!
!
Enhancing Pretrial Justice in Cuyahoga County:
Results From a Jail Population Analysis
and Judicial Feedback
John Clark
Rachel Sottile Logvin
Pretrial Justice Institute
September 2017
!
!
!
2!
Table of Contents
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………..3
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….5
Methods used for data collection and analysis……………………………………..…5
Trends in Population, Crime and Criminal Case Filings………………………..…6
Jail population data trends…………………………………………………………………..9
Jail snapshot profile……………………………………………………………………………11
Summary of judicial questionnaire and recommendations for further
stakeholder education and engagement……………………………………………….17
Summary and Discussion…………………………………..……………………………….20
Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………..23
APPENDIX A: List of Data Elements Requested for
Jail Population Analysis……………………………………………………………....…….26
APPENDIX B: Misdemeanor and Felony Filings Tables…..……………………..27
APPENDIX C: Judicial Survey Results……….…………………………………………29
!
!
!
3!
Executive Summary
To assist in its ongoing examination of the bail system in Cuyahoga County, the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas, in coordination with the American Civil Liberties Union of
Ohio, asked the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) to review elements of the Cuyahoga County
pretrial justice system. PJI examined case filing trend data, analyzed data from a snapshot of
persons released on a particular date from four facilities—the Cuyahoga County Jail plus three
municipal jails—and solicited feedback from the Court of Common Pleas and municipal court
benches regarding needed enhancements to the bail system. This report presents the findings
from that effort.
Here is a summary of the major findings and recommendations.
Trend Data
• Despite significant declines in the number of reported violent and property crimes in
Cuyahoga County, and even larger declines in the number of criminal cases filed in both
the municipal courts and the Court of Common Pleas, there has not been a
commensurate reduction in the number of jail bookings or average daily populations.
• The Cuyahoga County Jail has been operating, on average, at over 100% capacity in four
out of the past five years.
Jail Population Analysis
• There were significant differences in the demographic characteristics, particularly
regarding race, of those released from the three municipal jails on the date of the
snapshot, June 1, 2017, compared to those released from the Cuyahoga County Jail.
• Twenty-five percent of the felony pretrial population in the Cuyahoga County Jail sample
remained detained throughout the pretrial period, with an average length of stay in
pretrial detention of 104 days. Of the 75% who were released, whether by financial or
non-financial means, the average length of stay was 17 days.
• Thirty-eight percent of the Cuyahoga County jail population that was released on
personal bond spent more than one week in pretrial detention before that release.
• Twenty-eight percent of those with a bond of $5,000 or less never posted it and
remained detained throughout the pretrial period.
• There was a correlation between seriousness of charge and bond type and bond amounts
in the Cuyahoga County Jail sample. Those charged with Felony 1 and 2 offenses were
much more likely to get a secured money bond than those charged with Felony 4 and 5
offenses, and, of those receiving a secured bond, much more likely to receive a higher
bond.
Judicial Feedback
PJI invited all Municipal and Common Pleas judges to participate in a voluntary questionnaire
consisting of nine questions to identify areas of potential judicial education, stakeholder
engagement, and process improvements. Here is a summary of the results:
• Thirty-three judges completed the questionnaire.
• Over 75% of the judges felt informed about the strengths and weaknesses of the bail
system in their jurisdiction, and about ways that it might be improved.
!
!
!
4!
• 82% of the judges felt there is value in the Criminal Justice Committee examining the
pretrial process in Cuyahoga County and its municipalities.
• 79% felt it is important to provide judicial-specific education to understand possible
ways to improve the bail system in the areas of actuarial risk assessment (87%) and
research-informed risk management strategies (87%).
• 13% felt uncertainty about the use of actuarial risk assessment tools with some
concern that they may cause additional issues.
• 84% of the respondents were “somewhat familiar with” to “not familiar with at all”
the use of supervision matrices, while only 15% of the judges were “very familiar
with” the uses of supervision matrices.
Recommendations
1. Conduct a training on the fundamentals of pretrial justice for the judges of the Court of
Common Pleas and of the municipal courts.
2. Conduct a one-to-two day summit of the judiciary in Cuyahoga County to identify a clear
vision statement pertaining to pretrial practices within the county.
3. Pilot test 2-4 projects in both the Municipal and Common Pleas Court introducing research
and evidenced-based practices in pretrial improvements.
4. Actively and consistently communicate the plans, progress, and outcomes of the pilot sites to
the entire judiciary, as well as other key stakeholders, such as prosecutors, defenders, law
enforcement, victim advocates, and the community at large.
5. Based on the results of the pilot sites, plan and implement an expansion of new practices
system-wide.
!
!
!
5!
Introduction
In 2016, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas began a thorough examination of bail
practices in the county, and formed several committees to look at various aspects of the issues
the jurisdiction was facing regarding bail, and to explore ways to address those issues. As part of
that process, the Court, working in concert with the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio,
asked the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) to examine case filing trend data, analyze data from a
one day snapshot of persons released from four facilities—the Cuyahoga County Jail plus three
municipal jails—and solicit feedback from the Court of Common Pleas and Municipal Court
benches regarding needed enhancements to the bail system.
Cuyahoga County is not alone in seeking to enhance its bail practices. State and county
jurisdictions across the country are doing so, spurred by (1) research showing the clear benefits
of risk-based over money-based bail decision making, (2) recognition of the costs to both the
defendant and the tax-paying public of the money-based bail system; and (3) a wave of federal
court rulings finding the money-based bail system to violate the due process rights guaranteed
by the U.S. Constitution. Many states have amended their bail statutes or court rules to establish
a presumption for pretrial release on the least restrictive conditions, with clear limits on the use
of secured financial bonds. The State of New Jersey is the most prominent example, going from
a bail system that was almost entirely reliant on the use of money bonds to one that has
essentially eliminated the use of money in bail.
