Thanksgiving Season

Thanksgiving Day is a national holiday celebrated primarily in the United States and Canada as a day of giving thanks for the blessing of the harvest and of the preceding year.  When we are thankful for something, it means we are grateful and appreciative.

While there are many things to be thankful for, this season we give thanks to the many men, women and families who work 24/7 to support their families while assisting loved ones and friends of others.  Small business owners who contribute to our economy and save taxpayers millions of dollars annually.  Individuals who often don’t receive the respect and thanks they deserve for an often risky profession.

The men, women and families employed in the commercial bail industry.

The commercial bail industry employs thousands of bail agents and support personnel across the country.  The industry provides significant savings to taxpayers by making sure defendants appear for court.  The system is user-funded and doesn’t rely on limited taxpayer dollars that could be better used in the criminal justice system.  The commercial bail industry reduces jail populations, saving taxpayers millions of dollars in jail beds, and has been proven by numerous studies to have the lowest failure to appear and recidivism rates.

The commercial bail industry is a vital component in the criminal justice system.  Yet there are opponents that continue to promote a negative connotation of the industry through falsehoods and scare tactics.

They blame the industry for the “skyrocketing cost of bail” when in reality, the industry has no role in setting bail amounts; the court does.  They blame the industry for “profiting off mass incarceration” when in reality, the role of the bail agent is to secure the release of defendants from jail.  They blame the industry for our “devastating effect lobbying has on prisoners and their families” when in reality, the industry fights for legislation that improves appearance and increases public safety.  Most legislation increases the regulation and accountability of the bail industry, not lessens it.

Bail is an insurance product; a contract between the court, defendant and a surety.  It is not a “loan from a bondsman with a catch;” much like any other insurance product, the small non-refundable fee paid to secure the release of a defendant from jail must cover all expenses, insurance costs and fugitive recovery fees if necessary.

So let’s talk about what release system opponents of commercial bail want instead.

Pretrial Services programs are taxpayer-funded; some use a risk assessment tool to determine the risk level of a defendant.  Many times the defendant is never interviewed but just assessed on paper.  Proponents of this system believe that financial release should be abolished and that defendants should be released via taxpayer funds or on their own recognizance.

Originally designed to assist the release of non-violent, indigent defendants who could not afford financial release, today it doesn’t matter if you can afford your own release from jail.  A risk assessment will determine your risk level and type of supervision, if any; no financial accountability on the part of the defendant is needed.

The commercial bail industry has vocally and repeatedly stated that there is a place for taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs in the criminal justice system; however they should focus on indigent individuals who are arrested for a non-violent offense and who are not career criminals.  Both systems should work together to enhance public safety.

Proponents of taxpayer-funded release systems want the public to believe that only poor/indigent people who have committed a minor offense are released into such programs.  This is true for some defendants but is not necessarily the norm. 

Defendants are charged with and released into taxpayer-funded release programs for a wide gamete of crimes : battery, battery domestic violence, battery dating violence, resisting law enforcement with and without violence, drug offenses, grand theft, petit theft, driving offenses etc. - both for misdemeanor and felony offenses and many with lengthy criminal histories. 

Many of the crimes are considered “victimless crimes” or “non-violent crimes,” while others are not.  The question to ask is how taxpayers want millions of their dollars to be used?  Is it to secure the release of first-time, non-violent offenders or those that continue to commit crimes and/or those that commit a crime against others?  Do taxpayers want their limited dollars used to minimally supervise such defendants or do they wish to rely on an industry that has a long history and partnership in the criminal justice system and one that uses their own resources to hold defendants accountable?

The wisest decision would be to let each system do what it does best.  The commercial bail industry knows how to supervise defendants and make sure they return for court; if they don’t, it is not the taxpayer who pays but the bail agent.  Taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs are good at making sure indigent defendants gain access to programs and services they need, defendants with mental health or substance abuse issues get the resources to help them and that offenders who have committed a minor, first-time offense get back on track. 

