RACIAL JUSTICE

IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT

AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION
Criminal Justice
Section

North Carolina Task Force

Brenda Branch
Chief District Court Judge, Halifax
County

Chloe Johnson
Outgoing Task Force Facilitator

Rob Wall
Incoming Task Force Facilitator

Hon. Melissa Pelfrey

District Attorney, Halifax County

Cynthia Pitchford
Chief Magistrate, Halifax County

Tonza Ruffin
Defense Attorney, Halifax County

Katherine Smith
District Attorney, Halifax County

Rebecca Spragins
Clerk of Court, Halifax County

Wes Tripp
Sheriff, Halifax County

Jeff Welty
UNC-School of Government Associate
Professor

Hon. James E. Williams, Jr.

Orange/Chatham County Public Defender

The Racial Justice Improvement Project (RJIP) aims to

identify and reform policies and practices that produce
racial disparities in local criminal justice systems across
the country. By working with officials in state and local
criminal justice systems, RJIP attempts to address racial
disparities by developing and implementing evidencebased policy reforms throughout the adjudication process
where policies and practices have an adverse impact on
people of color.

Halifax County, North Carolina

The North Carolina Task Force (NCTF) decided to focus their reform efforts on disproportionate racial and
ethnic representation in the pretrial release process. This decision was made after an interim bond study
conducted by the North Carolina Commission on Racial and Ethnic Disparities (NC-CRED) showed that the
mean pretrial bond for Black defendants was significantly higher than for their white counterparts, that the
length of stay in jail for defendants unable to bond out was almost three times higher for Black defendants, and

that a lower percentage of Black defendants than white defendants received unsecured bonds.1 See Appendix A.
Furthermore, it was found that when making pretrial bond decisions, prior convictions and prior misdemeanor
convictions seem to have less of an impact on bond amount than race.2 NCTF sought to addresses these racial
inequities by seeking a better way to guide Magistrates when making pretrial release decisions in Halifax
County and decided to pilot the implementation a new pretrial risk assessment tool.
The pilot project took place between November 1st and December 1st, 2014. Magistrates in Halifax completed a
risk assessment modeled after Virginias validated instrument while determining bonds for each defendant who
came through Halifax that month. While Magistrates initially filled the risk assessment tool, it was scored
separately by NC-CRED staff as to not influence Magistrate decisions. Data was collected to determine if there
was a correlation between the pretrial bonds being set and the scores assessed by the modified risk assessment
tool and to determine whether a scored risk assessment would improve the efficiency and fairness of bail
decision. Data was analyzed for 131 defendants and it was found that the risk assessment score was not related
to the amount of the bond assigned to the defendant.3
In addition to data gathered from Magistrates, the Halifax Jail Administrator filled out a shorter version of the
modified Pretrial Risk Assessment tool for all individuals housed in the Halifax County jail for pretrial
detention at one point during the duration of the pilot. This data was gathered to assess (1) the risk levels of the
defendants who are detained in the Halifax County jail pretrial as determined by the Virginia Pretrial Risk
Assessment tool (as modified to exclude defendant interviews), (2) what bond types and amounts are acting as
barriers to gaining pretrial release, and (3) whether race is playing a role in who is detained pretrial in Halifax
County. 88 defendants incarcerated in the Halifax County jail were used as the sample and it was found that
Blacks in general were given higher bail amounts than were whites and that, when seriousness of the crime was
accounted for, there were significant differences in the amount of bond set between white and Black
defendants.4
NCTF also surveyed the Magistrates to assess their perceptions of their bond amount decision-making. The data
indicate wide variations in responses, with Magistrates ordering secured bonds between 45% and 95% of the
time. Five of the seven Magistrates indicated that they had not received any training on bail setting and three of
the seven stated that they would like training on bail setting, as well as other topics.5 See Appendix M for more
data.
A report by (NC-CRED) was created to compliment the Evaluation of the project conducted by Inga James on
behalf of the American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section (ABA Evaluation). The NC-CRED Report is
an analysis of the raw data, draws on Dr. James work, and offers policy recommendations for Halifax County.6
The ABA analysis determines the statistical significance, if any, of the issues reflected in the raw data.
The questions posed and the major conclusions found during this Pilot Project are as follows:
1 See Pretrial Release in Halifax County, North Carolina: Interim Findings-2014
2 Id.
3 See Racial Justice Improvement Project: North Carolina Year 2 Evaluation Findings
4 Id.
5 See Consolidated Magistrate Survey Data-2014
3

1.