Methods used for data collection and analysis
PJI was asked to analyze data from four jail facilities within Cuyahoga County—Solon City
Detention Center, Parma Justice Center, North Royalton City Jail and Cuyahoga County
Correction Center. These four facilities are among nine in the county that are Full Service Jails.
There are also 42 other facilities in the county that can hold inmates, including numerous police
lock-ups.
The first three of the facilities included in the analysis—Solon, Parma and North Royalton—are
municipal jails, holding those charged with or sentenced on misdemeanors, as well as those
newly charged with felonies. The Cuyahoga County Detention Center holds those charged with
or convicted of felonies, as well as some municipal cases.
PJI requested and received data from each of these four facilities. (See Appendix A for the list of
data elements requested.) The Cuyahoga County jail data had substantial missing data on
several key elements, such as bond amounts. With the assistance of Court of Common Pleas
staff, PJI was able to use the Court’s online case management system to fill in the gaps of
missing information.
PJI also conducted a voluntary questionnaire for all Municipal and Common Pleas judges.
Thirty-three judges completed the survey.
In addition, all judges were invited to participate in a brief telephone follow-up interview,
conducted by PJI. Six judges, three from municipal courts and three from the Court of Common
Pleas, volunteered to do so. These follow-up interviews were designed to actively engage and
include the judicial perspective, identify key areas of concern, and glean the overall readiness of
the judiciary for any recommended forthcoming pretrial improvements.
!
!
!
6!
Trends in Population, Crime and Criminal Case Filings
The general population of Cuyahoga County declined slightly between 2012 and 2013, and then
again between 2013 and 2014, before rising slightly in 2015. (See Chart 1)
Chart 1
As Chart 2 shows, the reported number of violent crimes in Cuyahoga County dropped slightly
between 2013 and 2015, the last year for which figures are available, while the reported number
of property crimes fell more steeply, from over 37,000 in 2012 to around 26,000 in 2015.
1,152,517
1,096,980
1,078,120
1,099,244
1,040,000
1,060,000
1,080,000
1,100,000
1,120,000
1,140,000
1,160,000
2012 2013 2014 2015
Population
Year
Population Cuyahoga County
!
!
!
7!
Chart 2
Many of the criminal cases in Cuyahoga County start in one of the 14 municipal courts located in
the county. Misdemeanor cases remain in the municipal courts, while felony cases are referred
to the Court of Common Pleas. As Chart 3 shows, felony filings in municipal courts dropped
slightly from 2014 to 2015, after rising slightly between 2012 and 2014. The number of
misdemeanor cases fell steadily over the four-year period between 2012 and 2015. (See
Appendix B for the list of these filings in each of the municipal courts.)
When combining felony and misdemeanor filings in municipal courts, total criminal case filings
fell from 70,337 in 2012 to 52,428 in 2015.
37,453
34,465
32,427
26,240
6,460
6,728
6,051
5,502
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2012 2013 2014 2015
Violent
Property
Year
Crimes Reported in Cuyahoga County
!
!
!
8!
Chart 3
Felony filings in the Court of Common Pleas have also fallen, from about 12,500 in 2012 to
about 10,300 in 2015. (See Chart 4.)
63,391
58,889
55,542
44,656
6,946
7,443
8,449
7,772
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
2012 2013 2014 2015
Felony
Misdemeanor
Year
Filings in Municipal Courts
!
!
!
9!
Chart 4
Jail population data trends
The population of any jail is determined by two factors—the number of people who are booked
into the facility, and how long they stay. Table 1 shows how the inter-relationship between
bookings, length of stay and the population played out over the past five years in the four jails
included in this analysis—Solon, Parma, North Royalton, and Cuyahoga County.
The bookings into the Solon City Detention Center, a 26-bed facility, were consistent from 2012
through 2015, then rose by several hundred in 2016. The average length of stay fell a full day
between 2012 and 2015, resulting in a drop of the average daily population from 19 to 12. The
average daily population rose back up to 17 in 2016 with increases in both bookings and average
length of stay.
In the Parma Justice Center Jail, the number of bookings dropped steadily each year, but the
average length of stay fluctuated, resulting in a fluctuating average daily population. Despite
there being 1,000 less bookings in 2016 than 2012, the average daily population rose from 17 to
18. This was because the average length of stay increased from 1.7 to 2.4 days.
The North Royalton City Jail, which has a bed capacity of 14, saw fluctuations in the number of
bookings and length of stay over the five-year period, but experienced a relatively stable average
daily population. For example, the jail had an average daily population of 9 in both 2013 and
2016, despite the fact that the number of bookings went from 944 in 2013 to 1680 in 2016. The
12,505
11,601
11,701
10,333
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2012 2013 2014 2015
Filings
Year
Felony Filings in Common Pleas Court
!
!
!
10!
reason that the average daily population remained stable was because the average length of stay
decreased from 3.5 days in 2013 to 2 days in 2016.
In the Cuyahoga County Jail, the number of bookings and the average length of stay have
remained fairly constant, resulting in average daily populations that show little variation. The
county jail has 2,100 beds, meaning that, on average, it has been operating at over 100%
capacity for at least four of the past five years.
