Matrix Recommendation to Orange County, FL Commissioners: Renew Home Confinement Program

The Matrix Consulting Group headquartered in CA, provides detailed analysis of management, staffing and operational issues for city, county and state governments.  The Orange County, FL Board of County Commissioners hired the firm to analyze Orange County’s home confinement program, which was suspended after it was learned that the program did nothing to confront Bessman Okafor’s 109 curfew violations.  Mr. Okafor is charged with the murder of Alex Zaldivar while defying his home confinement order.

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 the Matrix presented their formal report to County Commissioners and recommended that they renew the home confinement program with greater controls.  Mr. Brady stated that the first phase of the analysis looked at the home confinement program exclusively.  A variety of elements were studied to include how the program was governed, the risk and liability elements of the program, organizational structure, how defendants were supervised, staffing levels and caseloads, use of technology, opportunities to privatize the program and the feasibility of discontinuing the program entirely.

The Matrix Group developed a detailed database of all of the participants who were in the program for the past year before the program was suspended.  Review of this database of defendants resulted in what Mr. Brady called, "A number of very interesting findings about how Orange County was using the program, especially when compared to other counties surveyed."

These findings regarding the home confinement program included:

• The use of the program had been declining dramatically over the last five years
• Length of stay defendants stayed in the program was significantly up however
• The number of successful completions was up while the number of judicial revocations was down
• The vast majority of defendants in the program were charged with felony offenses with about 16 percent having two or more violent felony convictions
• The vast majority of defendants were in the program as a condition of bail
• The bail amounts were predominantly very low with 60 percent of defendants having bail amounts set at $5,000 or below
• 68 percent of felons had at least one prior conviction for any kind of charge
• A number of people who participated in the program within the last year had prior contact with the judicial system; for example 21 percent of defendants had a prior failure to appear
• Once defendants were in the program, field visits were made about every nine days, with defendants charged with more serious offenses having about the same visitation rate in the field as less serious offenders

The Matrix Group surveyed five other Florida counties and three out-of-state programs to ascertain how Orange County’s program compared to other programs.  The Matrix Group found the following:

• Other programs were assigning lower-risk offenders to their programs
• Defendants were less violent and had better risk characteristics (showing up for court)
• Caseloads were lower when compared to Orange County’s
• Other programs had a more active approach to supervision of defendants
• Most programs had or were in the process of transitioning completely to GPS technology vs. radio frequency (RF) technology

When discussing Orange County’s home confinement program, Mr. Brady stated: “Clearly until you suspended it, your home confinement program had a number of issues; more serious offenders than we typically see in other programs, bail was extremely low, caseloads were very high, and assignments were not always actively monitored; in fact in the evening hours they weren’t monitored at all.”  

The study found that staff also need to be better trained, both when they are brought into the program as well as on an ongoing basis, which the Matrix Group pointed out was definitely a weakness before the program was suspended.

However, the Matrix Group still recommended that Orange County renew the home confinement program.  Based on the experience of other counties, Orange County's home confinement program’s risk could be better managed by controlling the kind of defendants assigned to it and adjusting better caseloads and staffing models. 

The Matrix Group also recommended that the Public Safety/Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (PS/CJCC) be re-engaged to develop the performance standards against which the home confinement program should be judged and that home confinement staff and other pretrial personnel develop and actively report to the Council initially on a monthly basis.

The Matrix Group ended their presentation by stating to County Commissioners that renewing or not renewing the home confinement program was a, “Question of where they want to be on the risk management spectrum.”  Having the home confinement program in place with some controls and improvement would be better than just having people released on bail without supervision.

Once again, the bail industry has an opportunity to educate our citizens about the public safety and taxpayer savings the industry provides to communities across the country. 

The purpose of bail is to ensure the appearance of a defendant at all required court hearings and to protect the community against unreasonable danger.  We guarantee the appearance of the defendant and are completely financially accountable to the court and taxpayers to do so.  Bail agents take detailed information on a defendant to determine their risk level and what safeguards and conditions need to be added to the bail contract.  We also utilize third-party indemnitors on each bond as an added incentive for the defendant to appear at all court hearings and refrain from criminal activity.

Is the system foolproof?  No.  But no system is completely foolproof when dealing with human nature.  

