Testing the Long-Term Impact of Bail Reform Across New York State: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation

With several unique features, this report provides the most timely and comprehensive assessment to date of the effects of New York’s bail reform law on recidivism. First, the study evaluates the impact of New York’s bail law as it currently operates, following significant amendments put into effect in July 2020. Second, the study indicates the long-term effects of reform over a 50-month follow-up period. Third, comparing recidivism for people who had bail set or were remanded before bail reform with similar people who were released without bail following the July 2020 amendments, the study compares both re-arrest rates and total numbers of re-arrests. Fourth, the study has a statewide scope.

As in two previous Data Collaborative for Justice studies using similar research methods, the report separately analyzes the effects of: (1) Eliminating bail for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies; and (2) Reducing the empirical use of bail among cases remaining legally eligible for it, through such provisions as allowing judges to order supervised release in lieu of bail.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REPORT

1. Impact of Eliminating Bail and Pretrial Detention

In New York City, bail reform’s provisions eliminating the option to set bail or remand led to substantial recidivism reductions. Over the 50-month follow-up period, people released under reform had significantly lower rates of overall re-arrest (57% vs. 66%), felony re-arrest (33% vs. 40%), and violent felony (VFO) re-arrest (20% vs. 25%), as well as fewer numbers of re-arrests. In suburban and upstate regions, the prohibition of bail and detention had no effect in any direction.

2. Impact of Reducing the Use of Bail in Legally Eligible Cases

In New York City, the reduced use of money bail in eligible cases led to modest reductions in rates of overall re-arrest (53% vs. 56%) and felony re-arrest (30% vs. 33%), while violent felony re-arrest rates and the average numbers of re-arrests were unaffected. In suburban and upstate regions, results were essentially neutral, with recidivism outcomes nearly all the same for people released under reform and those in the comparison group.

3. Subgroup Effects Based on Criminal History

In all regions and across both the analyses of eliminating bail for select charges and reducing the use of bail for cases remaining eligible for it, a pattern consistent with the Data Collaborative for Justice’s prior research emerged. First, there tended to be significant recidivism reductions for “low-risk” subgroups with no recent criminal history and no recent prior violent felony arrest. (“Recent” is defined as within the past two and a half years.) Second, there tended to be significant recidivism increases for “high-risk” subgroups with any recent criminal history and, most especially, with a recent prior violent felony arrest. However, these patterns did not apply to all individual results, and readers should therefore examine the full report to obtain precise findings.

Conclusions

Bail reform aimed to reduce reliance on money bail and pretrial detention while maintaining public safety. By these measures, the current law can be considered a success. However, the recidivism increases among a relatively small subgroup of individuals with recent criminal histories should not be overlooked. Another notable theme involves the contrast between New York City and the State’s suburban and upstate regions. In New York City, bail elimination was associated with overall declines in re-arrest, whereas the impacts in the rest of the State were neutral.

In general, we strongly encourage readers to review the full report for critical details on prior literature, data sources, methods, findings, and conclusions.

This is one of five reports in DCJ’s Bail Reform and Recidivism Series. All reports in the series (along with other reports examining a wide range of bail reform outcomes) may be found at the Bail Reform tab on our website.