Mecklenburg County, NC

Change in Jail Population 20%

Action Areas Bail Community Engagement Pretrial Services Racial Disparities

Last Updated

Background

Prior to joining the Safety and Justice Challenge, Mecklenburg County had successfully implemented several evidence-based practices to improve its justice system, such as using risk to inform the setting of release condition decisions, rather than relying on charge. This resulted in a significant jail population reduction, however there was still an unnecessary use of the local jail.

Too often, a jail stay depended on a person’s ability to pay money bail. Although the county increased the use of non-financial release conditions, jail stays still too often depended on a person’s ability to pay.

Pretrial status inmates and length of stay were main drivers of the jail population. In 2019, the pretrial jail population was 63% of the total average daily population.

People of color were overrepresented in the jail. In 2019, despite making up approximately 46% of the local population, Black and Hispanic people made up 78% of the jail population.

Strategies

Since joining the Safety and Justice Challenge, Mecklenburg County has advanced a number of strategies to rethink and redesign its criminal justice system so that it is more fair, just and equitable for all.

01

BAIL REFORM

The county implemented changes to its bail policy in March 2019 by removing the monetary bail schedule and creating a non-financial Release Conditions Matrix. This resulted in more individuals safely released from jail while awaiting trial. In addition, the county established a more informed and uniform bail setting process resulting in more meaningful first appearance hearings for individuals.

02

ENHANCED PRETRIAL SERVICES

The county enhanced pretrial services by strengthening system efficiencies through a streamlined case processing management plan. It is also developing specialized pretrial supervision teams to better serve clients at higher risk of pretrial failure.

03

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The county launched a Community Engagement Task Group including 10 community members. The goal of the Task Group is to ensure community members can meaningfully engage and participate in the development of policy and practice changes in the justice system, under the guidance of the Criminal Justice Advisory Group.

04

CENTERING RACIAL EQUITY

The county partnered with the W. Haywood Burns Institute to analyze criminal justice system data to identify and inform policy and practice changes to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system. County stakeholders also created and delivered Implicit Bias Training for Justice Professionals to improve system actors’ understanding of the intersection of race and the justice system.

Results

As a result of the strategies above, Mecklenburg County has made progress towards its goal of rethinking and redesigning its criminal justice system.

Quartery ADP for Mecklenburg County (2016-2024)

20.1% from baseline

More Results

There have been significant pretrial justice system improvements in the county. For example, first appearance courtrooms are now headed by a small number of trained judges, which allows for uniformity in how release and detain decisions are made. The county also established a bail policy leadership group that is staffed by an analyst and meets monthly to review outcome data.

In addition, the Criminal Justice Services (CJS) Pretrial Supervision Unit is poised to launch two specialized caseloads focused on clients who are at higher risk of pretrial failure. An assessment done by the Center for Court Innovation has provided the CJS Pretrial Supervision Unit with a set of recommendations concerning best practices around procedural justice. The Unit is working to incorporate those suggestions.

The development of the Community Engagement Task Group drew significant interest from both the local justice partners and the larger community, who are all committed to collaborating around the development of policy and practice changes in the justice system so that it is more fair, just, and equitable for all. Nearly 100 community members applied to participate in the Task Group, and 10 applicants were selected in March 2021.

By the end of Summer 2021, all county justice agencies will have implemented the Implicit Bias Training for Justice Professionals.

Remaining Challenges

Mecklenburg County is focused on addressing its remaining challenges in its local justice system.

An analysis of local criminal justice data by the W. Haywood Burns Institute identified bookings and early release decisions as the two decision points in the justice system most impacted by racial and ethnic disparities. The Community Engagement Task Group will plan to review the racial and ethnic disparities data analysis and provide feedback on policy and practice changes that will help to eliminate existing disparities in the local system.

The county is seeing an uptick in violent crime, including homicide, which has placed an emphasis on identifying dangerous individuals that are legally eligible for pretrial detention and detaining them, and appropriately supervising others while they await disposition of their case.

Last, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on every aspect of the county’s local justice system. The foundation of collaborative, data-driven strategies, including the necessary structures and collaboration from local stakeholders that are in place to support these strategies, has set the county up well to respond to the pandemic swiftly and effectively. The county is focused on sustaining the work underway as part of the Safety and Justice Challenge in order to continue to support the work of reducing the local jail population and eliminating racial and ethnic disparities.

