FAQs About the Release Conditions Matrix
Q: Why doesn’t the Release Conditions Matrix include presumptive detention for people who have a higher likelihood of pretrial failure?
A: Whether a person can be released or detained pretrial is primarily a legal matter and is based on criteria set forth in a state’s constitution, statutes/codes, court rules, or some combination. Therefore, pretrial detention decisions should be made by a judicial officer based on these legal criteria, and only after a detention hearing in which the person charged is afforded due process. The matrix should be used only after the judicial officer has decided to release someone, and then is deciding which release conditions to order for that person.
Q: Our jurisdiction doesn’t provide any pretrial services. What do we do? Should we still create a Release Conditions Matrix?
A: Yes—even where pretrial services are limited or absent, you should still create a Release Conditions Matrix. In jurisdictions with pretrial services, these programs typically provide staff members who (1) assess, by scoring the PSA and providing the pretrial assessment report to the court; and (2) assist, by supporting accused people to return to court and remain law-abiding. Many jurisdictions using the PSA already had a pretrial services program or created one as part of implementation. Regardless of whether your jurisdiction has pretrial services, it will be necessary, at a minimum, for staff members from some criminal justice agency to perform the assessment function—that is, to score the PSA and report the results and other important information to judicial officers. Your jurisdiction should also consider developing pretrial supervision services for people who have a higher likelihood of pretrial failure; the extent of this assistance will be determined locally based on available resources and always within any statutory or court administrative parameters. But even where resources are severely constrained, a Release Conditions Matrix can serve a valuable purpose by helping judicial officers identify people who may be appropriate for release with no conditions, as well as others for whom greater restrictions are indicated. When creating a matrix, decision makers can choose from different examples of matrices that reflect jurisdictions with different types and amounts of resources (such as a pretrial services program). For more information, see Examples of a Release Condition Matrix.
Q: None of the example matrices refer to the use of secured financial release conditions (also known as secured money bail). Why aren’t these conditions included in the examples?
A: The examples are designed to be consistent with federal and state pretrial laws and to incorporate research regarding the most effective practices to maximize court appearance and public safety. A substantial amount of litigation is challenging courts’ reliance on financial conditions of release, and a number of recent rulings have held that current practices are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, research does not indicate that secured financial conditions of release help achieve court appearance or public safety; instead, they often delay or prevent pretrial release of people otherwise entitled to be released before trial. Jurisdictions that have implemented the PSA have demonstrated that it is possible to construct a matrix that accomplishes desired pretrial goals, is compliant with pretrial law, and does not use presumptive financial conditions of release.
Q: Does the Release Conditions Matrix operate like a money bond schedule?
A: No. A money bond schedule links charges to specified financial conditions of release. Typically, as the severity of charges increase, so does the amount of money required for release. This is based on two flawed premises that are unsupported by any reliable research—namely, (1) that the more serious the charge, the greater the likelihood that a person will fail to appear or will be rearrested before trial; and (2) that increased financial conditions of release will increase court appearance and improve public safety. By contrast, the Release Conditions Matrix is based on a deep long-standing foundation of empirical research showing that it is most effective to assign release conditions based not on charge, but on when those conditions would be most effective at ensuring that people return to court and remain arrest-free. The matrix is designed to support consistent application of release conditions based on assessed likelihood of pretrial success—in a manner that aligns with statutes and local policies and takes into account available resources. Many jurisdictions using the PSA have ceased using their money bond schedules because they interfere with achieving desired pretrial goals.
Q: Why are the release levels and conditions labeled “presumptive”?
A: PSA scores are only one part of judicial officers’ decisions about release levels and conditions. The term “presumptive” means that in the absence of any additional information, these are the release conditions local stakeholders have agreed are typically appropriate for people with particular PSA scores. But judicial officers often have access to additional information about the person or the case, information that may lead them to order release conditions different from those on the matrix. Therefore, the Release Conditions Matrix should not be viewed as providing “recommendations” but presumptive conditions of release that establish a starting point for judicial decisions.
Q: Why are certain pretrial release conditions, such as electronic monitoring, categorized as “Other Case-Specific Conditions” instead of being designated as presumptive or required for different release levels?
A: Those release conditions should be used sparingly if at all—and only when a judicial officer has reason to believe they would be effective in improving a specific person’s pretrial performance. In addition, there is minimal empirical research to support the pretrial effectiveness of the conditions that could be included under Other Case-Specific Conditions, which often place a heavy financial burden on the local justice system (or on people charged if they are required to pay for the conditions). They also place a heavy practical burden and restriction on the liberty of people.