Pretrial Decision-Making Matrices: The Role of Risk and Charge Weighting in Risk Assessment–Guided Decisions

• Published date: 01 September 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231177709
• Author: Evan Marie Lowder,Zainab Bakarr Kamara,Autumn Kent
• Date: 01 September 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2023, Vol. 50, No. 9, September 2023, 1279 –1298.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231177709

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1279

PRETRIAL DECISION-MAKING MATRICES

The Role of Risk and Charge Weighting in Risk

Assessment–Guided Decisions

EVAN MARIE LOWDER

ZAINAB BAKARR KAMARA

AUTUMN KENT

George Mason University

Pretrial risk assessments are used in local pretrial settings to inform release and supervision decisions. Yet, there is little

research on the implementation of pretrial risk assessments in practice. We examined the characteristics of pretrial decision-

making matrices in a statewide sample of counties using the same risk assessment tool. We procured pretrial decision-making

matrices from 29 Indiana counties that had received or were in the process of receiving pretrial certification (88.6% response

rate). Using a structured coding protocol, we found matrices shared common features but differed in their structure and avail-

able release and supervision options. Matrices weighted index charge information more heavily than risk assessment informa-

tion, suggesting risk assessments likely explain between 20% and 36% of variability in decisions given typical rates of

judicial adherence. Local decision-makers should be aware that structuring matrices to weight charge information more

heavily than risk assessment information may limit the risk management potential of these tools.

Keywords: pretrial risk assessment; pretrial release decisions; pretrial reform; pretrial decision matrices; judicial discretion

The United States has high rates of jail incarceration (World Prison Brief, 2018), driven

in large part by the detention of pretrial defendants (Zeng & Minton, 2021). Individuals

who are arrested, detained, and released into the community pose a risk of returning to the

criminal-legal system (Digard & Swavola, 2019; Lowenkamp et al., 2013). The use of cash

bail has been identified as a primary driver of high rates of pretrial detention (Fellner, 2010)

and other adverse effects on case processing (Dobbie et al., 2018; Gupta et al., 2016; Heaton

et al., 2017). Inconsistent decision-making at the pretrial stage disproportionately harms

individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups (Arnold et al., 2018; Demuth,

2003; Demuth & Steffensmeier, 2004; Sacks et al., 2015). Together, pretrial release deci-

sions have cumulative effects on subsequent case processing, resulting in long-term impacts

AUTHORS’ NOTE: We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Correspondence concerning this article

should be addressed to Evan Marie Lowder, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason

University, 4400 University Drive, 4F4, Fairfax, VA 22030; e-mail: elowder@gmu.edu.

1177709CJBXXX10.1177/00938548231177709Criminal Justice and BehaviorLowder et al. / PRETRIAL DECISION-MAKING MATRICES

research-article2023

1280 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

on individuals’ legal system involvement (Campbell et al., 2020; Leslie & Pope, 2017;

Oleson et al., 2016; Sacks et al., 2015) and community ties (Heaton et al., 2017).

In response to these trends—and with support from national initiatives—states have

enacted several pretrial reform efforts to increase the likelihood that defendants will receive

pretrial release (Casey & Elek, 2015; National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL],

2020). Pretrial risk assessment tools are a primary pretrial reform strategy implemented to

facilitate structured decision-making at the pretrial phase. In the last 5 years, half of the

most populous jurisdictions in the United States have implemented pretrial assessment tools

(Lattimore et al., 2020), with some smaller jurisdictions implementing tools as well (Pretrial

Justice Institute, 2019). Pretrial risk assessments are tools that assess defendants for risk of

committing a future crime or failing to appear in court while on pretrial release ((Desmarais

& Lowder, 2019; Stevenson & Mayson, 2017). Specifically, pretrial risk assessment esti-

mates represent the likelihood that individuals with characteristics similar to the assessed

defendant experience the outcome of interest. These tools often include measures of age,

marital status, education, employment, financial resources, and criminal history among

other factors to determine an individual’s level of risk (Desmarais et al., 2020). Some tools

such as the Federal Pretrial Risk Assessment (PTRA; Lowenkamp & Whetzel, 2009) and

the Public Safety Assessment (Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2014) additionally

include items related to the index offense. In comparison with other risk assessment tools

implemented in correctional settings, pretrial risk assessments are often geared toward

facilitating risk-based decision-making rather than needs-based intervention. In research,

pretrial risk assessments have shown evidence of predictive validity for pretrial misconduct

outcomes (DeMichele et al., 2020; Lowder et al., 2020), including in meta-analytic reviews

(Desmarais et al., 2020).

RESEARCH ON PRETRIAL RISK ASSESSMENTS

There is growing, but still limited, research examining the effects of pretrial risk assess-

ment implementation on pretrial release and misconduct outcomes. A handful of studies

have provided consistent evidence that use of pretrial risk assessments can contribute to

higher rates of nonfinancial release (e.g., release on own recognizance) and lower rates of

financial bond decisions (Cooprider, 2009; Copp et al., 2022; Lowder et al., 2021; Sloan

et al., 2018; Stevenson, 2018); however, the magnitude of these effects and their stability

over time varies considerably across studies. There is more limited evidence for pretrial

misconduct outcomes. Some studies have shown null effects of pretrial risk assessments on

rates of pretrial misconduct (Stevenson, 2018), while other studies have found that pretrial

risk assessment implementation is associated with small increases in nonviolent rearrest

rates (Lowder et al., 2021; Sloan et al., 2018). More broadly, other studies have questioned

whether risk assessments at large can reduce recidivism when implemented in practice

(Viljoen et al., 2018), noting that jurisdictions often face barriers to successful implementa-

tion of risk assessment tools (Viljoen et al., 2018) and the amount of evidence on the use of

risk assessments in practice is lacking (Viljoen et al., 2021).

Together, these trends raise important questions regarding whether and how pretrial risk

assessments can be implemented in practice to achieve risk management objectives. Scholars

who study risk assessments have noted several barriers to understanding the effectiveness of

risk assessments on pretrial misconduct outcomes. First, pretrial risk assessments vary