How does the one-day snapshot of the pretrial detainee jail population break down along age,
race, charge severity, Risk Level, and bond amount?
The majority (45%) of the pretrial detainee jailed population is between the ages of 16 and 25;
80% of the jailed population is Black. 34% of the jailed population is charged with murder, and
22% with misdemeanors. Other than Class A felonies (murder), Class H felonies are the most
common charges found in the jail population (15%). In our partial scoring, a plurality of the
defendants received a Risk Score of two (31%). Bond amounts were relatively evenly distributed
among the jail population, though 23% had a low bond, i.e., between $1,000.00 and $9,999.00.
2. Are there individuals in jail with a low number of risk factors?
Yes, according to the partial Risk Scores collected on the jailed population, 15% of the jail
population had a low Risk Score (a score of 0 or 1) and were charged with lower-level felony or
a misdemeanor.7 The median bond in this population was $2,000. The combination of a low
number of risk factors, low bonds, and low level charges indicates that this population likely
should not be detained pretrial.
3. How does the Magistrate Sample, collected over the thirty-day Pilot Period, break down along age,
race, charge severity, Risk Level, bond amount, and bond type?
The most common age groups in the Magistrate Sample were 16-25 and 26-35 at 34% each.
Black defendants made up 77% of the Magistrate Sample. Class H felonies were again among
the most common charges, totaling 19% of all crimes in the sample; misdemeanors made up 66%
of the sample. The Risk Level with the most defendants was the low risk Risk Level with 31%
(n=40) of the Magistrate Sample population. 69% (n=89) defendants in this sample were of an
average Risk Level or lower. The majority (53%) of bonds awarded during the pilot period fell
between $1,000.00 and $9,999.00. Sixty-seven percent of all bonds awarded were secured.
4. Do the bonds set during the Pilot Period correlate to the Suggested Secured Bond Amounts in
Halifax Countys current Pretrial Release Policy?
No, for lower level crimes, the bond amounts do not fully correlate to the amounts suggested
Pretrial Release Policy. Magistrates are consistently setting bonds above the upper limit
suggested by the policy on crimes Class H or lower. For example, for Class 2 misdemeanors,
bonds set during the pilot period were at or above the upper limit suggested by the Pretrial
Release Policy 100% of the time. Bonds for Class I felonies were set at or above that limit 67%
of the time.
6 The data and results of the final Task Force Pilot Report should be taken with caution. The sample size and subsample sizes were
not large enough to draw statistical significance. IJAY Consulting, the pilot program evaluator, recommended continued iterations of
the pilot with larger samples over a longer period of time in order to effectively ascertain the effect a pretrial risk assessment tool
would have on Halifaxs pretrial system.During a predefined pilot period, Halifax magistrates were asked to make pretrial judgments
per their usual degree of discretion in their normal course of business. They were also asked to simultaneously assess the pretrial risk
assessment tool factors (to retrieve the data on the defendant for the tools comparison assessment), but not take the factors into
account when making their own bail determinations. Although they were not privy to the final score of the assessment, and were
asked to set bail without considering this assessment tool, they did have access to the bail consideration factors while making their
determinations. Therefore, it was not possible during this evaluation to determine the influence the completion of the risk assessment
tool could have had, whether consciously or subconsciously, on Halifax Magistrates. This confounding variable has substantial
capacity to have skewed the results of the pilot program and highlights the necessity of repeated trials.
While the lack of glaring racial disparity in Halifaxs pretrial proceedings is certainly a positive outcome, further investigation is
necessary to properly probe the questions at hand.

7 We are defining a lower level felony as a felony Class E or lower. Felonies Class D and above require an active
mandatory minimum sentence see, Risk Scores in the Jail Population, supra for a more detailed discussion on this point.
4

5. Is there a correlation between the bond amounts set and the Risk Level assigned each defendant?
Though statistically there is significant correlation between the Risk Level assigned to
defendants in the Pilot Project and the bond amount awarded, there are outliers.
6. Are there statistically significant differences in bond amounts by race?
There are no statistically significant differences in bond amounts by race, after controlling for
criminal and failure to appear history in either the Jail or Magistrate Sample populations.8
7. Using the qualitative Magistrate survey data, how to the rates of bond types being awarded
compare to what Magistrates self-reported?
Magistrates are accurate when self-reporting on the rate at which they set secured as opposed to
unsecured bonds. The median self-reported percentage of secured bonds set was 68%, and the
percentage of secured bonds set during the pilot period was 69%.
8. Which factors do Magistrates consider to be most important when setting bail?
The factors that Magistrates self-reported were most important when setting bonds were (1) the
nature of the circumstances of the offense charged, (2) prior history of appearing in Court, and
(3) the alleged victims safety.
9. Do the Magistrates in Halifax County perceive any issues with racial equity in the pretrial process
there?
The Magistrates do not see evidence of racial disparities in the pretrial process in Halifax
County.
Based on evaluation of reform efforts, the below are indications that Halifax could manage risk more
effectively:
1. Thirteen of the 88 pretrial detainees (15%) in jail during the pilot period were lower risk, as measured by
our modified risk assessment. All but two of these defendants were charged with misdemeanors. This is
some evidence that a portion of the jail population is being unnecessarily detained pretrial, contributing
to overcrowding. Furthermore, ten of these 13 were Black defendants.
2. Sixty-seven percent of all bonds awarded during the pilot period were secured bonds. Some
consideration should be given to whether this is an acceptable percentage.
3. Bonds for low-level offenses often exceed the recommended amounts per the Bond Policy. Lower level
crimes are more likely to be committed by those with lower risk of pretrial failure, so it would be
beneficial to use a risk assessment to objectively determine the risk of a defendant so that the
appropriate bond could be chosen.
4. Although the lack of correlation between risk level and bond amount in the Magistrate sample was
found to be statistically insignificant, the correlation could be much stronger.
5. Although there is no statistically significant evidence of racial bias, use of an evidence-based risk
assessment can serve as a prophylactic measure for future Magistrates.
Finally, the NCTF hosted a training on Pretrial Release Best Practices and implicit bias in the courtroom on
September 19th, 2014. The NCTF was able to provide Halifax County court officials with the most up-to-date
information about pretrial best practices and the opportunity to dialogue with pretrial experts on implicit bias.9
While evaluations of the NCTF pilot are ongoing, NCTF has already been able to demonstrate the need for
continued reform in Halifax County.
8 All statistical analysis and conclusions are the work of Dr. James and can be found in: James, Inga Racial Justice
Improvement Project: North Carolina; Year 2 Evaluation Findings, American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section
(May 2015).
9 See Halifax County Pretrial Release Best Practices Agenda
5