Assessing risk based on a defendant’s arrest charge, ties to the community, employment and  criminal history are just some of the important elements for determining what conditions of release need to be put in place.  The use of taxpayer dollars to release and supervise defendants in our communities should be limited to those individuals charged with non-violent crimes, who have a limited non-violent criminal history and who are truly indigent. 

An increased working relationship with any party responsible for supervision of defendants released into the community pending the disposition of their case, including the bail industry, will only increase public safety and offender accountability.  We all want our families and friends to be safe and for those who choose to commit crimes to be held accountable.

In that spirit, Orange County Commissioner Pete Clarke asked that the Matrix Group and his fellow Commissioners make a timely review of the Community Correction’s Pretrial Supervision program a priority.  Hundreds of defendants are released on non-monetary means with only automated telephone supervision through this program.  Defendants are being released on both felony and misdemeanor charges, with a significant number of them charged with domestic violence related offenses and driving under the influence.  Commissioner Clarke stated that, "When you are dealing with this many domestic violence charges it is not a long stretch to think you could have another horrific outcome."  He also stressed the importance of providing the judges at first appearance hearings with accurate information on a defendant’s prior criminal convictions to make the most informed release decision.

Likewise, Orange County Commissioner Fred Brummer stressed the importance of assessing a defendant’s risk to determine what level of supervision they should receive: "Once they [a defendant] come into the system we need to, whoever is responsible, needs to make the judgment, assess the risk and follow-up to see that the type or level of supervision, or the appropriate level of supervision, is applied based upon all factors."

Orange County Commissioner Ted Edwards also weighed in on defendants being released from jail and committing repeat crimes: "One thing that has been a concern of mine is that our prison population has been going down a number of years and are we putting people on the streets that would be better off in jail because they are repeat offenders that are going to be committing more crimes.  And I think as much as it is our duty to keep our budgets low, it is more important to protect our citizens."

Mayor Teresa Jacobs echoed her fellow Commissioners' concerns when she stated that there, "Might be similar offenders who aren’t even on a monitoring system and so hopefully we will have the same insightful information that will either put us at ease or will alert us to the need to work with the council [CJ/PSCC] on that as well."

Keeping our communities safe and reducing crime should be a shared goal for all of us.  The United States Constitution states that bail shall be based on “sufficient surety” that a defendant will appear; the bail industry takes this responsibility seriously and continues to be the most effective method of pretrial release with the lowest recidivism rates. 

After the Matrix presentation, Accredited reached out to Mr. Brady asking for a meeting in an effort to further educate him and his company on what the industry provides and how we can partner with the Community Corrections Division and other private partners in the criminal justice system to make it more accountable and effective. 

We look forward to making our communities safer by being involved in this important process and review.

Top Resignations at the Orange County, FL Jail

Orange County Mayor Teresa Jacobs held a press conference yesterday to announce the release of two internal reports regarding the investigation in to the suspended Home Confinement program at the jail and the overall Community Corrections Division.

She also announced that Deputy Chief Jill Hobbs and Corrections Chief Michael Tidwell have tendered their resignations coinciding with the release of the internal reports.  Chief Tidwell will remain temporarily to transition to new leadership.

Both internal investigations focused on the actions and practices of the Home Confinement program and the results of both reports indicate that there were violations of the jail's policies and procedures regarding the program.

The internal reports found that practices within the Home Confinement program were accepted/condoned by the Unit supervisor, all of which failed to address the various warning flags particularly in the Bessman Okafor case.  In Okafor's case one of the internal reports found that:

• Staff failed to address nighttime and weekend alerts in a timely manner or at times not addressing them at all;
• Staff failed to conduct administrative hearings when excessive violations occurred;
• Staff were instructed by the Unit supervisor to minimize the number of administrative hearings and to reduce revocations to 'keep the numbers up' regarding caseloads;
• Staff failed to ever confirm with the defendant's phone provider that phone problems created alerts as claimed by the defendant;
• Staff failed to file an order to revoke Okafor's release when he committed a new offense for a failure to appear in Polk County in August 2012, stating that active warrants are not considered to be a new offense; and
• The Unit supervisor agreeing that staff were not handling excessive alerts in accordance with policy yet giving these same staff continuous 100 percent accuracy ratings during monthly audits.

As a result of the internal investigations, two Senior Community Corrections Officers, the Unit supervisor and the Deputy Chief of Corrections were found to have committed numerous policy violations.

