The link between bond forfeiture and pretrial release mechanism: The case of Dallas County, Texas
Authors: Amanda Russell-Kaplan
Robert G Morris
Stephen J Clipper
Journal: PLoS ONE (2017)
Discipline: Multidisciplinary
Keywords: pretrial jail release mechanisms; bond types; criminal justice process; defendants; failure to appear
Affiliations: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, United States of America., Department of Criminology, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, United States of America.

Abstract:  Purpose: The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of four pretrial jail release mechanisms (i.e., bond types) commonly used during the pretrial phase of the criminal justice process in terms of their ability to discriminate between defendants failing to appear in court (i.e., bond forfeiture). These include attorney bonds, cash bonds, commercial bail bonds, and release via a pretrial services agency. Methods: A multi-treatment propensity score matching protocol was employed to assess between-release-mechanism differences in the conditional probability of failure to appear/bond forfeiture. Data were culled from archival state justice records comprising all defendants booked into the Dallas County, Texas jail during 2008 (n = 29,416). Results: The results suggest that defendants released via commercial bail bonds were less likely to experience failure to appear leading to the bond forfeiture process compared to equivalent defendants released via cash, attorney, and pretrial services bonds. This finding held across different offense categories. The study frames these differences within a discussion encompassing procedural variation within and between each release mechanism, thereby setting the stage for further research and dialog regarding potential justice reform. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 2020 Expression of Concern. https: journals.plos.org plosone article?id=10.1371 journal.pone.0236275 Following publication of this article [1], concerns have been raised regarding the availability of the underlying data. Prior to publication of this article, the corresponding author declared that the Institutional Review Board of University of Texas at Dallas restricted public sharing of the underlying data set given this included potentially identifying information. In accordance with the PLOS Data Availability Policy, and with editorial agreement, the Data Availability Statement for the article provided contact details for the institutional officials to whom requests for the data set could be addressed. It has been raised to the attention of the PLOS ONE Editors that the Center for Crime and Justice Studies, University of Texas at Dallas, where the data was reportedly archived, has closed, and the former directors of the Center are no longer at the University. The authors are no longer affiliated to the University of Texas at Dallas. The PLOS ONE Editors have followed up with the authors and with the institution, but have been unable to obtain the data or confirmation that it has been retained. The authors have indicated that the records used to compile the study data set are held by the Criminal Justice Department of Dallas County and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Defendant records were matched across several unique identifiers used by various agencies. Additionally, the following information is missing from the Competing Interests statement: RGM has previously been contracted by the American Bail Coalition for expert testimony. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. The PLOS ONE Editors issue this Expression of Concern to inform readers that the underlying data set used in this study is not available at the time of publication of this notice. Reference 1.SJ, Morris RG, Russell-Kaplan A (2017) The link between bond forfeiture and pretrial release mechanism: The case of Dallas County, Texas. PLoS ONE 12(8): e0182772. https: doi.org 10.1371 journal.pone.0182772 pmid:28817579 ,