PASSING THE TORCH

During the pilot phase of the project, the NCTF found that 15% of the detained population in Halifax County,
NC are being detained because they cannot afford to post bailnot because they are a danger to the community
or a high-level, high-risk offender. This is to say that that the inability to pay bond has led to the prolonged
incarceration of these individuals, predominately individuals of color, and subsequently these individuals are
being subjected to the well-researched collateral consequences that come along with pretrial detainment. The
NCTF decided that they wanted to explore options to address this 15%.
However, due to the departure of Chloe Johnson as task force coordinator, RJIP has had to temporarily switch
focus to orienting the new task force coordinator, Rob Wall, with the task forces work. RJIP is hopeful that
momentum for addressing the 15% can be regained. The NCTF is now working to research and implement
solutions to reduce the low-risk low-level pretrial jail population. They are strongly considering a supervised
release program where participants will be required to do community service or other tasks in exchange for their
release. See Appendices M, N, and O for more information on the direction the NCTF is heading. As the task
force explores their options more thoroughly, they will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding outlining
their dedication to helping the identified 15%. They will also work diligently to gain institutional support for
their efforts.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF HALIFAX COUNTY TASK FORCE8

GENERAL JURISDICTION INFORMATION....................................................................................8

BACKGROUND ON PROPOSED AREA OF REFORM.........................................................................8
Racial Inequity............................................................................................................................. 8
The North Carolina Commission on racial and Ethnic Disparities (NC-CRED)..............................................8

TASK FORCE REFORM GOALS................................................................................................9

TASK FORCE MEMBERS.......................................................................................................10
IMPLEMENTATION................................................................................................................1
Year One Preliminary Research......................................................................................................... 1
Pretrial Release Risk Assessment Pilot Project...................................................................................... 1
Training...................................................................................................................................... 3

DATA.................................................................................................................................3
Evaluation Plan............................................................................................................................ 3
Year One Preliminary Research......................................................................................................... 4
Pretrial Release Risk Assessment Pilot Project...................................................................................... 6
QUANTITATIVE DATA..................................................................................................8

JAIL SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS................................................................................................8

Risk Scores in the Jail Population.................................................................................................... 9

MAGISTRATE SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS...................................................................................13

Comparing Halifax Countys Suggested Secured Bond Amounts to Amounts Awarded During the Pilot Period.16
Comparison between Magistrates................................................................................................... 19
Comparing Risk Levels to the Bonds Amounts Awarded During Pilot Period............................................19
QUALITATIVE DATA..................................................................................................23

COMPARING BOND TYPES AWARDED DURING PILOT PERIOD TO SELF-REPORTED OUTCOMES...........23

7

BAIL FACTORS MOST IMPORTANT TO MAGISTRATES.................................................................23

PERCEPTION OF RACIAL DISPARITIES AS AN OUTCOME OF THE PRETRIAL PROCESS IN HALIFAX COUNTY
......................................................................................................................................24
CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................26
FINDINGS................................................................................................................ 27

PROJECT SUMMARY............................................................................................................27
NEXT STEPS......................................................................................................................28
APPENDICES............................................................................................................29

APPENDIX A: NCTF INTERIM FINDINGS JUNE 2ND 2014..............................................................29

APPENDIX B: RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ANNUAL REPORT: JULY 2014...................38
APPENDIX C: PRETRIAL BEST PRACTICES TRAINING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 19 TH 2014......................41
APPENDIX D: PRETRIAL RELEASE PILOT PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................42
APPENDIX E: HALIFAX COUNTY MODIFIED PRETRIAL RELEASE RISK ASSESSMENTMAGISTRATES ...44
APPENDIX F: HALIFAX COUNTY MODIFIED PRETRIAL RISK ASSESSMENTJAIL.............................46
APPENDIX G: HALIFAX COUNTY MAGISTRATE SURVEY..............................................................47
APPENDIX H: PRETRIAL RELEASE HALIFAX COUNTY DATA........................................................51
APPENDIX I: OCTOBER 14TH 2014 ANNUAL RJIP PRESENTATION..................................................56
APPENDIX J: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND PEER-TO-PEER NYC SITE VISIT AGENDA JANUARY 16 TH 2015
......................................................................................................................................60
APPENDIX K: RJIP NCTF FEBRUARY 2015 REPORT..................................................................62
APPENDIX L: IJAY CONSULTING EVALUATION.........................................................................70
APPENDIX M: NC NEXT STEPS PROPOSAL MEMO.....................................................................80
APPENDIX N: PROPOSED MISDEMEANOR SUPERVISION PILOT PROGRAM .......................................82
APPENDIX O: MARCH 2016 EMAIL MEMO...............................................................................86

SUMMARY OF HALIFAX COUNTY TASK FORCE

GENERAL JURISDICTION INFORMATION
Halifax County, North Carolina is a rural and mostly agricultural area with a Democratic majority. The county is
in the First Judicial Division, District 6A in the northeastern part of the state. The county has a population of
about 55,000 with a breakdown of 53% Black, 39.4% white, 3.7% American Indian, 2.1% Hispanic, and 0.7%
Asian. The median household income is $29,490 and the county processed 163 felony convictions in 2011-12.

BACKGROUND ON PROPOSED AREA OF REFORM

RACIAL INEQUITY
Data collected from the North Carolina Department of Corrections Research and Planning Division show that
Blacks make up 57% of North Carolinas prison population, but only 22% of the states population. In Durham
County, Blacks are nearly nine times more likely to be incarcerated from criminal conduct than Caucasians,
with Edgecombe and Warren Counties close behind with ratios of 7.5 to 1, and Mecklenburg with a ratio of 6.9
to 1.
Data compiled and analyzed in a 2011 report issued by the Office of the Juvenile Defender show that in 20092010, Black youth were almost three times as likely to be referred to juvenile court than Caucasian youth and
once in the system, over three times as likely to be confined in a secure juvenile correctional facility or
transferred to adult court. The collateral consequences of youth detention are extensive, including disruption of
education, family connections, and exposure to physical assault and psychological stress, and set the stage for a
life of disparate treatment.
A Task Force established by the North Carolina Advocates for Justice recently examined data on over 13 million
unique traffic stops between 2000-2011. The results of the data analysis show that Blacks comprise 37-38% of
stops, although comprising of only 22% of the populationand once stopped both Blacks and Hispanics are
twice as likely to be searched and arrested as Caucasian drivers. In addition, this disproportionate representation
is consistent across various reasons for the motorist stop and is largest when the officer has the greatest
discretion.