Per Mayor Jacobs, these individuals and any others who are alleged to have violated or ignored policies and procedures will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

Mayor Jacob stressed her deep commitment to public safety and stated she has assured Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. that the Orange County Jail will have space to house anyone who might be a threat to our community.

We are glad to hear that the county is working with the judiciary to establish a framework to determine who should be eligible for pretrial supervision at the taxpayer's expense.  

A fact that cannot be changed: bad people will continue to do bad things.  We cannot always change or stop that.  

What we can do is work more closely as partners in the criminal justice system.  Community supervision is a tool just as a bail bond is a tool to hold perpetrators accountable.  Just as bail agents must assess the risk of a defendant to determine the posting of bond, anyone released in to a community supervision program must have a thorough risk assessment as well.  And those individuals charged with any responsibility for that defendant must do their job effectively.

Commercial bail ensures appearance of a defendant at court and saves taxpayers millions of dollars annually.  We would welcome the opportunity to partner with the county and the courts in a team effort to promote public safety and the wise use of taxpayer dollars.  

It will be a new day at Orange County Corrections and a refreshing one.

Career Defendants Released on Tax Dollars

It is the intent of the Florida Legislature to create a presumption in favor of release on non-monetary conditions for any person who is granted pretrial release unless such person is charged with a dangerous crime.  Such person shall be released on monetary conditions if it is determined that such monetary conditions are necessary to assure the presence of the person at trial or at other proceedings, to protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons, to assure the presence of the accused at trial, or to assure the integrity of the judicial process.

Dangerous crimes are defined in F.S. 907.041(4)(a) and includes crimes such as acts of domestic violence, stalking, aggravated assault or battery, child abuse, burglary, robbery and abuse of the elderly.

Although this is the intent of the Legislature, the judicial discretion lies with the judge making the release decision.

Discretion is defined as the power or right to make official decisions using reason and judgment to choose from among acceptable alternatives.  Judicial discretion can be very broad and is an aspect of judicial independence.  Judges must make release decisions based on information provided to them at initial appearance that reviews the seriousness of the defendant’s current charge, previous arrest history and convictions, failures to appear, violations of probation, community ties, employment, etc. 

It is a very important decision that affects all of us.  By and far, judges make appropriate release decisions that takes into account the needs of the defendant, victims and community safety.  Non-monetary release can also be appropriate for defendants charged with first-time or non-violent offenses who are truly indigent and don’t have a serious criminal history. 

Taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs were originally created to allow such defendants to be released from jail in a timely fashion.  Such programs make sense when used this way to keep jail populations in check and to allow defendants an opportunity to return to their families and communities for financial and emotional support until disposition of their case.

Non-monetary release funded by taxpayers however is being used more and more for defendants charged with serious offenses, even those defined as dangerous crimes, and with lengthy criminal histories.  We have to question why some of these defendants are released on taxpayer funds in the first place.

Let us give you an example:

Michael Hill has a criminal history dating back to 1988 in Orange County, FL  and has 14 prior felony convictions and 18 prior misdemeanor convictions and many plea agreements on his other charges.  He was charged with contempt of court, possession of cocaine (felony) and possession of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor) on February 7, 2013 in Orange County, FL.  He has served time in the Florida Department of Corrections and the local jail in Orange County.  He has been arrested for non-payment of court costs and fines and a collection agency has also tried to collect his debts.  He has been declared indigent yet has posted surety bonds in the past as well as remained in jail until disposition of his case.

He was released on taxpayer funds for his arrest charges despite having a lengthy criminal history, failures to appear and violations of probation.  The Orange County, FL jail’s pretrial services program provides supervision to Mr. Hill, which means he calls in to an automated telephone answering system.  Rarely does a judge order weekly face-to-face supervision.

While Mr. Hill was released on taxpayer funds, he committed a new offense of possession of drug paraphernalia and resisting law enforcement without violence.  His pretrial release was revoked and he is currently in jail in Orange County, FL.