The elimination of financially-secured release and of a large and effective industry is not the answer.  Using our resources appropriately is.

So this Thanksgiving holiday, let us be grateful and appreciative for the role that we all can play in making our communities safer.  

Wishing all a happy holiday season.

Non-refundable Fees: Why seen as objectionable for a bail bond?

Payment of non-refundable fees for services rendered is nothing new.  Landlords charge non-refundable fees in the form of security deposits, cleaning fees and pet fees.  There are non-refundable application fees and costs associated with lending of loans and mortgages.  Non-refundable fees are charged for student applications to colleges and universities, which is used to defray various administrative costs.  Many airline fares are non-fundable.  There are non-refundable trip insurance fees.  In the criminal justice system, Courts charge non-refundable filing fees for various licenses, documents or court services.  Attorneys charge non-refundable fees for legal services rendered, which are separate from other court costs or compensatory and punitive damages.   Such fees are just the cost of doing business.

So why should bail agents, who also charge a non-fundable fee for services rendered, be seen any differently than the examples above?  Does the guarantee of appearance at court and the financial accountability a bail agent assumes have no value?  Would the taxpayers be better served by assuming this responsibility rather than a private industry that has been proven to be the most effective and efficient means of pretrial release?  Where is the public uproar and deluge of news articles regarding non-refundable fees outside of the bail industry?
 
Bail agents across the country release from jail on average 250,000 defendants each month, resulting in a significant impact on jail operational expenses and taxpayer savings.  The non-refundable fee, or premium, is the cost of assuming the risk of appearance for a defendant.  This non-refundable fee must cover all expenses, insurance costs and fugitive recovery fees if necessary, and is good for the life of the bond.  This non-refundable fee is usually ten percent of the total bond for a bail agent to accept financial responsibility for court appearance. 
 
A defendant also has the right to post a full cash bond directly with the court, which often has a non-refundable fee tacked-on as well, and at the conclusion of the case if all court appearances were made, will get some of the money returned less court costs and fines.  Unsecured financial bail is a promise to appear and upon failure to do so, the defendant is obligated to pay the full amount of the bond to the court.  Cash deposit bail also requires a defendant to post ten percent of the total bond – but to the court instead of a bail agent.  If the defendant makes all required court appearances and at the conclusion of their case, the court is mandated to return this deposit to the defendant less court costs and fines. 
 
But what happens when a defendant fails to appear for court under a ten percent deposit system or other unsecured release methods?  Taxpayers are left on the hook to fund law enforcement to find the defendant and bring them back to jail vs. a private bail agent assuming this task.  When a defendant fails to appear on a commercial bail bond, the bail agent and the surety company underwriting the bond must pay the full amount of the bond to the court if the defendant is not found and returned within a specified amount of time. 
 
In Florida, the bail premium, or non-refundable fee, is $100 or ten percent of the total bail amount, whichever is greater.  For example, if the bail set is $10,000.00, the premium charged would be $1,000.00.  If the bail set is $250.00, the premium charged would be $100.00.  Florida Statute 648.33 states it is unlawful for a bail bond agent to execute a bail bond without charging a premium and the premium rate may not exceed or be less than the premium rate as filed with and approved by the Legislature.
 
Opponents of the commercial bail industry claim that once this non-refundable fee is paid to the bail agent, a defendant has no incentive to come to court because they know they won’t get any of their money back.  This is blatantly false. 

In a study released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, their analysis showed that defendants released on a commercial bail bond were less likely to miss a court appearance and become fugitives than defendants released on any other means.  A recent research study conducted by Dr. Robert Morris, Associate Professor of Criminology and Director for the Center for Crime and Justice Studies at the University of Texas at Dallas, found the same results.  His analysis suggested that net of other effects (e.g., criminal history, age, indigence, etc.), defendants released via commercial bonds were least likely to fail to appear in court compared to any other specific mechanism.  This finding was consistent when assessed for all charge categories combined and when the data were stratified by felony and misdemeanor offenses, respectively.