THE NORTH CAROLINA COMMISSION ON RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES (NC-CRED)

In response to concerns over racial inequity in the criminal justice system, North Carolina established a
Commission on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in September of 2012. The mission of the Commission is to
identify, document, and alleviate racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. The
Commission works to achieve this by:
1)
2)
3)
4)

Identifying the extent to which people of color are disproportionately represented at various points
on the criminal justice continuum.
Determining whether disproportionate representation is caused by disparate treatment.
Proposing policies, practices and legislation that will alleviate or mitigate disparate treatment.
Collaborating with other criminal justice stakeholders, legislators, and government officials, as well
as civic, religious, and civil rights organizations.

The Commission began its charge by focusing on four primary areas: pretrial release, juvenile justice system,
involvement initiated by schools, law enforcement consent searches, and equitable access to diversion. NCTF
believed that a partnership with the American Bar Association Racial Justice Improvement Project would help
its newly formed commission capitalize on this momentum and build credibility.
ABA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION
JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

RACIAL
9

TASK FORCE REFORM GOALS

NCTF began its reform efforts with the following list of objectives
1. Establish within the North Carolina Commission on Racial and Ethnic Disparities, a
Subcommittee charged with examining, recommending, and implementing improvements to the
pretrial release process in North Carolina.
2. Identify the extent to which racial disparities exist in North Carolinas pretrial release process
and identify the underlying causes.
3. Develop and implement data-driven solutions.
4. Measure the Impact
More specifically, NCTF sought to find a better way to guide Magistrates when making pretrial release
decisions in Halifax County. Their goal was to first gather robust data assessing racial inequity and injustice in
the Halifax Pretrial Process and to determine whether the implementation of a standard pretrial risk assessment
tool could help curb any observed inequity.
The aim of the implemented pilot project was to determine whether Virginias Pretrial Risk Assessment is
applicable in Halifax County, North Carolina in a way that would improve the efficiency and fairness of bail
decisions there.
In order to meet that goal, NCTF first asked whether there is evidence of unfairness or inconsistency in bail
outcomes. To that end, NCTF looked at whether there are low risk individuals in the jail, whether there is
evidence of racial bias in bail decision making, whether risk and bond amounts correlate, and whether decision
makers are making bond decisions in a consistent manner.10

10 The questions listed here are general research questions; for our specific research questions, please see pages 3-4 of this report.
ABA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION
JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

RACIAL
10

TASK FORCE MEMBERS

Rob Wall
Program Manager, NC-CRED
rob@ncaj.com
Brenda Branch
District Court Judge, Judicial District 6
Brenda.g.branch@nccourts.org
Valerie Asbell
District Attorney, Judicial District 6
valerie.m.asbell@nccourts.org
Cynthia Pitchford
Chief Magistrate, Judicial District 6
cynthia.d.pitchford@nccourts.org
Tonza Ruffin
Defense Attorney, Halifax County
tonza.ruffin@ruffinlawfirm.com

Rebecca Spragins
Clerk of Court, Halifax County
rebecca.c.spragins@nccourts.org
LJ Burch
Sheriffs Office, Halifax County
burchj@halifaxnc.com
Jeff Welty
UNC-School of Government Associate Professor
of Public Law and Government
welty@sog.unc.edu
Hon. James E. Williams, Jr.
Orange/Chatham County Public Defender
james.e.williams@nccourts.org

ABA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION

JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

RACIAL
11

Budget Information

ABA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION

JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

RACIAL
12

ABA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION

JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

RACIAL
13

IMPLEMENTATION
YEAR ONE PRELIMINARY RESEARCH
During the first year of reform, NCTF embarked on a research project aimed at determining the
extent, if any, of racial disparities in the pretrial process in two North Carolina counties. NCTF
worked with a cross-agency group of criminal justice stakeholders in each county to develop
responses to potential racial disparities and inefficiencies in the pretrial process.
NCTF chose to look at Class H felonies. The majority of felony convictions for the fiscal year
2011-2012 were Offense Class H, making up 44% of all felony convictions. The target sample
size for the initial study was 100 cases. Its purpose was to determine the feasibility of doing the
research and identify any problem areas. The sample was chosen from a list of Class H felony
cases provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). From the spreadsheet provided
by the AOC, the NCTF pulled a random selection of 1,000 defendants. The first two hundred
cases were selected and data as collected. NC-CREDs Project Manager and a paid contract
employee collected information from the Halifax County Clerks office on these cases until the
initial sample size of 100 was reached. The final sample size was 102. For these cases, pretrial
release decisions were examined and the influence of Race was assessed.
For the complete research plan and data gathering procedures, see the NCTF Interim Report in
Appendix A.
In addition, the NCTF surveyed the Magistrates of Halifax County about the factors that they
consider when setting bond, if the Written Determination was used and if so, how, and their
impressions, if any, of racial inequities in the pretrial process.
In conjunction with their reform measure, the NCTF will continue to collect data so that they can
come to more robust conclusions about the state of racial equity in Halifaxs pretrial release
program.