Mr. Hill’s criminal history is as follows:

• 4/1988 – petit theft (misdemeanor) and resisting merchandise recovery (misdemeanor) 
• 2/1989 – theft (felony)
• 3/1990 – possession of controlled substance (felony)
• 4/1992 – petit theft (misdemeanor)
• 6/1992 – theft (felony)
• 3/1994 – theft (felony)
• 7/1994 – retail/farm theft (misdemeanor) and resisting law enforcement without violence (misdemeanor); violation of probation
• 5/1995 – theft (felony)
• 11/1995 – possession of controlled substance (felony) and drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor)
• 11/1995 – driving with no valid driver’s license (misdemeanor)
• 1/1996 – petit theft (misdemeanor)
• 4/1996 – theft/2 prior convictions (felony)
• 9/1996 – theft/2 prior convictions (felony)
• 9/1996 – escape (felony)
• 10/1999 – trespass in structure or conveyance (misdemeanor); possession of a controlled substance (felony) and possession of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor); failure to appear
• 12/2002 – possession of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor)
• 8/2003 – sexual battery with deadly weapon and force (life); armed robbery with weapon (felony) and false imprisonment (felony)
• 1/2004 – retail theft (misdemeanor) and resist merchandise recovery (misdemeanor)
• 2/2004 – theft/2 prior convictions (felony) and resisting law enforcement without violence (misdemeanor)
• 2/2005 – possession of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor); failed to appear
• 4/2005 – theft/2 prior convictions (felony)
• 7/2006 – theft/2 prior convictions (felony)
• 1/2007 – driving with no valid driver’s license (misdemeanor)
• 8/2007 – possession of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor)
• 12/2007 – petit theft (misdemeanor)
• 2/2008 – possession of controlled substance (felony) and possession of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor)
• 8/2008 – theft/2 prior convictions (felony); violation of probation
• 1/2009 – possession of controlled substance (felony) and possession of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor)
• 9/2009 – theft/2 prior convictions (felony) and possession of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor)
• 6/2010 - theft/2 prior convictions (felony); failure to appear
• 9/2010 - theft/2 prior convictions (felony); violation of probation

There are many more individuals released on taxpayer funds that have similar histories to Mr. Hill and/or whose arrest charges shouldn't warrant release on taxpayer funds.  Judges already have the discretion to release defendants on their own recognizance, or their promise to appear for all court hearings until disposition of their case.  But since Orange County Government funds a pretrial services program, Judges have the right to release defendants in to the program thinking the program will adequately supervise them and enforce conditions of release.

For defendants charged with non-violent offenses with minimal criminal history, funding a pretrial services program might be efficient for the county in order to control jail costs.  But they are assuming a huge liability for supervising defendants such as Mr. Hill who have lengthy prior criminal histories.  After all, just look at Orange County’s failed Home Confinement program, which in theory should have had even more stringent levels of supervision than the pretrial services program.  We now know that it didn't.

As taxpayers, we have the right to question such releases as Mr. Hill's and why we are paying for it.

Public policy affects public safety.

Taxpayer-Funded Jail Supervision: A Failed System

We have been educating all of you regarding defendants that are being released on tax dollars for serious offenses and the fact that they often have lengthy criminal histories, failures to appear for court and violations of probation.  In our own back yard in Orlando, Florida, Orange County Commissioners also fund a taxpayer-funded release and supervision program.

The Community Corrections unit of the jail is funded at $6.3 million dollars, $5.9 million of which is allocated to personal services (salaries, fringe benefits), while only $421,610 is allocated to operating expenses.  This unit operates both pretrial and post-supervision programs.  The Home Confinement program that was recently shut-down due to inadequate monitoring was operated under the Community Corrections Unit.  Orange County Mayor Teresa Jacobs shut-down the program saying, “Her concern is that there is potentially a development of a culture of complacency that just cannot be tolerated when we are talking about public safety.” 

The county also funds a pretrial services program to the tune of $2.8 million dollars, which again is operated under the Community Corrections unit and is supposed to supervise defendants in the community while their case goes through the court system. 

Now the county wants to hire a consultant to the tune of $100,000 to tell it what is wrong with the Community Corrections unit.  The Mayor already said what is wrong with it. A culture of complacency and a major lack of accountability. 

You have a huge bureaucracy within the county government system; it's jail department has continued to grow in scope and outside of its intended purpose, with staffing and operational costs taking a huge chuck of the funding as evidenced above.  When you continue to grow these community supervision programs with taxpayer dollars, you also grow the bureaucracy and end up with government responsible for supervising defendants in the community.  It becomes the norm rather than the exception.

