Drug 10,502 8,647 82.3% 13,065 11,053 84.6%

Other1 3,133 2,541 81.1% 3,431 2,755 80.3%

Charge Class

Class M 18 18 100.0% 27 26 96.3% Class X 1,994 1,642 82.3% 1,477 1,270 86.0%

Class 1 1,258 1,048 83.3% 1,639 1,365 83.3% Class 2 2,154 1,696 78.7% 3,474 2,732 78.6%

Class 3 2,874 2,405 83.7% 3,654 3,050 83.5%

Class 4 10,782 8,918 82.7% 12,791 10,739 84.0% Class Missing2 1,355 1,131 83.5% 1,442 1,208 83.8%


No VOP or VOBB 18,984 15,685 82.6% 22,511 18,748 83.3%

VOP or VOBB 1,451 1,173 80.8% 1,993 1,642 82.4% 1 Other Charges include but are not limited to DUI, failure to register as sex offender, and disorderly conduct.



32

Table 6B. Court Appearance Rate Among Felony Defendants Who Secured Pretrial Released by Defendant Demographics: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O.18.8A




Dates

Court Appearance

Rate



Dates

Court Appearance

Rate

Gender Male 17,431 14,481 83.1% 21,326 17,862 83.8%

Female 3,004 2,377 79.1% 3,178 2,528 79.5%

Race/ Ethnicity

Black 13,208 10,904 82.6% 16,521 13,730 83.1%


White, Hispanic 3,554 2,976 83.7% 4,267 3,609 84.6% Other2 571 468 82.0% 249 208 83.5%

Age Category

25 and younger 6,597 5,530 83.8% 7,455 6,265 84.0%

26-35 6,058 5,001 82.6% 7,459 6,232 83.6% 36-45 3,557 2,922 82.1% 4,279 3,509 82.0%



Community Safety Rate As seen in Figure 12, more than 8 of 10 felony defendants who appeared in bond court and secured pretrial release in both the pre- and post-G.O. 18.8A implementation periods had no new criminal activity (NCA) while in the community. Additionally, elevated risk of new criminal activity was associated with a greater likelihood of new charges. This graded relationship supports the notion that the PSA is a valid predictor of new criminal activity in Cook County.

33

There was considerable stability in community safety rates across the pre- and post-implementation periods by case factors, PSA Risk, and defendant demographic characteristics. See Appendix Table 4 for detailed information on community safety by defendant demographics, case factors, and PSA risk.

Table 7A. Community Safety Rate Among Felony Defendants Who Secured Pretrial Release by Top Charge Category, Top Charge Class, and Presence of an Accompanying Matter: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O.18.8A




Defendants Who Remained

Charge Free

Community Safety Rate



Charge Free


Charge Category

Violent 1,205 1,011 83.9% 1,426 1,239 86.9%

Person 121 107 88.4% 191 165 86.4%

Weapon 2,415 1,877 77.7% 3,288 2,720 82.7%

Property 3,059 2,369 77.4% 3,103 2,324 74.9%

Drug 10,502 8,622 82.1% 13,065 10,874 83.2%

Other1 3,133 2,734 87.3% 3,431 3,018 88.0%

Charge Class

Class M 18 15 83.3% 27 24 88.9%

Class X 1,994 1,515 76.0% 1,477 1,175 79.6%

Class 1 1,258 976 77.6% 1,639 1,326 80.9%

Class 2 2,154 1,654 76.8% 3,474 2,678 77.1%

Class 3 2,874 2,312 80.4% 3,654 2,994 81.9%

Class 4 10,782 9,101 84.4% 12,791 10,902 85.2%

Class Missing2 1,355 1,147 84.6% 1,442 1,241 86.1%


No VOP or VOBB 18,984 15,603 82.2% 22,511 18,716 83.1%

VOP or VOBB 1,451 1,117 77.0% 1,993 1,624 81.5% 1 Other Charges include but are not limited to DUI, failure to register as sex offender, and disorderly conduct.