Table 1
Bookings, Average Length of Stay and Average Daily Population:
Solon, Parma, North Royalton and Cuyahoga County Jails
Solon City Detention Center
Year
Annual Bookings
ALOS
ADP
2012
1905
3.3 days
19
2013
1926
3 days
16
2014
1905
2.3 days
12
2015
1900
2.3 days
12
2016
2275
2.7 days
17
Parma Justice Center Jail
Year
Annual Bookings
ALOS
ADP
2012
3669
1.7 days
17
2013
3316
2.8 days
25
2014
3107
2.6 days
22
2015
2917
3.1 days
25
2016
2685
2.4 days
18
North Royalton City Jail
Year
Annual Bookings
ALOS
ADP
2012
1056
3.4 days
10
2013
944
3.5 days
9
2014
1377
2.9 days
11
2015
1694
2.2 days
10
2016
1680
2 days
9
Cuyahoga County Jail
Year
Annual Bookings
ALOS
ADP
2012
25,367
30 days
2104
2013
23,951
31 days
2023
2014
25,104
32 days
2180
2015
25,374
31 days
2156
2016
26,334
30 days
2152
Despite the declines in reported crimes and criminal case filings, the number of annual bookings
rose in three of the four facilities, and the average daily populations of the four jails have
remained, for the most part, constant.
!
!
!
11!
Jail snapshot profile
A jail population analysis was conducted on all persons released on June 1, 2017 from the four
individual jail facilities—Solon, Parma, North Royalton, and Cuyahoga County Jails. For the
purposes of this analysis, the data from the three municipal jails—Solon, Parma and North
Royalton—were combined.
As Table 2 shows, there were significant differences in the demographic characteristics of those
released from Solon, Parma and North Royalton compared to the Cuyahoga County Jail. For
example, 30% of those released from the smaller jails were female, compared to 17% from the
Cuyahoga facility. Additionally, looking at the racial breakdown, whites represented 75% of the
smaller jails sample but only 24% of the Cuyahoga. Finally, those released from the Cuyahoga
jail were younger–30% were 25 years old or younger, compared to 20% in the other three jails.
Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Individuals Released on June 1, 2017
Solon, Parma, North
Royalton Jails
Cuyahoga County
Jail
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Gender
Male
14
70%
94
83%
Female
6
30%
20
17%
Race
White
15
75%
27
24%
Black
5
25%
83
73%
Other
0
--
4
3%
Age
18-20
0
--
8
7%
21-25
4
20%
26
23%
26-30
3
15%
20
18%
31-40
8
40%
37
32%
41-50
3
15%
11
10%
Over 50
2
10%
12
11%
Solon, Parma and North Royalton Jails
The combined snapshot of the first three jails–Solon, Parma and North Royalton–show that
these jails have very small volume and move people out very quickly. A total of 20 individuals
were released from these facilities on June 1, 2017–four from Solon, nine from Parma and seven
from North Royalton.
Sixteen of these individuals (80%) were in pretrial status, three were serving sentences, and one
was turned over to another authority. Of the 16 who were in pretrial status, four were charged
with a felony as the most serious charge and 12 were charged with a misdemeanor. All 16 were
released from custody on a bond. Four were released on personal bond, eight posted a 10%
bond, and four posted a cash or surety bond. The table below shows the bond amounts for the
individuals who bonded out through cash, surety or 10%.
!
!
!
12!
Table 3
Bond Amounts Posted Solon, Parma and North Royalton Jails
Bond Amount
Frequency
Percent
Up to $500
2
17%
$501 to $1,000
1
8%
$1,001 to $3,000
2
17%
$3,001 to $5,000
7
58%
The average length of stay in detention for the 16 was 1.1 days. Six were released the same day
that they were detained, eight the day after, and one more on the third day. One was released
after seven days.
It may be that municipal jails within the county where the demographics of the population,
particularly regarding gender and race, more closely match the demographics of the Cuyahoga
County jail population would have results that are different than those reported here.
Cuyahoga County Jail
The Cuyahoga County Jail has a much higher volume than the other three and a much longer
length of stay. A total of 114 persons were released from the jail on June 1, 2017. These
individuals had an average length of stay of 39 days.
Of the 114 persons released on that date, seven had been in custody solely to serve a sentence, 20
were there solely on probation or parole violations, 15 had municipal court cases, 63 were in
felony pretrial status, and nine had miscellaneous issues.
An individual was counted as being in felony pretrial status if he or she was in custody on at
least one felony, even if just to be booked and released, at any point while the case was pending.
This would include those who were released on personal or money bond before their first
appearance in Common Pleas Court, as well as those who remained in custody after that first
appearance. In other words, it includes those who were released at the first bail hearing in
municipal court, those who bonded out between the dates of the first municipal court bail
hearing and the first appearance in Common Pleas Court, and those unable to post a bond that
was set in municipal court. It does not include those in custody solely on probation or parole
violations, while serving a sentence (unless they started their custody while in pretrial status and
then remained in custody as part of their sentence), or because of other miscellaneous
circumstances (e.g., being brought in from a state institution to attend a hearing in court).
Table 4 summarizes the pretrial release outcomes of the 63 people who were in felony pretrial
status when released from the Cuyahoga County Jail on June 1, 2017. As the table shows, 33%
had been released on personal recognizance while their cases were pending, 27% had been
released on a 10% bond, 14% had been released on a surety bond, and 25% had remained in
custody throughout the pretrial period.
!
!
!
13!
Table 4
Pretrial Release Outcomes
Pretrial Release Status
Percent
Average
Length of Stay
Average Bond
Amount
Released on personal bond
33%
32 days
N/A
Released on 10% bond
27%
6 days
$3,600
Released on surety bond
14%
7 days
$31,235
Not released pretrial
25%
104 days
$23,900
Of those who were released on personal bonds, the average length of stay in custody, from the
date of arrest through release on the bond, was 32 days, although this figure was skewed by a
few individuals who spent several months in custody before being released on personal bond.
About half of those who were released on personal bond achieved that release within one day of
arrest. On the other hand, 38% of these individuals spent more than one week in custody before
their initial bond was changed to a personal bond.
For those who posted a 10% bond, the average bond amount was $3,600 and the average length
of stay in custody before posting the bonds was 6 days. Of those who posted a surety bond, the
average bond amount was $31,235, and the average length of stay in jail before posting was 7
days.