Lead Agency

Mecklenburg County Criminal Justice Services

Contact Information

Kasia Kijanczuk
Criminal Justice Planning Manager
Katarzyna.Kijanczuk@mecklenburgcountync.gov

Partners

Mecklenburg County Manager's Office, Clerk of Superior Court, Office of District Court Judges, Chief Magistrate's Office, District Attorney's Office, Public Defender's Office, North Carolina Department of Public Safety Community Corrections 26th Judicial District, Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office, Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department, Law enforcement agencies in Huntersville, Pineville, Cornelius, Davidson, Matthews, and Mint Hill, Community Support Services (CSS), New Options for Violent Actions (NOVA)

Follow @MeckCounty

Blog Posts

Philadelphia, PA

Change in Jail Population 39%

Action Areas Bail Community Engagement Diversion Pretrial Services

Last Updated

Background

Philadelphia had the highest incarceration rate of any large jurisdiction in the country. This high rate of incarceration was partly driven by unnecessarily long lengths of stay in jail and disproportionate arrests and incarceration of people of color. Existing alternatives to incarceration that provided treatment did not substantially reduce the number of people with mental health issues and substance use disorders who were incarcerated.

Strategies

Philadelphia advanced a number of strategies to rethink and redesign its criminal justice system so that it is more fair, just and equitable for all.

01

REDUCE RELIANCE ON BAIL

Philadelphia advanced strategies like alternatives to cash bail, early bail review, pretrial advocates, and detention review hearings to reduce the number of people held in jail pretrial on low amounts of bail.

02

INCREASE EARLY DIVERSION

With alternatives to incarceration (e.g., pretrial and probation), post-arrest screening and supports, and the development of a police co-responder model, Philadelphia increased early diversion opportunities for people struggling with mental illness and substance use disorders.

03

CASE PROCESSING

To create efficiencies in case processing at the pretrial stage, Philadelphia implemented Municipal Court long stayer review, Common Pleas Court long stayer review, and early parole petitions. These strategies were designed to reduce the length of time people spend in jail by reviewing individual cases, with long lengths of stay, to address continuances and other delays in processing.

04

DATA CAPACITY

Philadelphia expanded its ability to collect and share data across multiple criminal justice agencies by using standardization and regular reporting to enable collaboration and data-informed decision-making. Quantitative and qualitative data will also drive a scientific evaluation of the impact of the city's reform efforts to date.

05

RACIAL DISPARITIES

Philadelphia hired staff dedicated specifically to addressing racial disparities. This enabled the site to conduct data-informed reviews of existing policies and reform initiatives to determine their impact on disparities, train other staff on racial bias, and provide recommendations to broaden the scope of reform with a focus on equity.

06

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Through a criminal justice microgrant fund, Philadelphia increased investments in community-based services. The city also established a Community Advisory Committee and services for people in the community pretrial.

Results

As a result of the strategies above, Philadelphia has made progress towards its goal of rethinking and redesigning its criminal justice system, including substantial reductions in its jail population.

Quartery ADP for Philadelphia (2016-2024)

38.5% from baseline

More Results

Through their strategies to reduce the jail population, the city successfully established a program to provide early bail review hearings within five days for people held in jail pretrial; increased early diversion opportunities through the Police-Assisted Diversion Program and other alternatives to detention; and reduced the average length of time people spend in jail awaiting trial or a violation of probation hearing.

Additionally, as part of the city’s efforts to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in the jail population, Philadelphia established a racial and ethnic disparities workgroup to develop approaches to embed racial equity in their decarceration strategies and work towards a more equitable justice system. They also developed data tools and processes for investigating racial disparities at decision points across the criminal justice system; reviewed outcomes of key reform initiatives by race and ethnicity and suggested policy and practice changes to reduce disparities; and conducted collaborative implicit bias training across criminal justice partner agencies.

Additionally, establishing a Community Advisory Committee and developing partnerships with community-based advisors allowed the city to bring in additional perspectives that are critical to the success of making the local justice system fairer and more equitable.

The Safety and Justice Challenge has relationships with community groups who are engaged in conversations and decision-making related to reforming the local justice system. The Philadelphia partnership represents a collaborative effort between key stakeholders including: courts, police, corrections, public defenders, district attorneys, behavioral health, community members, and many others who support the city’s efforts to dismantle barriers to racial equity in the local justice system.

Remaining Challenges

Philadelphia is focused on addressing its remaining challenges in its local justice system.

While Philadelphia has made great strides at reducing the size of the local jail population, racial and ethnic disparities have worsened. Local criminal justice and community partners have shifted the reform efforts to center racial equity, while collaborating closely to protect the health and safety of the city.

Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on every aspect of the city’s local justice system and continues to uniquely affect those incarcerated in local jails. The foundation of collaborative, data-driven strategies, including the necessary structures and collaboration from local stakeholders that are in place to support these strategies, has set the city up well to respond to the pandemic. They are more focused than ever on supporting community-driven solutions and investing in services and supports for those impacted by the jail system.