Table 7B. Community Safety Rate Among Felony Defendants Who Secured Pretrial Released by Defendant Demographics: Pre- vs. Post-Implementation of G.O.18.8A





Charge Free




Charge Free


Gender Male 17,431 14,146 81.2% 21,326 17,591 82.5%

Female 3,004 2,574 85.7% 3,178 2,749 86.5%

Race/ Ethnicity

Black 13,208 10,470 79.3% 16,521 13,357 80.8%


White, Hispanic 3,554 3,090 86.9% 4,267 3,739 87.6%

Other2 571 488 85.5% 249 211 84.7%

Age Category

25 and younger 6,597 5,124 77.7% 7,455 5,952 79.8%

26-35 6,058 4,918 81.2% 7,459 6,218 83.4%

36-45 3,557 3,005 84.5% 4,279 3,630 84.8%



34

New Violent Criminal Activity Rate Figure 13 provides the percent of defendants released pretrial who were flagged at initial assessment as posing an elevated risk for committing a new violent offense while awaiting trial. 96.3% of the felony defendants who appeared in bond court pre-implementation of G.O. 18.8A and secured

pretrial release were not given the PSA new violent criminal activity flag at assessment, while 3.7% were flagged at assessment as posing an elevated risk for committing a new violent offense if released.

95.8% of the felony defendants who appeared in bond court post-implementation of G.O. 18.8A and

secured pretrial release were not given the PSA new violent criminal activity flag at assessment, while 4.2% were flagged at assessment as posing an elevated risk for committing a new violent offense if released.

35

As seen in Figure 14, less than 1% of defendants with a violence flag committed a new violent offense while on pretrial release.

36

Section 7. Discussion and Summary This report shows that the substantial reduction in the jail population did not lead to an increase in violent crime in Cook County. Following the implementation of G.O. 18.8A, there was a dramatic increase in the number of I-Bonds and No Bail orders issued while the use of monetary bail significantly decreased. When monetary bail was ordered, the amounts were more affordable.

For defendants released into the community, 83.2% attended all of their court dates and 83% remained charge-free pending the resolution of their cases. The percentage of released defendants charged with a violent offense was 0.6%. That means 99.4% of the 24,504 defendants who appeared in bond court from October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018 and who were subsequently released were not charged with a new violent offense.

Overall, the Model Bond Court initiative and G.O. 18.8A have allowed more pretrial defendants to remain in their communities pending resolution of their cases where they can work, pursue education, and support their families without an increased threat to public safety. To put the progress into perspective, consider that Cook County had 5,687 fewer people in jail in December 2018 compared to November 2013. This is a 50% reduction in the jail population (11,486 to 5,799 inmates) that exceeds the total reduction of the jail population across all 21 counties in the state of New Jersey from October 2012 to October 2018 (approximately 14,000 to 7,800 inmates or 44%).

While G.O. 18.8A was associated with positive changes in the process by which bail is established, the Court understands that any policy change has the potential for unintended, negative consequences. The PSA, for instance, uses evidence to assign a probability that defendants will engage in new criminal activity while on pretrial release. Because it is a probabilistic tool, it will fail at times to accurately predict human behavior. When this happens, community members can be victimized and the Court acknowledges this very unfortunate possibility. This possibility, however, exists in any criminal justice system that relies on pretrial release. For example, other jurisdictions such as: Harris County, Texas; New Jersey; and Washington, DC 17 have experienced similar unfortunate outcomes. The only way to eliminate all criminal activity while on pretrial release is to lock up all defendants, a solution the court would never consider as it would violate the constitutional rights of defendants who are entitled to bail.