PRETRIAL RELEASE RISK ASSESSMENT PILOT PROJECT

Through a pilot project, the NCTF sought to answer whether the risk assessment instrument
previously validated in Virginia, was applicable in Halifax County, North Carolina in a way that
would improve the efficiency and fairness of bail decisions there. NCTF under the direction of
the ABAs Racial Justice Improvement Project, slightly modified Virginias Pretrial Risk
Assessment for use in a thirty day pilot period (beginning November 1, 2014).
Halifax County Magistrates first filled out the unscored modified Pretrial Risk Assessment while
making bond decisions during the pilot period. To see a copy of the tool used by Magistrates, see
Appendix E. The Risk Assessments were unscored for the time being because the NCTF was not
trying to guide or change Magistrate bond decisions at that point, but rather only gather
information that would help NCTF determine if the Pretrial Risk Assessment is a helpful tool.
Once the modified Pretrial Risk Assessments were completed, NC-CRED staff scored the
defendants based on the original Virginia risk factors and followed the case to determine if there
was pretrial failure prior to final disposition (or the end of the data collection period, whichever
came first). The NCTF categorized the range of bonds assigned during the pretrial period into
14

groups tracking the risk levels used in Virginia, so that they could make a crude comparison
between what bonds are being set and what bonds would have been suggested by a Virginia-style
Risk Assessment.
Ultimately, data collected by the Magistrates was collected to assess (1) if the Risk Assessment
would prescribe similar or dissimilar bail types and amounts as compared to the bail decisions
made by Magistrates during the pilot period, (2) what factors are currently most important to
Magistrates when setting bonds, (3) if other factors the NCTF assumed would be important to the
pretrial decision and pretrial failure are, in fact, important, and (4) whether race plays a role in
pretrial decision making.
Supplemental to the data gathered from court Magistrates, the Halifax Jail Administrator filled
out a shorter version of the modified Pretrial Risk Assessment for all individuals housed in the
Halifax County jail for pretrial detention. This version of the Risk Assessment tool can be seen in
Appendix F. This modified Pretrial Risk Assessment was shorter because the NCTF removed
any question that would require a defendant interview; the questions that remained could be
answered by information on computer databases. This version was scored because the Jail
Administrator was not making any case-specific decisions, therefore having the scoring on the
instrument would not unduly influence the defendants cases. NC-CRED staff also followed
these cases to determine if any of the defendants were released pre-trial and, if so, if there was
pretrial failure. In addition to the data collected via the risk assessment form, the NCTF also
surveyed the Magistrates to assess their perceptions of their bond amount decision-making. To
see a copy of the Halifax County Magistrate Survey distributed, see Appendix G.
The data collected by the Jail Administrator was gathered to assess (1) the risk levels of the
defendants who are detained in the Halifax County jail pretrial as determined by the Virginia
Pretrial Risk Assessment (as modified to exclude defendant interviews), (2) what bond types and
amounts are acting as barriers to gaining pretrial release, and (3) whether race is playing a role in
who is detained pretrial in Halifax County.
Following this pilot program, the next step is to implement a risk assessment in Halifax where
the assessment would actually be used to guide the pretrial release decision. The risk assessment
would be developed based off of Virginias validated assessment and the data the NCTF gathered
in Phase I of the pilot project. The modifications made to the Virginia Risk Assessment were
based on the NCTF wanting to collect some information that is specific to a rural North Carolina
county (Charge Class, distinguishing between FTA as an OFA and a FTA conviction, living in the
county as a residential question) and some information that is thought to impact bond decisions
(whether it is a drug case, distinguishing between felony and misdemeanor probation).
Specifically, NCTF added two factors that officials in Halifax thought pertinent to the bond
decision in the modified risk assessment that NCTF used for the pilot project. The next phase
would be more detailedrequiring tracking defendants for a longer period of timeso that
NCTF can determine whether setting pretrial release conditions based on the risk assessment
recommendations had an effect upon pretrial failure rates.
To see a complete description of the pilot project provided by NC-CRED, see Appendix D.

15

TRAINING
NCTF hosted a training on Pretrial Release Best Practices and implicit bias in the courtroom on
September 19th, 2014. NCTF was able to provide Halifax County court officials with the most
up-to-date information about pretrial best practices and the opportunity to dialogue with pretrial
experts. The training was four hours long and featured Tim Murray of the Pretrial Justice
Institute (PJI). Mr. Murray discussed the purpose of bail and the negative outcomes associated
with current practices. Most importantly, he described national efforts to reform pretrial justice
and showed specific examples of evidence-based risk assessments. The agenda for this event can
be seen in Appendix C.
The intended audience was all Halifax County court officials, and other invited court officials
from neighboring counties to the morning portion of the event, which was a general training on
implicit bias and pretrial best practices. The afternoon part of the session was dedicated to
answering questions and allowing the Pretrial Justice Institute to obtain all the information
needed to create recommendations for a risk assessment in Halifax County. The Chief Magistrate
of Halifax County committed to having her entire staff of seven Magistrates at the training. The
District Attorney agreed to bring her staff, and the Chief District Court Judge also was in
attendance. The NCTF also invited Judge Alma Hinton, the Senior Resident Superior Court
Judge, who sets bond policy in Halifax County. The Sheriff and Clerk of Courts are also on the
NCTF and were in attendance.
In addition to offering educational opportunities to Halifax County stakeholders, NCTF members
have built partnerships and taken advantage of opportunities to have guidance from legal experts
in policy reform. NCTF will continue to work with PJI or other contractors on developing a risk
assessment particular to Halifax County. On January 16th, members from the Pennsylvania and
North Carolina Task Forces traveled to NYC to meet with the Center for Court Innovation, the
Criminal Justice Agency, as well as RJIP staff to discuss progress and future steps. This event
was able to provide valuable technical assistance to members of NCTF and the agenda for the
event can be seen in Appendix J.

DATA
EVALUATION PLAN
In order to answer our research questions, NCTF created three datasets: qualitative data from an
anonymous Magistrate survey and two quantitative datasetsone from a one-day look at the jail
population and the other from a thirty-day look at the defendants coming before Halifax
Magistrates.11
First, NCTF surveyed the Halifax Magistrates about the bail setting experience: what factors they
took into consideration and whether they perceived any racial inequities in the process. The
Chief Magistrate distributed the survey to all six of her Magistrates. There was a 100% response
rate.