Why is commercial bail so successful in holding defendants accountable for failure to appear?

Bail agents continually assess the risk of a defendant to influence a positive outcome.  They often require defendants to have regular check-ins, take detailed information on a defendant’s community ties and residency, provide court reminders and maintain contact with indemnitors to help ensure the defendant is adhering to the court’s conditions.  Bail agents can devote the time necessary to make sure pursuits are successful for defendants who have failed to appear as law enforcement are over-burdened and often give failures to appear a low priority.  Commercial bail is also successful because of its many layers of financial commitments and the involvement of third-party indemnitors, whose financial resources were used to bail the defendant out of jail.  Specifically, bail is user-funded.  Critical tax dollars are saved by a private entity doing what it does best – guaranteeing the appearance of a defendant in court.
 
So when we hear opponents of commercial bail state to the public and members of state legislatures that our citizens don’t need, nor should they care about allowing for an effective system of release and accountability in the criminal justice system, we have to wonder what their motives are.  Bail agents live and work in the same communities they release defendants into and therefore take the issue of public safety very seriously.  The tired argument that bail agents only care about “profit margins” is what it seems – just a tired argument.

Draft Study Released on Orange County, FL's Home Confinement Program

The draft study report on the Orange County, FL Correction Department's Home Confinement Unit, conducted by the Matrix Consulting Group at a cost of $100,000, has been released to Orange County Commissioners for review.  The Home Confinement program was suspended and then terminated after two internal investigations found that there were numerous violations of the jail’s policies and procedures in operating the program.

The Matrix’s project team concluded that a home confinement program designed with fewer alleged offenders who are more likely to violate their terms of pretrial release, with improved and more credible technology and with an active monitoring component, would be the best solution for Orange County.  But their recommendations also come with a price tag: $643,500 in salaries and benefits to reinstate nine senior Community Corrections Officers and $165,000 in salaries and benefits to hire three new Aid positions; they also recommend a 25 percent reduction in case loads.  However the final report will not be issued until early August after the county has held their three-day budget worksessions for all county departments to set the budget for the 2013-2014 fiscal year.

The objective of the Matrix study was to evaluate the management, staffing and operations of the Home Confinement program.  The study noted that the Home Confinement program was originally designed for enhanced monitoring for defendants accused of relatively minor offenses but evolved to include more serious offenses to help keep the jail population in check.  Even as the inmate population declined however, the program did not shift back to just supervising defendants with minor offenses.

The study also found that the Home Confinement program’s fees were low compared to other counties and that collection fees for supervision have been only 10-15 percent of true program costs.  Typically $300,000 to $400,000 in invoiced fees was written off annually by the program; money that could have been used to benefit taxpayers. 

Opponents who advocate for the elimination of the private commercial bail industry state that financial release weakens public safety and characterize bail agents as only caring about profits by benefiting off the poor.  Yet taxpayer-funded pretrial supervision systems are using millions of taxpayer dollars to supervise defendants who many times can afford to pay for their own release, while also charging fees for their services but offering no guarantee to the court for appearance.  Sounds like a hypocritical argument. 

In reviewing the Home Confinement program, the Matrix questioned why there have been two separate programs within the Community Corrections Division responsible for supervising pretrial release defendants.  In addition to the Home Confinement program, the county also operates a taxpayer-funded Pretrial Supervision program in which defendants are released to be monitored via a telephone reporting system with limited office visits and with no electronic monitoring or field supervision.  Hundreds of defendants charged with both misdemeanor and felony offenses continue to be released into the Pretrial Supervision program with no personal financial obligation for their release; the taxpayers are paying for it instead. 

In 2011, the latest year that statistics are available to the public, a total of 3,992 defendants were released to non-electronic monitoring supervision while only 977 defendants were ordered to be supervised by electronic monitoring with field visits.  The Matrix study noted that these two programs are dealing with comparable offenders but the supervision and monitoring is vastly different.  Our previous blogs have detailed the seriousness of these releases and the effect on public safety.