While the Court asserts that bail reform balances the competing needs to respect the presumption of a defendant’s innocence and to protect the safety of the community, it also recognizes the critical need for ongoing review of processes and procedures to identify refinements that can be made in the current system. The Court, for instance, is aware that nine defendants from the post-implementation period were charged with murder while on pretrial release. However, preliminary examination by research and legal staff has revealed that the offense dates of six of the nine alleged murders occurred before the bail hearings dates of the original assessed cases. The remaining three defendants had PSA-DMF recommendations for Pretrial Services Monitoring or Supervision Level 1 if released. None of the defendants had a PSA Violence Flag. The observation that the alleged new criminal activity of murder occurred before the hearing date of the assessed case points to a limitation in the data collection method for observing new criminal activity. To calculate new criminal activity for a defendant, OCJ research staff select new criminal misdemeanor and felony charges filed after the original case. Offense date is not in the electronic docket and filing date is the only information available to estimate the start of a case. In most instances, the filing date and the offense date occur within a few days of each other, making the filing date a

17 Washington, DC: https://www.wusa9.com/video/news/local/murder-suspect-on-pre-trial-release/65-2311476; https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/when-it-comes-to-pretrial-release-few-other-jurisdictions-do-it-dcs-way/2016/07/04/8eb52134-e7d3-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5d049866f753

New Jersey: https://www.nj.com/mercer/2017/05/man_accused_of_shooting_into_crowd_was_star_studen.html#incart_river_index https://www.nj.com/union/2017/06/roselle_man_who_killed_woman_in_murder-suicide_had.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home Harris County: http://texasallianceforsafecommunities.org/press-releases/criminals-released-on-pr-bonds-murder-innocent-houston-man-while-out-of-jail/

37

reasonable proxy for estimating when new alleged criminal activity occurs. For murder, however, necessary investigations can cause considerable delay between the offense and the filing of new charges.

Given the scourge of gun crimes in Chicago, the Court is examining whether a modification to the PSA-DMF for firearms offenses would be appropriate to strengthen public safety. In addition, the Court is reviewing the fact that defendants with property charges were more likely to commit new offenses than those charged with other offenses.

In addition, more staff are needed for the Adult Probation Department’s Pretrial Division. The division has experienced rising caseloads averaging 488 cases per month in 2018. From April 2018 through October 2018, the average monthly caseload was 519 defendants. This is a sharp increase from the average monthly caseloads of 295 in 2017 and 323 in 2016. The division needs up to 46 additional officer positions and seven additional supervisors to effectively assess, interview, and supervise defendants.

In conclusion, the Court will continue to track outcomes in the pretrial process so that the public remains

informed about the progress of bail reform in Cook County. For quarterly updates, please visit

http://www.cookcountycourt.org/HOME/ModelBondCourtInitiative.aspx

http://www.cookcountycourt.org/HOME/ModelBondCourtInitiative.aspx

38


39

Section 8. List of Appendices

The appendices may be found at http://www.cookcountycourt.org/HOME/BailReform.aspx

Appendix Table 1A Initial Bail Order Distribution for Pre G.O. 18.8A Male Defendants by Top Charge Category

and Class, PSA-Risk, and Race/Ethnicity

Appendix Table 1B Initial Bail Order Distribution for Pre G.O. 18.8A Female Defendants by Top Charge Category


Appendix Table 1C Initial Bail Order Distribution for Post G.O. 18.8A Male Defendants by Top Charge Category


Appendix Table 1D Initial Bail Order Distribution for Post G.O. 18.8A Female Defendants by Top Charge Category


Appendix Table 2 Distribution of 10% D-Bond Bail Amounts for Pre vs. Post Defendants by Gender, Top Charge

Category and Class, PSA-Risk, and Race/Ethnicity

Appendix Table 3 Pretrial Rate of Release by Gender, Top Charge Category and Class, PSA-Risk, and

Race/Ethnicity

Appendix Table 4 Court Appearance and Community Safety Rate for Pretrial Defendants by Gender, Top Charge

Category and Class, PSA-Risk, and Race/Ethnicity

40


41


42

.

Office of the Chief Judge

Circuit Court of Cook County

50 West Washington Street

Suite 2600

Chicago, Illinois 60602

bail reform in cook county reform/bail refor… · hearings-and-pretrial-release.aspx ... sample of...

Documents