11 Halifax is a city, which sits inside Halifax County. This Pilot Project was run out of the Halifax City Magistrates
office. Jail data was collected from the Halifax County jail, which is in the city of Halifax.

16

Secondly, NCTF had court officials capture data from two places. The Jail Administrator
collected demographic, bail, and risk factor information on each defendant in the jail on one day
in the pilot period. This second source of data was collected to give a snapshot view of the jail
population. Lastly, Magistrates collected data on defendants as they were setting pretrial
conditions for the entire month of November 2014.
The Jail Administrator and the Magistrates utilized separate versions of a modified Virginia
Pretrial Risk Assessment in order to collect data.12 The Magistrates used the original Virginia
Risk Assessment, with the four additional questions. The forms intended purpose was solely
data collection, so Magistrates were not given the scoring system and were instructed not to
consider the form as guidance in their bond decision making process. Magistrates simply
indicated which risk factors applied to each defendant. NC-CRED staff later scored the
defendants on the Virginia Risk Assessment scale. That scale ranges from zero to nine points
and then categorizes defendants into Risk Levels of low, below average, average, above average
and high risk.
NCTF modified the Risk Assessment used on the jail population by removing certain questions.
The Jail Administrator could not interview the defendants on certain risk factors included in
Virginias original risk assessment (i.e., residency, employment history, and drug abuse history).13
Since the tools differ, NVTF was not able to make comparisons between the Jail and Magistrate
Samples. This also limited the ability to assign a Risk Level to the jailed defendant. Each jailed
defendant received only a partial score on the Virginia Risk Assessment, meaning jailed
defendants with risk scores falling in the low range may have been elevated to a higher Risk
Level if NCTF had data on their employment, residency, or drug abuse history. See Appendix L
for the full Evaluation Plan by IJAY Consulting.

YEAR ONE PRELIMINARY RESEARCH

Sample
The final sample size for the study was 102 randomly selected defendants from Halifax County
charged with a lead offense Class H felony. The overall population for each statistical analysis
run varied either because of eligible samples for a particular question or because the question
only applied to a portion of the overall sample population. Of the 102 total defendants for whom
information was collected, 62 (60.7%) were black, 37 (36.2%) were white and three were
Hispanic, other or unknown (one of each, 2.9%) Halifax County is 76.5% black, 23.5% white,
and 0.4% other. Because of the small number of Hispanic or other classifications for people of
color in the sample, the analysis only compares outcomes for Black defendants to those of nonblack defendants.
Types of bonds
12 See Appendices A and B for the Risk Assessments used to for both the Jail and Magistrate Samples.
13 We did not want to require conversations between the Sheriff and pretrial detainees, many of whom were
represented by attorneys at this point, that might pertain to their cases (e.g., drug abuse history might be relevant
to the charges). Therefore, we did not collect data on these risk factors for the jail population.

17

There are five types of bonds that can be given to any defendant: custody, cash, secured,
unsecured, and written promise to appear. Of the entire sample, NCTF was able to positively
identify the type of bond assigned to the defendant for 99 of the subject defendants. Only one
defendant received a cash bond, two received custody bonds, 75 received secured bonds, and 21
unsecured bonds. In the sample, no written promises to appear were given. Thus, 76% of the
time defendants received secured bonds, 21% of the time unsecured bonds and 2% or less of the
time they received cash or custody bonds.
In order to consider how race may or may not impact the type of bond given to a particular
individual, NCTF looked at the method by which defendants posted bond in order to capture any
modification that occurred to the bond after the Magistrate initial bond assignment. There were
68 individuals for whom NCTF could definitively determine how bond was posted, because
NCTF had to exclude the defendants who were unable to post bond. When looking at the
methods of posting bond, the single cash bond in the sample was given to a Black defendant.
Black defendants bonded out with unsecured bonds 27% of the time and secured bonds 65% of
the time. White defendants bonded out with unsecured bonds 33% of the time, and secured bonds
63% of the time. Thus, a higher percentage of white defendants than Black defendants received
unsecured bonds.
Amount of Bond Set, Criminal History & Other Factors Considered
In order to determine how to most accurately describe the relationship between race and bond
amount, NCTF conducted a regression analysis. The population used for analysis of bond
amount was 62 Black defendants and 39 non-Black defendants, for a total of 101 subjects. One
of the sample defendants was not given a bond amount, so he was excluded from this analysis.
First, NCTF calculated the mean bond amounts in general, by Magistrate, and, finally, by race.
The mean bond for Halifax County based on the sample was $18,040. When removing the
Magistrates for whom NCTF only has one or two examples of bonds set, the mean bond amount
given ranges from a low of $3,750 to $26,571. The overall mean bond for the Black defendants
was $19,710 and the mean bond for white defendants was $15,385. Therefore, without
controlling for criminal history, the mean bond amount disaggregated by race indicate there was
a difference in the amounts of bonds set based on race: the mean bond for Blacks was $4,325
higher than those set for white defendants. As a side note, the mean bond amounts were well
above the suggested secured bond amounts for Class H felonies in Halifax County, which ranges
from $1,000 to $10,000.
The results of the final model indicate that Magistrates and Judges were giving more weight to
infractions when considering bond amounts than they were the more serious misdemeanor or
felony convictions. The factors that are determining most of the decisions in these Halifax cases
were proper: previous failures to appear and the seriousness of the case as indicated by the
number of charges and cases associated with a particular bond, even if prior convictions seem
not to be a part of the analysis. Being Black did have a positive impact on bond amount in the
regression analysis, but was not as significant as the other factors listed above.
Conclusion