The total average length of stay in jail for those released by any of these means–personal bonds,
10% bonds, or surety bonds–was 17 days.
Of the 25% of those in pretrial status who were incarcerated throughout the pretrial period on
bonds they did not post, the average bond amount was $23,900. The average length of stay in
custody of that group was 104 days.
The next table takes a deeper look at the time spent in pretrial detention, comparing time in
detention for those who obtained their release at some point during the pretrial period to those
who did not. As the table shows, 41% of those who were released obtained that release within
two days of arrest, and another 28% within a week. But about 30% of those who were released
while their cases were pending spent more than one week in detention, including 6% who spent
more than 90 days in custody. Of those who were never released during the pretrial period, the
majority spent more than 60 days in custody.
!
!
!
14!
Table 5
Time Spent in Pretrial Detention*
Released Pretrial
Not Released Pretrial
Time spent in
custody
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
2 days or less
19
41%
0
--
3 to 7 days
13
28%
1
6%
8 to 14 days
5
11%
0
--
15 to 21 days
3
6%
0
--
22 to 28 days
1
2%
1
6%
29 to 35 days
1
2%
0
--
36 to 60 days
2
4%
4
25%
61 to 90 days
0
--
1
6%
91 to 120 days
1
2%
3
19%
121 to 150 days
1
2%
4
25%
151 to 180 days
0
--
0
--
Over 180 days
1
2%
2
13%
Total
47
100%
16
100%
*For those defendants who were released, this represents the number of days they spent in
pretrial detention between their arrest date and the date that they were bonded, were
sentenced, or their case was dismissed. For those not released, it represents the time between
their arrest and the point at which they were no longer in pretrial status, i.e., they were
sentenced or the case was dismissed.
Table 6 compares the characteristics of those released during the pretrial period, whether on
personal bond, 10% bond, or surety bond, to those not released. As the table shows, the pretrial
release rate rose steadily from a low of 43% for those charged with a Felony 1 to a high of 87%
for those charged with a Felony 4, before dropping to 79% for those charged with a Felony 5. The
number of charges was also correlated with whether the defendant was released pretrial, with
85% of those with just one count being released, compared to 25% of those with five or more
charges. Those with set bond amounts of $10,000 or less were much more likely to be released
than those with higher bond amounts.
!
!
!
15!
Table 6
Characteristics of Pretrial Defendants: Released vs. Not Released
Released Pretrial
Not Released Pretrial
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Released Pretrial
47
75%
16
25%
Charge Classification
Felony 1
3
43%
4
57%
Felony 2
5
63%
3
37%
Felony 3
6
75%
2
25%
Felony 4
14
87%
2
13%
Felony 5
19
79%
5
21%
Number of Charge Counts
1
34
85%
6
15%
2
6
67%
3
33%
3
5
71%
2
29%
4
1
33%
2
67%
5 or more
1
25%
3
75%
Bond Amount*
Up to $5,000
13
72%
5
28%
$5,001 to $10,000
4
67%
2
33%
$10,001 to $20,000
2
40%
3
60%
$20,001 to $30,000
4
57%
3
43%
$30,001 to $50,000
2
50%
2
50%
$50,001 to $100,000
0
0
1
100%
Over $100,00
1
100%
0
0
*For defendants who were released, the bond amounts reflect those posting a surety or 10%
bond. Those released on personal bonds are not reflected here.
The data show that bail decisions are highly correlated with the charge type. As the chart below
shows, over 80% of those charged with a Felony 1 as the most serious offense had a secured
bond set, as did 100% of those charged with a Felony 2 and over 80% of those with a Felony 3.
By contrast, nearly 60% of those charged with a Felony 5 had a personal bond set.
!
!
!
16!
Chart 5
Additionally, as the next chart shows, when secured bonds were set, the average bond amounts
rose along with the seriousness of the charge. The average bond amount for those charged with a
Felony 1 was $75,416, compared to just over $5,000 for those charged with a Felony 5.
14
13
31
58
86
100
87
69
42
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
% of total bonds set
Charge Level
Type of Bonds Set By Charge Level
Personal Bond Set
Secured Bond Set
!
!
!
17!
Chart 6
Summary of judicial questionnaire and recommendations for
further stakeholder education and engagement
Of the 33 judges who completed the questionnaire, over 75% said that they felt informed (“very
well informed” to “well informed”) about the strengths and weaknesses of the bail system in
their jurisdiction, and about ways that it might be improved.
Eighty-two percent of the judges felt there is value (“very valuable” to “somewhat valuable”) in
the Criminal Justice Committee examining the pretrial process in Cuyahoga County and its
municipalities. None of the respondents felt there is “no value at all” in examining the pretrial
process.
As Chart 7 shows, 79% felt it is important to provide judicial-specific education to understand
possible ways to improve the bail system.
$75,416
$25,625
$17,285
$8,772
$5,050
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
Average Bond Amount
Charge Level
Average Secured Bond Amounts
By Charge Level
!
!
!
18!
Chart 7
When asked about meaningful and valuable areas of further education, judges noted the
following top five areas that they felt were most important:
• Actuarial risk assessment (84%)
• Research-informed risk management strategies (84%)
• Engaging stakeholders (77%)
• Addressing racial and economic disparities in the pretrial process (55%)
• The national landscape—what is happening to enhance the bail decision-making
nationally (52%).
The questionnaire explored further the familiarity and usefulness/value of actuarial risk
assessment tools. As Chart 8 highlights, 79% of the judges shared an overall lack of familiarity
with actuarial risk assessment tools (responses were “somewhat familiar with” to “not very
familiar with”). Upon further examination of the perceived value of actuarial risk assessment
tools, 78% of the respondents view them as either “very important” or “important to understand
more” as part of the judicial decision making process. Of the respondents, it is important to note
that 13% felt uncertainty about the use of actuarial risk assessment tools, with some concern
that they may cause additional issues. All of the judges felt actuarial risk assessment tools are of
some value, with none responding they are “Not useful in the bail decision.”