The Matrix is recommending that these two programs be consolidated for the administration and management of pretrial release defendants so the “spectrum of supervision for pretrial releases are in one part of the Community Corrections Division.”  However no changes to supervision methods under the Pretrial Supervision program, which deals with many more defendants, vs. the Home Confinement program, has been recommended.

The Matrix study noted that without the Home Confinement program, Orange County lacks a significant tool in the supervision of persons released from custody on bail or on their own recognizance.  The Home Confinement program as noted in the study, was used primarily for pretrial defendants who could meet bail requirements and electronic monitoring was used as a supervision tool.  While the Matrix study noted that the vast majority of defendants in the Home Confinement program had been ordered there as a condition of bail, the study also implied that with a bail bond there is no form of supervision. 

In reality, public safety is enhanced under commercial bail as bail agents continually assess the risk of the defendant to influence a positive outcome through regular check-ins, ongoing communication with the defendant and indemnitor and court reminders.  In addition, third-party indemnitors provide a critical source of knowledge to bail agents, which enhances commercial bail’s effectiveness and ability to proactively manage risk.

The Matrix study asked the question, “What is the appropriate role for the private sector,” regarding the Home Confinement program.  The study recommends relying on the private sector to provide the most up-to-date technology as well as the maintenance of all equipment and software for GPS monitoring but the responsibility for actively monitoring defendants should be the county’s responsibility.  The commercial bail industry, as a private entity, can also be a partner in this endeavor. 

While the purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of a defendant at all required court hearings, bail agents should be a vital partner working in conjunction with any taxpayer-funded pretrial supervision program to enhance public safety and offender accountability.  When defendants are released both on bail and under a taxpayer-funded supervision program, effective communication between both entities can often result in a quick resolution to a violation or other issue with a defendant.

Bail is a constitutional right and society has relied on its effectiveness since the founding of the United States.  An industry that only collects ten percent upfront yet must pay out 100 percent of the bail amount for ineffective performance would go out of business quickly if it were not effective.  The bail industry’s longevity is the most telling sign of its effectiveness.

Representatives of the bail industry will be in attendance at the county’s budget worksessions beginning on Monday, July 15, 2013 at the Board of County Commissioners’ chambers.  We will be watching to see if the Correction Department’s funding remains the status quo or if taxpayer funding will be used more wisely in the public safety arena. 

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.

Taxpayer-Funded Jail Release

In our previous post regarding taxpayer-funded releases from the Orange County, FL jail, we mentioned that we would be highlighting some cases in which defendants with serious charges and/or lengthy criminal histories were released from jail on unsecured means using taxpayer funds.

 

Again, the commercial bail industry understands the need to control jail populations and thus a taxpayer-funded pretrial release program can play a critical role in this regard.  However, those programs should focus on the first-time, non-violent offender who is indigent and cannot afford a monetary bond.  Indigency and non-violent crimes should be the key considerations for release using taxpayer funds.

 

Although public record, we will not be identifying the names of the defendants we will highlight to protect their privacy.  If members of the public wish to research these releases themselves they can readily do so by asking the Clerk of Court's office for the jail's pretrial release registries for a nominal fee.

 

Defendant #1 - arrested for possession of cocaine (TDF) and possession of drug paraphernalia (FDM) on October 29, 2012; released into the taxpayer-funded pretrial services program on November 29, 2012.  Defendant violated their pretrial release on January 7, 2013 and has a warrant for their arrest. 

