Author(s): Sydney Reuter
Mentor(s): Dr. Evan M. Lowder
AbstractAcross the United States, different counties are implementing and using pretrial risk
assessments (PRAs) and guidelines to inform pretrial decision-making. Research on pretrial risk
assessments has shown they are effective in increasing non-financial release rates while
reducing or having no impact on pretrial outcomes. Further research has discovered that
judicial adherence has a substantial impact on the effectiveness of PRAs in increasing release
rates and lowering rates of pretrial misconduct. However, there is less research on factors that
may be linked to greater adherence to PRA recommendations. The purpose of this study is to
address this gap in research by examining one factor that may be relevant to adherence: how
judicial confidence can vary given the presence or absence of a PRA and guideline. This
quantitative, prospective study conducts a cross-sectional survey of criminal-legal professionals.
Professionals were sampled across U.S. states using a cluster-random and snowball sampling
strategy. Participants were randomly assigned to different vignette conditions, which
manipulated the presence and absence of a PRA and guideline while measuring pretrial release
decisions and corresponding confidence; familiarity with risk assessments, experience in the
criminal-legal field, and baseline levels of confidence were considered as moderating variables.
Findings show the relationship between the presence of PRAs and guidelines and confidence in
pretrial release decisions while accounting for the moderating variables. No significant effect on
confidence was found, suggesting PRAs and guidelines may be implemented without affecting Hello, my name is Sydney Reuter and I’m presenting
my research project from Honors in Criminology,
Law and Society.
My research project examines whether or not
judicial confidence varies based on the presence or
absence of pretrial risk assessments and guidelines.
Pretrial risk assessments predict the likelihood an
offender has of returning to court for their hearing.
As you can see in the table, my study consisted of
three different conditions that were presented in a
vignette. Condition one provided a police narrative,
but no pretrial risk assessment or guideline.
The second condition provided only a pre-trial risk
assessment score but no guidelines.
Condition three provided both the pretrial risk
assessment score and the guideline.
These were presented in a survey of criminal-legal
professionals from 50 US states.
The sample consisted of 122 of these professionals.
The average amount of experience was 11 years
and the average age was 49 years old.
About 50% of these professionals were defense
attorneys and about 10% were judges.
The other 40% consisted of prosecutors, pretrial
service officers, and other criminal legal positions.
During the analysis, I found that the presence of a
risk assessment and guideline did not affect judicial
confidence in pretrial release decisions.
I also considered three moderating variables. These
were familiarity with risk assessments, experience
in the criminal legal system, and baseline levels of
confidence.
These moderating variables were analyzed through
multiple linear regression where each variable got
its own regression. The interaction effects between
the variable and condition were considered.
However, the interaction effects were not found
significant.
These variables also did not have an effect on
confidence.
While surprising, I hypothesize that this lack of
significance is due to a couple of reasons.
First, judges tend to rely on legal factors over risk
assessment tools.
Second, since these tools are so new, judges may
not have strong positive or negative feelings toward
them. This means familiarity does not play a big role
in decision making
However, despite this lack of significance, I would
suggest the study be replicated again in a couple of
years. This is because pretrial risk assessment tools
may play a bigger role in five to ten years.
This means that judges may be more familiar with
them, and therefore more likely to rely on them,
meaning their confidence may be more influenced
by these tools.
Thank you for listening to my research project
judicial confidence.
assessments (PRAs) and guidelines to inform pretrial decision-making. Research on pretrial risk
assessments has shown they are effective in increasing non-financial release rates while
reducing or having no impact on pretrial outcomes. Further research has discovered that
judicial adherence has a substantial impact on the effectiveness of PRAs in increasing release
rates and lowering rates of pretrial misconduct. However, there is less research on factors that
may be linked to greater adherence to PRA recommendations. The purpose of this study is to
address this gap in research by examining one factor that may be relevant to adherence: how
judicial confidence can vary given the presence or absence of a PRA and guideline. This
quantitative, prospective study conducts a cross-sectional survey of criminal-legal professionals.
Professionals were sampled across U.S. states using a cluster-random and snowball sampling
strategy. Participants were randomly assigned to different vignette conditions, which
manipulated the presence and absence of a PRA and guideline while measuring pretrial release
decisions and corresponding confidence; familiarity with risk assessments, experience in the
criminal-legal field, and baseline levels of confidence were considered as moderating variables.
Findings show the relationship between the presence of PRAs and guidelines and confidence in
pretrial release decisions while accounting for the moderating variables. No significant effect on
confidence was found, suggesting PRAs and guidelines may be implemented without affecting Hello, my name is Sydney Reuter and I’m presenting
my research project from Honors in Criminology,
Law and Society.
My research project examines whether or not
judicial confidence varies based on the presence or
absence of pretrial risk assessments and guidelines.
Pretrial risk assessments predict the likelihood an
offender has of returning to court for their hearing.
As you can see in the table, my study consisted of
three different conditions that were presented in a
vignette. Condition one provided a police narrative,
but no pretrial risk assessment or guideline.
The second condition provided only a pre-trial risk
assessment score but no guidelines.
Condition three provided both the pretrial risk
assessment score and the guideline.
These were presented in a survey of criminal-legal
professionals from 50 US states.
The sample consisted of 122 of these professionals.
The average amount of experience was 11 years
and the average age was 49 years old.
About 50% of these professionals were defense
attorneys and about 10% were judges.
The other 40% consisted of prosecutors, pretrial
service officers, and other criminal legal positions.
During the analysis, I found that the presence of a
risk assessment and guideline did not affect judicial
confidence in pretrial release decisions.
I also considered three moderating variables. These
were familiarity with risk assessments, experience
in the criminal legal system, and baseline levels of
confidence.
These moderating variables were analyzed through
multiple linear regression where each variable got
its own regression. The interaction effects between
the variable and condition were considered.
However, the interaction effects were not found
significant.
These variables also did not have an effect on
confidence.
While surprising, I hypothesize that this lack of
significance is due to a couple of reasons.
First, judges tend to rely on legal factors over risk
assessment tools.
Second, since these tools are so new, judges may
not have strong positive or negative feelings toward
them. This means familiarity does not play a big role
in decision making
However, despite this lack of significance, I would
suggest the study be replicated again in a couple of
years. This is because pretrial risk assessment tools
may play a bigger role in five to ten years.
This means that judges may be more familiar with
them, and therefore more likely to rely on them,
meaning their confidence may be more influenced
by these tools.
Thank you for listening to my research project
judicial confidence.
2 replies on “Improving Judicial Confidence in Pretrial Release Decisions: Pretrial Risk Assessments and
Structured Guidelines”
Very good presentation! The results surprised me, but I think your conclusions + ideas for follow up are very interesting.
Thank you, Sydney. I was thinking about the first reason you mentioned for the lack of significance as well – maybe legal procedures are cemented strongly enough that it would take more time for an enhancement to catch on (if that is what the risk assessment can be called). Well done!