58%!
21%!
12%!
9%!
0%!
0%!
10%!
20%!
30%!
40%!
50%!
60%!
70%!
Very!valuable! Somewhat!valuable! Neutral! Not!very!valuable! No!value!at!all!
Do!you!see!value!in!judicial-specific!educaGon!to!understand!the!
possible!acGons!to!improve!the!bail!system!being!examined!by!the!
Criminal!JusGce!CommiLee?!
Value!in!Judicial-Specific!EducaGon!
!
!
!
19!
Chart 8
The judges identified supervision matrices as another area to include in judicial education; 84%
of the respondents were “somewhat familiar with” to “not familiar with at all,” while only 15% of
the judges were “very familiar with” the uses of supervision matrices.
Recognizing that each bail decision is different, judges were asked to rank in order of
importance what they generally consider when making a decision. Chart 9 highlights the
respondents’ rankings, on a scale of 1 to 8, with 1 being the most important (note: the score
represents a cumulative average where the higher score summarizes the highest ranking):
• Public Safety—reasonable assurances the person does not commit a new crime (7.32)
• Appearance—reasonable assurances the person appears in court (6.38)
• Identifying people who have specific mental health and/or substance use needs that
could safely be served outside of pretrial detainment (5.70)
• Reducing racial, ethnic, and economic disparities in our jail population and criminal
proceedings (4.79)
• Maximizing release—each person has a presumption of release with the least restrictive
conditions (4.59)
• Reducing our jail population in a responsible, and meaningful manner where the
population in our jail is reserved for the highest-risk individuals and those serving a
sentence (3.93)
• Case processing—improving the timeliness and effectiveness of the movement of the case
(2.97).
21%!
40%!
30%!
9%!
0%!
5%!
10%!
15%!
20%!
25%!
30%!
35%!
40%!
45%!
Very!familiar! Somewhat!familiar! Not!very!familiar! Not!familiar!at!all!
Familiarity!with!Actuarial!Pretrial!Risk!Assessment!tools!(N=33)!
Familiarity!with!Actuarial!Pretrial!Risk!Assessment!tools!(N=33)!
!
!
!
20!
Chart 9
PJI conducted separate follow-up telephone interviews with three Municipal Court judges and
three Common Pleas judges. Several issues were raised by the judges in these interviews. Judges
spoke of the need for more active engagement by defense. Attorneys are not always present at
the initial bond hearing, meaning judges do not have their input when making bail decisions.
Furthermore, in many instances defense attorneys are not filing bond review motions when such
efforts might be successful in getting secured bonds reduced or changed to personal bonds.
Judges also said that they sometimes feel compelled to set higher bonds because of procedural
reasons; for example, they are provided with incomplete information about the alleged offense
or the defendant when making their decisions. The judges also spoke of the inconsistency of
resources, with some courts having access to risk assessments and supervision services, and
others not. Several also spoke of their concerns that some secured bonds are being set as a way
to raise revenue in municipalities.
As for what they would like to see, several said that they would like to have access to risk
assessments and supervision, and would like training and education on how to best use these
tools. They would like to be able to use data to help inform their decisions. Some judges said
they would like to see plans for a central booking facility implemented. Several said that they
would be willing to pilot test these kinds of changes in their courtrooms before being expanded
system-wide. One judge expressed the opinion that the system works fine now, and that no bail
reform is needed.
Summary and Discussion
In June 2017, the Ohio Sentencing Commission approved a report that had been prepared by its
Ad Hoc Committee on Bail and Pretrial Services. The report included recommendations that the
State of Ohio, through statute or court rule changes, should implement to enhance pretrial
7.32!
6.38!
4.59!
3.93!
4.79!
5.7!
2.97!
1!
2!
3!
4!
5!
6!
7!
8!
Recognizing!that!every!bail!decision!is!different,!rank!in!order!of!
importance!what!you!generally!consider!when!making!a!
decision.!Rank!in!order!of!importance,!with!1!being!the!most!
important!and!8!being!the!least!important!
!
!
!
21!
justice throughout the state. Among the recommendations were that the legislature mandate
and fund the use of a validated pretrial risk assessment tool and that the Supreme Court adopt a
rule requiring judges to consider the results of the risk assessment in their bail decisions.
1
The recommendations of Sentencing Commission Report, which addressed the state as a whole,
align well with the findings of this report, which focuses solely on Cuyahoga County. The data
presented here suggest that bail decisions—including type of bond and bond amount—are
heavily driven by the name of the charge. Yet risk assessment research has made clear that the
name of the charge has, at best, a limited influence on the nature of the risk posed by each
defendant to present a danger to the public or to fail to appear in court. The Sentencing
Commission report recognized this when it recommended the elimination of bond schedules,
which only consider the charge, and their replacement with pretrial risk assessment tools.
The survey results and follow up interviews with Common Pleas and Municipal Court judges in
Cuyahoga County show that, for the most part, the judges are open to the use of risk assessment
tools, and would like opportunities to learn more about them. Moreover, at least some of the
municipal courts—including the largest, the Cleveland Municipal Court—are planning to use the
Public Safety Assessment, the pretrial risk assessment tool developed by the Arnold Foundation.
Currently, most of the municipal courts do not have the resources needed to conduct a risk
assessment. There have been discussions within Cuyahoga County for years about establishing a
central booking center, which, once implemented, could allow for all persons arrested in the
county for either a felony or a misdemeanor to be assessed for risk using a pretrial risk
assessment tool, with the results being made available to the judge at the initial bail hearing.