Lead Agency

The City of Philadelphia’s Office of Policy and Strategic Initiatives for Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Contact Information

Erica Atwood
Senior Director, Policy and Strategic Initiatives for Criminal Justice and Public Safety, City of Philadelphia
erica.atwood@phila.gov

Rachael Eisenberg
Director, Office of Criminal Justice
rachael.eisenberg@phila.gov

Malik Bandy
Community Engagement and Communications Coordinator – MacArthur Foundation Safety and Justice Challenge
albert.m.bandy@phila.gov

Partners

First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Municipal Court, Court of Common Pleas, Adult Probation and Parole Department, Pretrial Services Department, Department of Research and Development, Defender Association of Philadelphia, City of Philadelphia, Managing Director’s Office, Philadelphia Department of Prisons, Philadelphia Police Department, Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual DisAbilities Services, Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, Community Advisory Committee

Blog Posts

Santa Clara County, CA

Action Areas Bail Diversion Mental Health Racial Disparities

Last Updated

Background & Approach

Santa Clara County is located at the southern end of San Francisco Bay and contains the city of San Jose. Santa Clara County aimed to reduce the overall jail population through decreasing the use of money bail, maintaining manageable and low intensity supervision levels, diverting people with mental illness from jail to community treatment centers, increasing law enforcement agencies’ use of the Mission Street Recovery Station (sobering, mental health/drug triage), launching a public defender pre-arraignment representation unit, and continuing remote in-custody arraignments.

Santa Clara County also created strong policies and procedures to reduce racial and ethnic disparities. A new dashboard now visually highlights the inequities in the criminal justice system. The Re-entry Racial Equity Agency Leadership (REAL) Team developed key strategies to enhance opportunities for increasing equity within the county, such as bringing awareness to both staff and clients, streamlining and increasing access to services, and collaborating with other agencies on racial justice work.

Santa Clara County continues to engage with the Safety and Justice Challenge Network to rethink and redesign its criminal justice system so that it is more fair, just, and equitable for all.

Lead Agency

Office of the County Executive

Contact Information

Javier Aguirre
Director of Reentry Services

Partners

Office of the County Executive, Office of the Public Defender, Pretrial Services, Re-Entry Network Governance

Blog Posts

Why is bail more closely tied to wealth than risk?

By: Susan Guidry

Bail Data Analysis Jail Populations January 7, 2021

“I’ll bail you out”—we say that phrase so often it has become an idiom divorced from meaning. The concept of having to pay to secure your freedom has become so ingrained in American society that people rarely stop and ask “why?” This is America—you are innocent until proven guilty. On the eve of Labor Day weekend, when Americans celebrate the hard-fought victories of workers who organized for fair wages and safe working conditions, we must examine the for-profit, commercial bail bond system’s impact on today’s working families and ask why people presumed innocent remain incarcerated unless they give the court—or a for-profit bail bond company—their hard earned money.

This is a poignant question here in New Orleans. Long the most incarcerated city in the most incarcerated state in the most incarcerated country on this planet, our local jail population has come down from the post-Katrina high of 3,400. Yet we still incarcerate people in our jail at a rate twice the national average. As of today our local jail population is roughly 1,800. Of that number, approximately 1,400 are pretrial and presumed innocent.

The answer is obviously not to simply open the doors of the jail and let everyone out until their trial, but to determine who does not belong in jail pretrial. The U.S. Constitution mandates that an individual accused of a crime may only be incarcerated pretrial if they pose a flight risk, or are a danger to public safety if released.

Yet the commercial bail bond system does not align with the goal of detaining only those who pose such risks, nor does the long-held assumption that a person is less likely to flee if required to give the court something of value as collateral. What does the ability to pay have to do with a person’s risk to public safety? And what if he or she cannot afford the bond set for reasons that have nothing to do with risk, such as poverty? For those who cannot pay the full amount of their bond, the bail bond industry will front the money, in exchange for a nonrefundable fee, of course (usually ten percent of the total bail amount). The better question to ask may be: why should people’s freedom depend on their wealth?

The New Orleans Pretrial Services program (NOPTS), and similar service agencies in major cities all over the country, attempt to render those questions moot by establishing an objective screening system to determine a person’s risk of flight or threat level. A pretrial services agency typically screens every arrested person using factual, objective metrics, such as criminal history, employment history, family situation, the seriousness of the person’s charge, and other factors. This screening tool calculates a risk score the judge can then use to determine whether a person poses a risk and should be detained pretrial. Ability to pay never enters the equation.

It is critical to shift the presumption away from requiring arrestees to post a bond, and instead use an objective system to help determine actual risk. NOPTS helps the New Orleans criminal justice system, and the magistrate judge in particular, accomplish this.