Post-adjudication supervision programs such as pretrial diversion, community service, probation and work release, if run correctly, can have an impact on recidivism and help defendants get back on the right track.  The move to establish more taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs began in the 1990s to help assist the indigent first-time, non-violent offender to be released from jail.

The ongoing and very intense movement from organizations that support taxpayer-funded programs is to try and convince county governments that money bail discriminates against the poor and that all financial releases should be eliminated.  They claim they have a much better system for determining the risk level of defendants using “evidence based practices,” to enable them to supervise defendants more effectively in our communities.  Their motto: people arrested for a crime should be helped to get out of jail as easily as possible to go back to their lives and support their families and be productive members of society. 

The support or needs for victims of crimes are never even mentioned. 

As we have recently learned with the Orange County, Florida Home Confinement unit and their dismal lack of supervision, the focus must be realigned on what methods work the best for ensuring accountability in the criminal justice system.  Too many times we have heard judges say that the, “Pretrial services unit will keep tabs on you.”  I am sure they also assumed the Home Confinement unit was doing the same. 

Judges often order taxpayer-funded supervision along with a bail bond to enforce conditions of release, such as GPS monitoring or drug testing.  That is an important function if taxpayer-funded programs really kept tabs to make sure defendants are adhering to those conditions.  Home Confinement was one of the programs charged with enforcing conditions of release – but when a defendant is able to have over 100 violations and nothing is done about it – it makes you wonder how much they really have vested in community safety and doing their job successfully.

Why do you think the supervision level of the Home Confinement program was so lax? 

Could it be that the staff that operated the program simply disengaged at the end of their shift knowing it was someone else’s responsibility to take over? 

Could it be that there was no real “skin in the game” for Home Confinement staff if a defendant had a violation? 

Could it be that there was no “financial accountability” for Home Confinement staff? 

After all, they are county employees in a huge bureaucratic system that has multiple layers of tape to discipline a county employee.  Even the county employees responsible for the lack of monitoring for Bessman Okafor that led to the death of Alex Zaldivar, have not been fired – just reassigned.

Do we really need to pay a consultant more tax dollars to tell us what is wrong?

The private bail industry, which has been proven to provide the most efficient and effective means of pretrial release, doesn’t get to disengage at the end of the day.  We have so much “skin in the game” we can’t disengage.  And our financial accountability is at the maximum . . . because if we don’t do our job and a defendant fails to appear for court, we must pay the full amount of the bond to the court.  We can’t just pass the problem on to the next shift.  We have a vested interest in knowing where the defendant is at all times and with the help of the people that put up money or property for a defendant’s release, making sure the defendant doesn’t commit a new crime and adheres to all conditions of release.

The private commercial bail industry will gladly assist Mayor Jacobs and the court with sharing our knowledge and centuries of experience in best practices for supervising defendants and ensuring they are accountable to the criminal justice system. 

Taxpayer dollars should be used more wisely in the criminal justice system, such as for inmate identification and providing the court with information to make informed release decisions.  

Not for displacing the most effective and efficient system of supervision and putting that burden on the taxpayers.

Public policy affects public safety.

Orange County, FL. Community Corrections Unit: taxpayers still paying for release and supervision

The Community Corrections Unit, part of the Orange County, FL. jail that has come under intense scrutiny due to the failures of the Home Confinement program, continues to supervise both pretrial and sentenced defendants released by the court.

The resulting investigation and shut-down of the Home Confinement program began when it was learned that no one at Orange County Corrections alerted any judges of Bessman Okafor’s 109 curfew violations, and who later murdered Alex Zaldivar while defying the home confinement order.  If a Judge had been notified of the curfew violations, he/she could have ordered Mr. Okafor to be put back in jail or put on more stringent monitoring.  Mr. Okafor should have been thoroughly monitored while on home confinement but he wasn’t.  He was not the only one.  Further investigations also show that an accused attempted murderer, carjacker and robber also violated their home confinement numerous times.

Supervision of defendants by any entity charged with doing so by the courts is paramount to public safety.  That responsibility must be taken seriously.  While a taxpayer-funded or private supervision system cannot one hundred percent prevent a defendant from committing a new crime while on supervision, the level of supervision and monitoring can drastically ensure more accountability.

Neither system has a crystal ball by which it can tell when someone is going to make the wrong moral decision and commit a crime.