Many jurisdictions around the country that are implementing pretrial risk assessment tools are
also establishing supervision matrices, which help to match identified risk levels with
appropriate risk management strategies. Research has shown that defendants who are found to
be low-risk have very high rates of success on pretrial release, and these high rates cannot be
improved by imposing restrictive conditions of release.
2
The only result to expect when
imposing restrictive conditions of release on low-risk individuals is an increase in technical
violations.
3
Instead, the most appropriate response is to release these individuals on personal
bonds with no specific conditions, and no supervision other than to receive a reminder notice of
their court dates.
4
Other studies have found that higher-risk defendants who are released with supervision have
higher rates of success on pretrial release than similarly-situated unsupervised defendants. In
one study, controlling for other factors, higher-risk defendants who were released with
supervision were 33% less likely to fail to appear in court than their unsupervised counterparts.
5
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
Ad Hoc Committee on Bail and Pretrial Justice: Final Report and Recommendations, Ohio Sentencing
Commission, June 2017.
2
Marie VanNostrand and Gina Keebler, Pretrial Risk Assessment in the Federal Court, 73 FED. PROB.,
(2009).
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
Christopher Lowenkamp and Marie VanNostrand, Exploring the Impact of Supervision on Pretrial
Outcomes. (New York: Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2013.)!
!
!
!
22!
As noted earlier, judges ranked education on risk management strategies high on their list of
priorities.
The Sentencing Commission had also recommended that judges prioritize the use of non-
financial release options. This recommendation also has relevance to Cuyahoga County. As
noted earlier, the analysis of the Cuyahoga County data showed that 28% of those with bonds of
$5000 or less–meaning they could have been released by paying as little as $500–never posted
their bonds and remained in jail until disposition of their cases. The research shows that there
are major consequences for low- and moderate-risk defendants who remain incarcerated
throughout the pretrial period, unable to post secured bonds. A study by the Arnold Foundation
found that, controlling for other factors, low-risk defendants who were held in jail throughout
the pretrial period due to their inability to post their bonds were 28% more likely to recidivate
within 24 months after adjudication than low-risk defendants who were released pretrial.
Medium-risk defendants detained throughout the pretrial period were 30% more likely to
recidivate within the following two years.
6
Moreover, looking at those who were released—whether by financial or non-financial means—
their average length of stay in jail before procuring release was 17 days. Looking exclusively at
those who were released on personal bonds, whether at their initial bond hearing in municipal
court or later in the process, 38% spent at least one week in jail. Again, the research shows the
implications of such findings. The same study by the Arnold Foundation found that, when
controlling for other factors, those who had scored as low-risk on the empirically-derived
pretrial risk assessment tool and who were held in jail for just 2-3 days after arrest were 39%
more likely to be arrested on a new charge while the first case was pending than those who were
released on the first day, and 22% more likely to fail to appear. Low-risk individuals who were
held 4-7 days were 50% more likely to be arrested, and 22% more likely to fail to appear; those
held 8-14 days were 56% more likely to have a new charge and 41% more likely to have a failure
to appear. The same patterns held for medium-risk persons who were in jail for short periods.
7
Such results might be palatable if secured money bonds were found to be more effective than
non-financial bonds in terms of public safety and court appearance. Yet the one study that
controlled for risk levels in comparing outcomes of those released by secured versus unsecured
bonds found that that, across all risk levels, there were no statistically significant differences in
outcomes (i.e., court appearance and public safety rates) between defendants released without
having to post financial bonds and those released after posting such a bond. The study also
looked at the jail bed usage of defendants on the two types of bonds. Defendants who did not
have to post financial bonds before being released spent far less time in jail than defendants who
had to post. This is not surprising, since defendants with secured bonds must find the money to
satisfy the bond or make arrangements with a bail bonding company in order to obtain release.
Also, 39% of defendants with secured bonds were never able to raise the money and spent the
entire pretrial period in jail. In summary, the study found that unsecured bonds, which do not
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6
Christopher Lowenkamp, Marie VanNostrand, and Alex Holsinger, The Hidden Costs of Pretrial
Detention, Laura and John Arnold Foundation (2013),
7
Christopher Lowenkamp, Marie VanNostrand, and Alex Holsinger, The Hidden Costs of Pretrial
Detention, Laura and John Arnold Foundation (2013), [hereinafter Hidden Costs].!
!
!
!
23!
require defendants to post money before being released, offer the same public safety and court
appearance benefits as secured bonds, but do so with substantially less use of jail bed space.
8
The legal issues raised by the use of secured bonds are now receiving attention in the courts. In
the past few years, a number of federal and state courts have imposed strict limitations on the
use of secured bonds. For example, in Harris County, Texas, a U.S. District Court ruled that local
judges must release most misdemeanor defendants on personal or unsecured bonds at first
appearance. (Odonnell v. Harris County, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
No. H-16-1414, 4/28/17). In addition, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that
judges can only impose secured financial bonds to address appearance concerns, not safety, and
that if setting a secured bond, the court must first assess the person’s ability to make the bond.
(Brangan v. Commonwealth, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, SJC-12232, 8/25/17.)
One issue that arose in interviews with judges relating to the use of secured financial bonds is
that the 10% and full cash bonds may be used as a way to assure the payment of fines and fees in
municipal court cases. If the person is ultimately convicted and makes all court appearances, the
money for fines and fees can be subtracted from the bond before it is returned. The purpose of
bail under the law is clear–to provide the opportunity for release of an individual pending trial
with reasonable assurance of public safety and court appearance. Any other purpose of bail
conditions–whether they be financial or non-financial–is unlawful. Given the litigation taking
place around the country regarding bail setting practices, judges should take great care to
articulate the reasons for their decisions, especially when setting secured financial bonds.
Recommendations
Based upon the findings of this report, the Pretrial Justice Institute makes the following
recommendations for the Cuyahoga County court systems:
1. Conduct a training on the fundamentals of pretrial justice for the judges of the
Court of Common Pleas and of the municipal courts.
