Examining Pretrial Detention in Oregon: A Qualitative Analysis of Decision-Making

Problem

The problem the study aimed to address: 

This research examines the decision-making processes surrounding pretrial detention in Oregon. It investigates how pretrial release decisions are made, focusing on the role of legal actors, factors influencing these decisions, and the application of risk assessment tools.

General impact on the system and/or public: 

The pretrial detention system significantly affects jail populations, sentencing outcomes, and overall community safety. It disproportionately impacts individuals unable to afford cash bail, raising concerns about systemic inequities.

Research Questions:

1. What are the current pretrial practices across Oregon counties?
2. What factors influence judges' and release authorities' decisions to detain or release pretrial defendants?
3. How do pretrial practices impact sentencing outcomes, including the likelihood of receiving a prison sentence?
4. What is the role of risk assessment tools in pretrial decision-making?
5. How have pretrial practices adapted to challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic?
   
    

Method and Analysis

Program Evaluated/Gaps Addressed: 

• Evaluation of three primary pretrial models in Oregon:
  • Type A: No pretrial monitoring or personnel.
  • Type B: Executive branch-managed pretrial systems.
  • Type C: Judiciary-managed pretrial systems.
• Gaps addressed include inconsistencies in pretrial release decision-making and the underutilization of risk-based tools.
   

Data and Sample Size: 

• Surveys (21 responses) and semi-structured interviews (71 participants) conducted across 31 counties in Oregon.
• Participants included judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, jail officials, and pretrial services personnel.
   

Analysis Used:

• Thematic analysis integrating deductive (theory-driven) and inductive (data-driven) approaches.
• Qualitative coding assessed focal concerns influencing decisions, validated using inter-rater reliability methods.
   

Outcome

Key Findings:

• Pretrial Practices:
  • Counties without pretrial programs (Type A) lack monitoring and standardized information collection, relying heavily on bail.
  • Type B (executive branch) and Type C (judiciary) systems provide more structured information and monitoring but differ in oversight.
• Factors Influencing Decisions:
  • Primary release criteria (e.g., public safety, FTA risk) are crucial in judicial decisions.
  • Secondary release criteria, such as community ties, are underused without pretrial staff or risk assessments.
• Impact of Pretrial Detention:
  • Longer pretrial detention correlates with a higher likelihood of receiving a prison sentence.
  • Risk-based release decisions reduce detention and improve court appearance rates.
• Role of Risk Assessments:
  • Strong support for using risk tools, but concerns exist about systemic bias and racial inequities.
• COVID-19 Adaptations:
  • Increased use of virtual hearings and emergency release protocols highlighted systemic flexibility and challenges.
     

Implications or Recommendations: 

• Implement and expand pretrial programs, prioritizing Type B and C structures for better decision-making and monitoring.
• Train legal actors on using validated, bias-tested risk assessment tools.
• Establish statewide standards for pretrial information collection and release practices.
• Encourage interagency collaboration to enhance program efficacy and reduce disparities.
• Monitor the long-term impact of pretrial reforms, particularly the relationship between detention and sentencing outcomes.

This comprehensive evaluation provides actionable insights for policymakers aiming to reform pretrial processes to ensure equitable, effective, and resource-efficient outcomes.