Systematic Case Review Strategies: An Application for Jail Population Reduction

Abstract

Jails are a critical part of the criminal justice system but, until recently, have been omitted from discussions of reform. The goal of the current study is to describe and evaluate a collaborative, problem-solving initiative designed to reduce the jail population in St. Louis County, Missouri. The initiative was implemented as part of a research-practitioner partnership and is designed around a case review model, deemed the Population Review Team (PRT) commonly used in epidemiological analysis and problem-solving policing models. The outcome analysis suggests that the implementation of the PRT was associated with a significant decline in the total jail population, the number of individuals held on non-violent felonies, and those held for over 100 days. The collaborative project provides one model for criminal justice systems reform and a tool for decarceration.

Keywords:

• Jail
• pretrial release
• researcher-practitioner partnership
• policy reform
• COVID-19

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the St. Louis County Department of Justice Services for their partnership on this project and for providing data for the analysis. The opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the St. Louis County Department of Justice Services or the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Thank you to Natalie K. Hipple for her feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Notes

1 Class C, D, and E felonies do not require imprisonment according to state statute and primarily include non-person offenses (property, drug, and other crimes). Less than 2% of the detained pretrial population are held on misdemeanors. Missouri has an expansive felony charge code which likely contributes to the low misdemeanor incarceration rate. Recent reforms also prohibit jail time for traffic infractions. The PRT will consider misdemeanor cases, but individuals held for these cases are rarely have a long length of stay.

2 The first author helped with the design and implementation of the original program model and has served as the research partner for the entirety of the project. The author collaborated with a staff person from the County Strategy and Innovation team who had experience in total quality management and the facilitation of projects of this type. A grant special projects manager has facilitated the meetings since October, 2019.

3 In the first four months of the reviews, the group focused primarily on individuals held in jail for over 100 days for a non-violent felony. After movement had been made on those cases, the team began reviewing cases that included individuals in jail for shorter stays. Primacy is still given to individuals who have the longest jail stays.

4 The team considers a number of factors when making case review decisions including criminal history, prior compliance on pretrial release, current charge, and the needs of individual (mental health, housing, etc.).

5 Although ten cases are pulled for review at each meeting, some cases are resolved prior to the meeting or the team does not have ample time to discuss all cases. Cases that are not resolved are tabled until the next meeting.

6 All individuals reviewed had a bond set prior to review. The PRT has asked the presiding judge to reduce or waive the existing bond or to schedule a bail hearing, with the consent of the prosecutor, in cases where the bond appears high or the litigant is not able to pay.

7 There is little systematic or National data on the prevalence of recidivism among individuals released pretrial; therefore, the relative impact of the PRT on recidivism is unclear and warrants further study. An outcome analysis with a matched sample that includes a longer follow up period would be ideal.

8 We assume an exogenous timing of the break, rather than an endogenous intervention start date due to implementation lags.

9 We recognize there may be contamination of the intervention to the control group and therefore interpret the findings as conservative estimates.

10 Additional information on autocorrelation diagnostics and results from an alternative model specification for each outcome are available from the authors upon request.

11 In supplementary analyses, we find that the start of the new prosecutor was not significantly associated with a decrease in the total confined population ($\beta$= –35.98; SE = 24.96; p = 0.156).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation [G-1705-151965].

Notes on contributors

Beth M. Huebner

Beth M. Huebner is a Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Her work focuses on the consequences of a criminal conviction, community and institutional corrections, and public policy.

Theodore S. Lentz

Theodore S. Lentz is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee. His research uses quantitative methods to examine processes underlying spatial and temporal patterns of urban crime problems and criminal justice systems. He is involved in several ongoing projects on topics of offender decision-making, crime networks, gun violence, and policing.

Miranda Gibson

Miranda Gibson is the MacArthur Foundation Safety + Justice Challenge Grant Manager at the St. Louis County Department of Justice Services. She earned her Master of Arts in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Southern Illinois University- Carbondale.