Defendant has a criminal history dating back to 1989:

• 10/1989 - inmate of house of ill fame; direct/transport for purpose of prostitution; offer prostitution, lewdness, assignation (SDMs); adjudication withheld
• 5/1990 - controlled substance offense (TDF); disposition unknown
• 6/1990 - offer prostitution, lewdness, assignation (SDM); adjudicated guilty
• 10/1993 - offer prostitution, lewdness, assignation (SDM); adjudicated guilty
• 6/1994 - prostitution (3 counts) (SDMs); failed to appear; adjudicated guilty
• 8/1995 - prostitution or lewdness; prostitution (4 counts) (FDMs); adjudicated guilty
• 4/1997 - possession of drug paraphernalia (FDM); adjudicated guilty
• 1/1998 - battery (FDM); 2 failure to appears; violation of probation; adjudicated guilty
• 3/1998 - possession of controlled substance (TDF); adjudicated guilty
•  7/1998 - possession of controlled substance (TDF); possession of drug paraphernalia (FDM); adjudicated guilty
• 1/01 - controlled substance offense (TDF); possession of drug paraphernalia (FDM); adjudicated guilty
• 10/03 - resisting law enforcement without violence (FDM); adjudicated guilty
• 4/04 - driving with no valid driver's license (SDM); 2 failures to appear; adjudicated guilty
• 3/05 - possession of cocaine (TDF); possession of drug paraphernalia; failure to appear; adjudicated guilty
• 7/05 - driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (FDM); adjudicated guilty
• 8/05 - possession of controlled substance (TDF); driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (FDM); failure to appear; violation of probation; adjudicated guilty
• 1/07 - possession of cocaine (TDF); possession of drug paraphernalia (FDM); no information filed
• 8/07 - possession of controlled substance (TDF); possession of drug paraphernalia (FDM); violation of probation; adjudicated guilty
• 10/09 - battery (2 counts) (FDM); taxpayer-funded pretrial release; adjudicated guilty

This particular defendant was able to pay for a monetary bond nine (9) separate times; other release mechanisms included population control release; summons; taxpayer-funded release and via pleas with fines and court costs.

 

Given this defendant's criminal history, failures to appear and violation of probation, the public should question why they would be released on taxpayer funds.  Unfortunately, there are many other individuals who commit crimes that have no criminal history and justifiably could be considered for release on less stringent means.

 

Proponents of taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs repeatedly claim that only non-violent offenders with little criminal histories are released into their programs, which we are proving every day is not the case across the country.  Most defendants can only be released into these programs through a judicial order but some programs are still allowing jail staff to release defendants directly.

 

The commercial bail industry believes there needs to be a balance between an individual's criminal charge, their criminal history and their ability to pay for their own release before releasing someone on taxpayer funds.  

ALEC Supports Private Surety Bail

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the nation's largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators, issued a press release on January 10, 2011 supporting the industry in reducing jail populations.

Jail Population Decreases as the Use of
Commercial Bail Increases

For Immediate Release

January 10, 2011
 Washington, D.C.; A new study by the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ) found the number of individuals who were held in jail decreased. The overall jail population has decreased from 773,341 in 2007 to 760,400 in 2009. This coincides with an earlier DOJ study that found the percentage of individuals who were released on commercial bail from jail increased from approximately 20 percent in 1992 to over 40 percent today.

Michael Hough, Public Safety Resident Fellow at the American Legislative Exchange Council, (ALEC) said, “This latest study disproves the myth being pushed by some that the use of bail bonds increases the number of people in jail – we now know in fact the opposite is true -- that the increased use of commercial bail helps to alleviate overcrowding in jails.”

The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, which lobbies for the abolition of commercial bail, released a report in 2009 claiming the pretrial jail population was rapidly increasing due to commercial bail (http://www.napsa.org/publications/napsafandp1.pdf). National Public Radio also made a similar argument in a three-piece report entitled, “Bail Burden Keeps U.S. Jails Stuffed with Inmates.”

While the number of individuals in jail decreased from 2007 to 2009 the number of individuals in prison continued to grow.  Hough said, “Commercial bail is more widely used by local governments and judges because bondsmen are able to quickly free individuals from jail while holding them accountable to return to court to face justice. It is important to note that other factors like a declining crime rate also factored in to the lower jail population, put clearly the antiprivate sector bail lobby will have to find something other than jail overcrowding to howl about."

ALEC's website is http://www.alec.org/