18

With the current sample size, NCTF could not definitively show that the effect of race was
statistically significant in relation to bond amount, but there is a strong hint that race is a factor in
the setting of bond amounts. Generally, the results from the initial data indicates a few areas of
concern that warrant further investigation, but are positive in that they show the factors that
weigh most heavily in favor of a higher bond amount being set in Halifax County are the factors
one would expect to be most important to an impartial judicial official. The fact that prior
convictions and prior misdemeanor convictions seem to have less of an impact on bond amount
than race, however, does raise concern, and indicates either that the model is flawed, or that there
is an imbalance in judicial decisions in relation to these factors. NCTF results do indicate that a
higher percentage of white defendants are receiving unsecured bonds than Black defendants.
PRETRIAL RELEASE RISK ASSESSMENT PILOT PROJECT
DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE SAMPLE
As stated above, the survey was given to all seven Magistrates and we had a 100% response rate.
The jail snapshot was taken on November 14, 2014, when there were 88 pretrial detainees in
the jail. Data was missing on two of the defendants, so when we are analyzing the data, we are
looking at a total of 86 individuals. It should be noted that the capacity of the Halifax County jail
is 85.
The total Magistrate sample was 131 defendants. Two defendants in this sample had to be
excluded as well; the first because his bond was preset, so no risk assessment was completed,
and the second because of missing data.
The racial composition of the two sample groups and Halifax as a county are illustrated in the
charts below.
Figures 1-3 Race & Ethnicity of the General and Sample Populations
General Halifax Co. Population
Total=52,970
Black

White

3% 4% 1%

His panic

39%
As ian

Native American

Magistrate Sample
Total=129

Black

His panic

21%

White

2% 1%

Native American

Jail Population
Total=86

Black

White

1%

19% Native American

His panic

53%
As ian

76%

As ian

80%

These charts illustrate that the population charged with crimes has a higher proportion of Black
individuals than the general population. That proportion grows even higher when we look at the
19

group of individuals detained pretrial. Without a statistical multivariate analysis and a larger
sample, we cannot draw conclusions about these disproportionalities. Potential explanations are:
differential offending rates, higher criminal and failure to appear histories for Black defendants,
and racial bias in the policing and pretrial decision making processes.
Races, other than Black or white, and ethnicities of the general population do not seem to be
reflected in the defendants coming before a Magistrate nor into jail, but this is most likely due to
the difficulty of data collection on some races and ethnicities in the court or jail setting. It is
practice in Halifax County for the Magistrate or Sheriff to determine the ethnicity and/or race of
the individual based on his/her perceptions, which is unreliable and often results in the
underreporting of some populations of color.
We are well aware that the sample sizes of these two populations are extremely small. No hard
and fast conclusions can be drawn from this data, and we are not suggesting that these data are
conclusive. However, we see value in this data analysis in that it can serve as a baseline for
future investigations. Many of our data points can also help pinpoint where problem areas might
exist in Halifaxs pretrial system, helping to guide any future research.

20

QUANTITATIVE DATA
Jail Sample Demographics
In order to provide a full picture of the jail data demographics, the charts below illustrate how the
jail population breaks down along age, race, charge severity, risk level, and bond amount.
Figures 4-5 Jail Population by Age; Race & Ethnicity
Jail Population by Age Group Jail Population by Race
Black

White

16-25
10% 1%
16%
45%

1%

26-35
36-50

19%
His panic

51-69
70+

27%

Native American

As ian

80%

Figure 6Jail Population by Charge Severity

30
25
20
15

Felonies

10

Misdemeanors

D
W
I

A1

B2

The jail population is predominately below the age of thirty and charged with felonies. In fact,
the majority of those detained pretrial are awaiting trial for murder charges (Class A felonies,
34% of the population). Other than murder, the most common charges are Class H felonies and
Class 1 misdemeanors. Overall, 22% of the jail occupants are charged with misdemeanors.

21

Table 3 describes the possible Risk Scores for the jailed population and the frequency within the
Pilots jail sample.
Table 3Range of Potential Risk Scores for Jail Population
Risk Score
0
1
2
3
4
5-6

Frequency in Our Jail Sample

1
23
27
25
10
0

Figure 7Jail Population by Bond Amounts

Below $1,000
19%

$1,000-9,999

3%
23%

$10,000-49,999

14%

$100,000499,999

9%
8%
23%

$50,000 $99,999

$500,00+
NO BOND

Figure 7 shows that bond amounts are somewhat evenly distributed. However, some
consideration should be given to the population whose bonds are set between $0.00 and
$9,999.00 to determine if they are only detained pretrial because they are unable to post the bond
awarded them, rather than them posing a risk of pretrial failure.
Risk Scores in the Jail Population
The most probing question we wanted to answer with this jail data was to determine if there were
lower risk individuals detained pretrial and, if so, what percentage of them were charged with
misdemeanor and other low-level crimes. Our inquiry is designed to target a population that may
be detained pretrial unnecessarily. Our hope is that use of tool such as Virginias Risk
Assessment would help alleviate overcrowding in the jail by helping Magistrates correctly assess
the risk defendants pose of pretrial failure. Looking more closely at the lower risk population in
the Halifax County jail will help us to answer that question.
22

We are only considering those who scored a zero or one on the modified Risk Assessment as
lower risk. There was one defendant with no risk factors, and 23 that had only one of the risk
factors outlined in the modified Risk Assessment, for a total of 24 lower risk defendants detained
pretrial. Eleven of those defendants were charged with a misdemeanor and 13 with a felony. If
we exclude any defendant charged with a crime that carries a mandatory minimum active
sentence, which is a Class D felony or higher, then we have a sample totaling 13 defendants,
comprised of 11 misdemeanors and 2 felonies.14 This is 15% of the jail population. Ten out of
these thirteen are Black defendants. If we consider all defendants that scored a zero, one, or two,
we have a total of 51 defendants. Out of those 51, 18 were charged with misdemeanors and 33
with felonies. Excluding all felonies Class D or above from that large sample, we have 28
defendants remaining. This is 33% of the jail population that has up to only two risk factors and
is charged with a misdemeanor or lower-level felony. Twenty-one out of these twenty-eight are
Black defendants.
Figure 8 below illustrates the bond amounts awarded lower risk defendants (total=13) who were
also charged with a crime Class E or lower. Each bar in this graph represents one defendant. The
charts y-axis is capped at $12,000 even though the defendant with the highest bond was actually
awarded at $50,000 bond. Charting that bond accurately would have made the rest of the chart
too difficult to read.
Figure 8Jail Population with Lower Level Charges and Risk Scores 0-1 by Bond Amount
& Race