However, the expertise and tools to supervise defendants in a successful manner – and the financial accountability on the line – can influence the end result.

The fact that the Community Corrections Unit, which also managed the Home Confinement program, is still supervising pretrial defendants pending the outcome of their case in our community begs to question if they know what their charges are up to.

The Pretrial Services program is charged with supervising and monitoring defendants released pretrial – even those who have a monetary bond, adding another taxpayer-funded layer of expense on top of supervision by the private industry.  Keep in mind that the supervision method for the vast majority of defendants simply entails them calling into an automated telephone answering system once a week or once a month.  

If you think that only defendants charged with minor offenses or who may have a minor criminal record are being released into the Pretrial Services program, think again.  Below are just two examples of defendants with lengthy criminal histories, failures to appear and violations of probation, that were released into the program February 26 and 27, 2013. 

William Robert Moore: charged with violation of probation on a charge of burglary of a conveyance (felony) and petit theft (misdemeanor); he was released on taxpayer funds on February 26, 2013

• Mr. Moore has 12 prior misdemeanor convictions and 6 prior felony convictions in Orange County alone 
• His criminal history in Orange County started in April of 1991 and continues today
• His prior felony charges include: possession of a controlled substance (3 arrests); burglary of a conveyance (3 arrests); driving with license revoked as habitual offender; attempted aggravated battery; tampering with witness to hinder communication to law enforcement; possession of cocaine.
• His prior misdemeanor charges include: resisting law enforcement without violence (2 arrests); battery; possession of drug paraphernalia (arrests); driving under the influence (2 arrests); obstruction by disguised person; possession of cannabis less than 20 grams; petit theft (3 arrests); driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (2 arrests); attaching tag not assigned; leaving scene of accidents with property damage; possession of narcotic equipment.
• He has 7 prior failures to appear for a court appearance.
• He has 8 prior violations of probation

Michael Steve Hill: charged with possession of cocaine (felony) and possession of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor) on February 7, 2013; there was motion for pretrial release or reduction of bond on February 15 and a hearing on February 26, at which time Mr. Hill was released into the Pretrial Services program.  He was also released on a contempt of court charge for a writ of bodily attachment for not paying previous court costs and fines.  His taxpayer-funded release was revoked on March 7, 2013 when he committed a new crime and was arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia and resisting law enforcement without violence.  

• Mr. Hill has 18 prior misdemeanor convictions and 14 prior felony convictions in Orange County alone 
• His criminal history in Orange County started in April of 1998 and continues today
• His prior felony charges include: theft greater than $300 (4 arrests); possession of a controlled substance (5 arrests); petit theft/2 prior convictions (9 arrests); escape; sexual battery with deadly weapon and force; armed robbery with a weapon; false imprisonment; 
• His prior misdemeanor charges include: theft less than $300 (6 arrests); resisting merchandise recovery (2 arrests); resisting law enforcement without violence (2 arrests); possession of drug paraphernalia (8 arrests); driving without a valid driver’s license (2 arrests); trespass in structure or conveyance.
• He has 3 prior failures to appear for a court appearance.
• He has 3 prior violations of probation

These are just two examples but there are so many more.  Since January 1 of this year up to March 2, 2013, 244 defendants have been released into the Pretrial Services program to be supervised.  This doesn’t include the defendants ordered into the Pretrial Diversion program, Alternative Community Service program or Probation – all supervised by the Community Corrections Unit.

On the other hand, the private commercial bail industry has been proven to be the most effective and efficient system of pretrial release – and we use no taxpayer funds.  Commercial bail offers many layers of financial commitments and thus accountability in the criminal justice system: the insurance company as surety on the bond; a bail agent’s contract with the insurance company; the bail agent’s own funds with the insurance company; and third-party indemnitors on the bond.

The commercial bail industry has the lowest failure to appear and recidivism rates of any other jail release method.  And if someone does fail to appear, we cover the costs of getting that defendant back to the court’s jurisdiction and not the taxpayer.

If these releases don’t make you angry, take some time to review more of the jail’s releases on your tax dollars.  The Clerk of Court can direct you on how to obtain the registries with all of the release information.  

If these releases do anger you, speak up and let your county commissioners know how you feel about your tax dollars being spent to “supervise” defendants who were arrested for a criminal offense.  Budget work sessions are already being scheduled and your tax dollars only go so far.

Public policy affects public safety.