The survey and follow-up interviews with the judges found that most of the judges felt the need
for training on the basics of bail. The training should cover the use of risk assessment tools,
including how they are developed, what they consist of, what they show, and how they can be
used to help inform judicial discretion in making bail decisions. The training should also include
effective pretrial supervision strategies.
The implementation phase of the judicial training can be approached in multiple ways. We
recommend the Task Force evaluate its resources and determine the best course of action to
provide the judicial education. State-based organizations such as the ACLU-OH could
potentially provide this training, with the assistance and guidance, if appropriate and needed,
from PJI. Pretrial Justice Institute is a fee-based provider who can design and implement
judicial training. There are other providers such as the National Center for State Courts, State
Justice Institute, and private consultant groups who often provide this training for a fee. We
encourage the Task Force to evaluate funding/grants that may exist and can offset the expenses
associated with this recommended action.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8
Michael R. Jones, Unsecured Bonds: The “As Effective” and “Most Efficient” Pretrial Release Option
(2013), [hereinafter Unsecured Bonds]. This study was conducted from data on 1,970 defendants from 10
The different counties in Colorado in 2011.
!
!
!
24!
2. Conduct a one-to-tw0-day summit of the judiciary in Cuyahoga County to
identify a clear vision statement pertaining to pretrial practices within the
county.
Following the training of all judges, the combined Court of Common Pleas and Municipal Court
benches should meet to establish a vision for what pretrial justice should look like in Cuyahoga
County and its municipalities, and the steps needed to implement that vision, beginning with
pilot test sites.
In February 2017, the American Judges Association passed a resolution that may provide a
useful framework for such a vision statement. In that resolution, the association called for court
systems to:
1. promote and support the adoption of evidence-based risk assessment and management
in making the bail determination;
2. eliminate practices that cause defendants to remain incarcerated solely because they
cannot afford to pay for their release;
3. call for the elimination of commercially secured bonds at any time during the pretrial
phase;
4. call for the shift from secured to unsecured money bond at any time during the pretrial
phase;
5. promote and support the practice of least restrictive graduated conditions of release
which can be adjusted per the compliance or non-compliance of the individual;
6. call for the ability of every judge to conduct a preventive detention hearing with full due
process protections so that detention-eligible defendants are detained under accepted
evidentiary standards;
7. promote judicial training and development that addresses how best practices and
identifying sources of implicit bias can reduce racial and gender disparities.
3. Pilot test 2-4 projects in both the Municipal and Common Pleas Court
introducing research- and evidenced-based practices in pretrial improvements.
The components of the pilot sites would include: the presence and active participation of
prosecution and defense at the initial bail hearing or any subsequent hearing in which bail is
considered; the use of an empirically derived pretrial risk assessment tool in every criminal case
appearing before a judge for an initial bail hearing, or the availability of the risk assessment
results from the initial bail hearing at any subsequent hearings where bail is considered; the use
of a supervision matrix that allows the court to match the most appropriate supervision level to
the identified risks of each individual; and the availability of supervision resources.
4. Actively and consistently communicate the plans, progress, and outcomes of
the pilot sites to the entire judiciary, as well as other key stakeholders, such as
prosecutors, defenders, law enforcement, victim advocates, and the community
at large.
While judges are key to any effective bail reform efforts, they cannot change the system by
themselves. All the key stakeholders need to be informed and involved in the efforts. The judicial
leadership has already recognized this, including representatives from the stakeholder groups
on the committees that are currently looking into bail reform. These committees should remain
in place, or a new one established, to hear and consider the results from the pilots.
!
!
!
25!
5. Based on the results of the pilot sites, plan and implement an expansion of new
practices system-wide.
The Cuyahoga County justice system has been considering for a number of years the
establishment of a central booking facility, but have yet to reach a final decision. Such a facility
could be very helpful in assuring that risk assessments are completed in every criminal case. The
pilot sites should shed light on the opportunities and challenges that exist in doing a risk
assessment in each case. And as long as the pilot sites are representative of all the courts in the
county, their experiences should inform discussions about costs and resources needed to
provide effective supervision services.
6. Conduct a thorough analysis of the impacts of pretrial release decision making
by race and ethnicity.
Evaluating the jail population through the lens of race and ethnicity requires additional data to
determine if release decisions have disparate impacts on release, release by type, length of time
to release, and any bail or bond revocation. There are preliminary indicators, based upon the
population demographics in the Cuyahoga County jail, as compared to the Municipal satellites,
that suggest a further rigorous evaluation is needed in this area.
!
!
!
26!
APPENDIX A:
List of Data Elements Requested for Jail Population Analysis
Jail population data trends
For the years 2012 through 2016:
• The annual number of bookings (admissions)
• The average daily population of inmates in the facility, over the course of the year
Jail snapshot profile
All persons released from the jail on (a recent day TBD):
• Person’s name or other unique identifying number
• Person’s booking number
• Person’s date of birth or age
• Person’s sex
• Person’s race (White, Black, Asian, Other)
• Person’s ethnicity (Hispanic or Non-Hispanic)
• Person’s employment status (No, Part-time, Full-time)
• Person’s city of residence
• Person’s state of residence
• Person’s ZIP Code
• Date booked in
• Time booked in
• Arresting agency
• English description of most serious charge
• Offense class (Felony, Misdemeanor, Traffic, Municipal, etc.) of most serious charge
• English description of second most serious charge
• Offense class (Felony, Misdemeanor, Traffic, Municipal, etc.) of second most serious
charge
• Total number of charges
• Court of jurisdiction for most serious charge
• Docket number for most serious charge
• Legal Status (Pretrial, Convicted, Sentenced, Contract, Hold, Probation violation, etc.)