The city is participating in the MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge, and has set a goal of reducing the local jail population to fewer than 1,200 by 2018. Projections further out anticipate a possible reduction to 1,000 total detainees by 2020—an incarceration rate that would finally align New Orleans with the national average. But these reductions are only possible if New Orleans and its citizens take a step back and examine why the criminal justice system is the way it is, and whether we have erected barriers to pretrial release that siphon money out of working class communities for reasons that have no bearing on public safety.

NOPTS has already played a large role in reducing the pretrial jail population by providing fact-based assessments of risk. While NOPTS has been met with some resistance, there is momentum building for fairness and justice in our criminal justice system. As city leaders and the community become more aware of just how many poor people are held in jail for no other purpose than the profit of the bail bond companies at the cost of millions of dollars to taxpayers, more and more people will begin to ask: “why?”

This post originally appeared on the Vera Institute of Justice’s Current Thinking Blog

Susan Guidry is the City Councilmember for District “A” and chair of the council’s Criminal Justice Committee.

Dollars And Sense In Cook County — Examining The Impact Of Bail Reform On Crime And Other Factors

By: Dr. Don Stemen

Bail Featured Jurisdictions Pretrial Services November 19, 2020

New academic analysis shows Chicago area bail reform efforts since 2017 have had no impact on new criminal activity or new violent criminal activity of those defendants released pretrial.

Overall crimes rates in Chicago, including violent crime rates, were not any higher than expected after the implementation of the effort. The analysis echoes that performed in other areas where similar bail reform efforts have been undertaken such as New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia.

You can read the full report here. 

Everyone wants safe communities. But our research suggests that releasing people on their own recognizance does not make communities less safe. And taking money away from people to secure their release does not make communities safer. Monetary bail, however, does impose a burden on those individuals and their families who are least able to afford it.

Like bail reform efforts in other cities, Chicago’s initiative demonstrates that it is possible to decrease the use of monetary bail and decrease pretrial detention – and lessen the financial, physical, and psychological harms that come with pretrial detention – without affecting criminal activity or crime rates.

In Chicago, the effort began on September 17, 2017, when the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County issued General Order 18.8A (GO18.8A) to reform felony bail practices in Cook County.

GO18.8A established a decision-making process for felony bond court judges. Under the order, bond court judges were to first determine whether a defendant should be released pretrial and, if not, hold the defendant in jail. If the defendant could be released, GO18.8A created a presumption of release without monetary bail; however, if monetary bail was necessary, the order stated that bail should be set at an amount affordable for the defendant. In the end, GO18.8A established a presumption of release without monetary bail for the large majority of felony defendants in Cook County and encouraged the use of lower bail amounts for those required to post monetary bail.

After GO18.8A, there was a significant increase in the use of I-Bonds, or individual recognizance bonds for which defendants are released without having to post monetary bail.

The impact of this shift was dramatic: 3,559 additional people received an I-Bond in the six months after bail reform began. The real impact of this change was that none of these defendants had to post monetary bail to be released pretrial, saving these defendants and their families $13.6 million in avoided bond costs.

D-Bond amounts, where a defendant pays 10% of the bail amount to secure release from jail­–were also lower after bail reform. Before the effort began, the average was $9,316 to secure release, compared to $3,824 afterwards.

Combined with increased I-Bond usage, our analysis showed that Chicago saved defendants and their families more than $31.4 million in the six months after the initiative was introduced. That means bail reform in Chicago allowed defendants and their families to have $31.4 million available to be used for rent, food, and medical care while their cases were being resolved.

Likewise, the initiative did this without affecting new criminal activity of those released or increasing crime.

Bail reform efforts across the United States have accelerated in recent years, driven by concerns about the overuse of monetary bail, the potentially disparate impact of pretrial detention on poor and minority defendants, and the effects of bail decisions on local jail populations.

Proponents of bail reform advocate for reducing or eliminating the use of monetary bail, arguing that many defendants are held in jail pretrial solely because they cannot afford to post bail. Opponents counter that reducing the use of monetary bail or increasing the number of people released pretrial could result in more defendants failing to appear for court.

A debate has also played out in the media regarding the link between GO18.8A and possible diminished safety, but until our analysis, a rigorous, objective, external assessment has been lacking.

Ultimately, we found that money should not be the mechanism by which the court determines which people to hold and which people to release. Opponents of bail reform may continue to argue that reducing the use of monetary bail and increasing the number of people released pretrial will result in more defendants committing more crimes while on pretrial release. But that is not what happened following bail reform in Cook County, consistent with experiences following bail reform in New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia.

 Dr. Don Stemen is an Associate Professor and Chairperson in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology.

Professor David Olson is a Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Loyola University Chicago and is also the Co-Director (with Diane Geraghty, Loyola School of Law) of Loyola’s interdisciplinary Center for Criminal Justice Research, Policy, and Practice.