Technical Violations and Their Effects on Pretrial/Bond Supervision Outcomes

• Author: Haley R. Zettler,Kelli D. Martin
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221104021
• Published date: 01 December 2022
• Date: 01 December 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 12, December 2022, 1763 –1778.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221104021

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1763

TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS

ON PRETRIAL/BOND SUPERVISION OUTCOMES

HALEY R. ZETTLER

University of North Texas

KELLI D. MARTIN

Taylor Callahan & Coleman, Bexar, and Hidalgo Counties CSCD

The use of pretrial and bond supervision commonly referred to as supervised release has increased over the last several

decades due to burgeoning jail and prison populations. Much research has been conducted on these release mechanisms but

has yet to examine the effects of types of technical violations on pretrial failure. The current study examined the effects of

technical violations committed by individuals under a felony “bond” supervision program, which included both pretrial

releasees and individuals being supervised on bond awaiting a probation revocation hearing, in a large metropolitan area. The

results demonstrate while technical violations are associated with pretrial failure, the effects vary by violation type.

Furthermore, the findings illustrate differences in risk factors for technical violations while on pretrial/bond supervision.

Relevant policy implications of the research are provided.

Keywords: bond supervision; pretrial supervision; technical violations; bond failure

INTRODUCTION

The use of pretrial and bond supervision increased during the past several decades due to

burgeoning jail and prison populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that

between 1974 and 2001, the prison population increased by 1.1 million individuals (Bonczar,

2003). Rising jail and prison populations can be attributed to factors such as the paradigm

shift toward a “get tough” stance on crime beginning in the late 1970s (Gest, 2001; Petersilia,

2008), the passage of mandatory sentencing guidelines (Neal & Rick, 2016; Sorensen &

Stemen, 2002; Tonry, 2014), increased use of capital punishment and life without parole

(Tonry, 1999), and the “War on Drugs” (Baum, 1996; Pfaff, 2015). The system needed a

valve to release the pressure of rising incarcerated populations; thus, supervised release

became a way to monitor higher-risk individuals in the community. Although prison popu-

lations have been decreasing in recent years, the use of supervised release has remained a

common practice warranting further scientific study, especially how technical violations

contribute to pretrial failure and incarceration.

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for their thoughtful com-

ments and suggestions on this manuscript. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Haley R. Zettler, Department of Criminal

Justice, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #305130, Denton, TX 76203; e-mail: Haley.Zettler@unt.

edu.

1104021CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221104021Criminal Justice and BehaviorZettler, Martin / Technical Violations and Pretrial/Bond Outcomes

research-article2022

1764 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

LITERATURE REVIEW

A plethora of scholarship exists on supervised release mechanisms (pretrial supervi-

sion or bond supervision).1 Research has investigated the equity of financial factors asso-

ciated with bail and pretrial supervision (Garrett et al., 2019; Rabuy & Kopf, 2016;

Scott-Hayward & Fradella, 2019). Other studies examine many aspects of pretrial super-

vision, including, but not limited to, the impact of preventive notification before orienta-

tion and court dates (Goldkamp & White, 2006); race, ethnicity, and pretrial outcomes

(Donnelly & MacDonald, 2018; Fennessy & Huss, 2013; Freiburger & Hilinski, 2010;

Menefee, 2018; Zettler & Morris, 2015); the effectiveness of pretrial risk assessments

(Cadigan & Lowenkamp, 2011; Cooprider, 2009; DeMichele et al., 2018; Desmarais

et al., 2021; Lowenkamp & Whetzel, 2009; Milgram et al., 2014); conditions of release

related to failure to appear (FTA; Azari, 2019; Belenko et al., 1992; Siddiqi, 2002); the

effectiveness of electronic monitoring (Grommon et al., 2017; Lemke, 2009; Sainju et al.,

2018; Wolff et al., 2017); needs and failure (Gehring & Van Voorhis, 2014); and predictors

of pretrial failure (Bechtel et al., 2011; Clipper et al., 2021; Siddiqi, 2002). As individuals

on pretrial supervision are released back into the community pending their disposition,

understanding which factors are associated with failure is of particular concern to pretrial

supervision agencies.

PREDICTORS OF PRETRIAL FAILURE

There is a wealth of evidence covering pretrial misconduct among those released before

their case disposition. In a national sample of felony pretrial releasees, Cohen and Reaves

(2007) found approximately one third engaged in one or more types of pretrial misconduct

(e.g., FTA and new offense arrest). Similarly, among individuals released before their fed-

eral case disposition, 19% engaged in pretrial misconduct and 90% of misconduct was for

technical violations (Cohen, 2012). However, these were violations discovered by pretrial

supervision officers and no research to date has focused on self-reported violations for pre-

trial releasees. Some research does exist on self-incriminating statements, but these studies

generally involve persons on supervision for sex offenses who must undergo polygraphs

(Fausset, 2012) or admitted drug use in court-ordered therapy programs (Berg, 1993; Knight

et al., 1998).

Prior research has investigated risk factors associated with pretrial outcomes, most

often measured as FTA and rearrest while on release. In a meta-analysis on predictors of

pretrial failure, Bechtel and colleagues (2011) identified risk factors most strongly associ-

ated with rearrest, including age, community supervision violations, FTA, jail incarcera-

tion, prior convictions, prior felonies, prior misdemeanors, and prior violent, property, or

drug offenses. Several studies have examined predictors of failure specifically for those

on pretrial supervision. For example, among individuals in a federal pretrial release pro-

gram, being younger, male, having a substance use problem, being a racial/ethnic minor-

ity, prior FTA, prior escapes, and failure to complete high school (HS) were associated

with an increased likelihood of failure (Fennessy & Huss, 2013). In a sample of individu-

als released via a pretrial services agency, Zettler and Morris (2015) found indigent indi-

viduals were more likely to FTA, while other factors associated with FTA varied by race

and gender. Bolger and Phillips (2021) examined predictors of pretrial failure for 286

individuals participating in a pretrial supervision program, concluding that criminal