• Bond condition type (Cash only, Cash or surety, Recognizance)
• Total bond amount set (measured in dollars, if any)
• Flag for bondable on a charge (Yes/No)
• Person’s pretrial risk category (Higher, Medium, Lower Risk)
• Reason for release (i.e., bond posted, case dismissed, sentence completed)
• Released to where (i.e., the community, state prison system, another jail)
• Flag for Sentenced status (Yes/No)
• Sentence start date
• Flag for domestic violence (Yes/No)
• Flag for mental health concern (Yes/No)
• Flag for medical (physical health) concern (Yes/No)
• Flag for noncompliance (e.g., probation, parole) holds (Yes/No)
• Flag for homeless (Yes/No)
!
!
!
27!
APPENDIX B:
Misdemeanor and Felony Filings Tables
Table B-1
Misdemeanor Filings in Municipal Courts – 2012 to 2015
Municipal
Court
2012
2013
2014
2015
Bedford
2469
2354
2379
2132
Berea
1900
1799
2012
2087
Cleveland
30841
28,790
25,464
17,977
Cleveland
Heights
2581
2365
2070
1855
Cleveland
Housing
5369
4810
5479
4795
East Cleveland
1544
1634
1103
1010
Euclid
1454
1361
1301
1076
Garfield
Heights
3045
2886
2875
2318
Lakewood
2246
2111
2260
1920
Lyndhurst
941
1000
1091
987
Parma
6268
5646
5385
4575
Rocky River
2906
2392
2197
2149
Shaker Heights
1290
1202
1143
989
South Euclid
537
539
783
786
Total
63,391
58,889
55,542
44,656
!
!
!
28!
Table B-2
Felony Filings in Municipal Court - 2012 to 2015
Municipal
Court
2012
2013
2014
2015
Bedford
3
197
339
335
Berea
4
166
305
277
Cleveland
5,604
4864
4661
4078
Cleveland
Heights
104
205
333
239
Cleveland
Housing
0
0
0
0
East Cleveland
0
139
163
160
Euclid
187
269
358
381
Garfield
Heights
416
358
332
320
Lakewood
91
192
288
272
Lyndhurst
0
110
238
198
Parma
309
575
839
853
Rocky River
167
244
359
430
Shaker Heights
27
82
163
169
South Euclid
34
42
71
60
Total
6946
7443
8449
7772
!
!
!
29!
APPENDIX C:
Judicial Survey Results
Very!well!
informed!
Well!informed! Somewhat!well!
informed!
Not!well!
informed!
N/A!
0.00%!
10.00%!
20.00%!
30.00%!
40.00%!
50.00%!
How informed do you feel about the
strengths and weaknesses of the bail
system in your jurisdiction, and about
ways that it might be improved?
Very!valuable! Somewhat!
valuable!
Neutral! Not!very!valuable! No!value!at!all!
0.00%!
10.00%!
20.00%!
30.00%!
40.00%!
50.00%!
60.00%!
Do you see value in the Criminal Justice
Committee examining the pretrial process
in Cuyahoga County and its
municipalities?
!
!
!
30!
1. Legal and historical foundations of pretrial justice
2. The national landscape–what is happening nationally to enhance pretrial justice
3. Actuarial risk assessment tools
4. Research informed pretrial risk assessment strategies
5. Addressing racial and ethnic disparities in the pretrial process
6. The latest pretrial research on the impacts of detention
7. Engaging stakeholders
Very!valuable! Somewhat!
valuable!
Neutral! Not!very!valuable! No!value!at!all!
0.00%!
10.00%!
20.00%!
30.00%!
40.00%!
50.00%!
60.00%!
70.00%!
Do you see value in judicial-specific
education to understand the possible
actions to improve the bail system being
examined by the Criminal Justice
Committee?
1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!
0.00%!
10.00%!
20.00%!
30.00%!
40.00%!
50.00%!
60.00%!
70.00%!
80.00%!
90.00%!
What topics for judicial education and
training would be helpful and meaningful
to you? Check ALL that apply.
!
!
!
31!
8. None
9. Other
Very!familiar! Somewhat!
familiar!
Not!very!familiar! Not!familiar!at!all! N/A!
0.00%!
5.00%!
10.00%!
15.00%!
20.00%!
25.00%!
30.00%!
35.00%!
40.00%!
45.00%!
How familiar are you with Actuarial
Pretrial Risk Assessment tools?
An!important!
addiGonal!tool!for!
the!judicial!officer!
in!the!bail!
decision!
They!sound!good,!
but!I!need!to!
know!more!
I'm!not!sure!they!
work!and!they!
might!create!
more!problems!
They!are!not!
useful!to!the!
judicial!officer!in!
the!bail!decision!
N/A!
0.00%!
5.00%!
10.00%!
15.00%!
20.00%!
25.00%!
30.00%!
35.00%!
40.00%!
45.00%!
50.00%!
How do you view Actuarial Risk
Assessments tools? Select most
appropriate.
!
!
!
32!
1. Public safety
2. Court appearance
3. Maximizing release on least restrictive conditions
4. Reducing the jail population in a responsible manner
5. Reducing racial, ethnic and economic disparities
Very!familiar! Somewhat!
familiar!
Not!very!familiar! Not!familiar!at!all! N/A!
0.00%!
5.00%!
10.00%!
15.00%!
20.00%!
25.00%!
30.00%!
35.00%!
40.00%!
45.00%!
50.00%!
How familiar are you with supervision
matrices that match a charge/risk profile
with the appropriate supervision level?
1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7!
0!
1!
2!
3!
4!
5!
6!
7!
8!
Recognizing that every bail decision is different, rank
in order of importance what you generally consider
when making a decision.
!
!
!
33!
6. Identifying people who have specific mental health or substance abuse needs who ban be
diverted
7. Case processing–improving the timeliness and effectiveness of the movement of cases