14 We exclude felonies Class D or above because these require an active mandatory minimum sentence, which
correlates to higher bonds being set for these offenses. It is generally accepted that the most serious felonies can
and do receive extremely high money bonds, or denial of bail conditions outright. The VA Risk Assessment does not
distinguish between felony severity when assigning a risk score or level. The research around this issue indicates
that a defendants history of past violent behavior is more indicative of pretrial failure than is a single serious felony
charge. See, Thomas Cohen and Brian Reeves, Pretrial Release of Felony Defendants in State Courts (Bureau of
Justice Statistics 2007). The VA Risk Assessment does consider the defendants history of violent offenses. If Halifax
adopts this Risk Assessment, it could consider differentiating between misdemeanors, felonies, and felonies
carrying an active minimum sentence.

23

Figure 9 on the following page is similar, except that it combines the lower risk population with
the below average jail population (total=28). This chart is also capped artificiallythe two bars
at the end of the chart represent defendants who received a $248,000.00 and a $75,000.00 bond
respectively. Again, these adjustments were made to make the chart more readable.

24

Figure 9Jail Population with Lower Level Charges and Risk Scores 0-2 by Bond Amount
& Race

These data raise questions about whether detention is necessary for one or both of these groups.
Community supervision, for example, might be more appropriate. This is particularly true for
lower risk defendants who also have a bond below $5,000.00; the relatively modest bonds
assigned to these defendants indicate that the Magistrate setting the bond considered the
defendant to be low risk for pretrial failure. 15 Future research should focus on this lower risk
population, whose bonds are set in the relatively low ranges to determine if they are, in fact, a
group being unnecessarily detained pretrial. A bond that does not require a money deposit might
be more appropriate for this group of defendants.

15 This group would be ten defendants with a score of 0-1 and seven more from the group with risk scores of 2, for
a total of 17 (20%) of the Jail Population.

25

Magistrate Sample Demographics

In order to provide a full picture of the Magistrate Sample demographics, the charts below
illustrate how the group of defendants that came before a Halifax Magistrate during the pilot
period breaks down along age, race, charge severity, Risk Level, and bond amount.
Figures 10-11Magistrate Sample by Age; Race & Ethnicity
Magistrate Sample by AgeMagistrate
Group
Sample by Race
16-25
11% 1%
34%
20%
34%

Black

26-35
36-50
51-69

2% 1%
21%

70+

76%

White
Native
American
Asian

Figure 12Magistrate Sample by Charge Severity

30
25
20
Felonies

15

Misdemeanors

10
5
0

A B1 B2 C D E F G H I A1 1 2 3 DWI T

The Magistrate sample is more diverse in age than the jail sample, and overall the charges are of
lesser severity. This makes sense, as the jail should be housing those most dangerous to the
community, a marker of which is the seriousness of the crime with which the defendant is
charged.16 The charge severity chart provides a picture of the most common crimes that come
through Halifax on a monthly basis. Sixty-six percent of the charges in the Magistrate Sample
were misdemeanors, and 19% of the total were Class H felonies.

16 As a counterpoint to this argument, see footnote 8, supra.

26

The Magistrates used the full Virginia Risk Assessment in their data collection, which can be
scored between 0 and 9. Table 4 below for the distribution of Risk Levels during our pilot
project.
Table 4Range of Potential Risk Scores & Levels for Magistrate Sample
Risk Level
Low Risk
Below
Average
Average
Above
Average
High Risk

Risk
Score
0
1
2

Frequency in the
Magistrate Sample
18
22
27

3
4

22
15

5
6
7
8-9

13
6
6
0

Most defendants in this sample were below average in their risk of pretrial failure, with
surprisingly few presenting high risk.
Figures 13 and 14 below illustrate the proportion of bond types and money bond amounts
awarded defendants. Figure 13 demonstrates that the majority of bond types awarded are secured
bonds at 67% of the total. The Bond Amount chart (Figure 14) excludes any bonds that did not
require a money deposit, therefore, it includes only secured or cash bonds, which implicates 89
of the 129 cases heard by the Magistrates during the Pilot Period. The most common bond
amount is between $1,000.00 and $9,999.00

27

Figure 13 Magistrate Sample by Bond Type

Magistrate Sample by Bond Type
UNSEC
2% 1% 5% 1%
26%

SEC
CASH
WPA
CUS

67%

NO BOND

28

Figure 14 Magistrate Sample by Bond Amount (of Money Bonds)

Magistrate Sample by Bond Amount (of Money Bonds)
Below $1,000

$1,000-$9,999

2% 2% 1%
$50,000
28%
8%

$10,000-$49,999

$100,000-$499,999

-$99,999

$500,00+

58%
NO BOND

Comparing Halifax Countys Suggested Secured Bond Amounts to Amounts Awarded

During the Pilot Period
Currently, Halifax County sets bonds with the help of a chart called Suggested Secured Bonds,
which is similar to a bond schedule.17 We can use the data we collected during this Pilot Period to
compare the amounts of bonds awarded to the suggestions outlined by Halifaxs Pretrial Release
Policy.
Figure 15Misdemeanor Bond Amounts Compared to Bond Policy Suggested Amounts

17 See Appendix C for a copy of the Suggested Secured Bond chart from Halifax Countys Bond Policy.
29

DWI

$10,000.00

A1

$10,000.00

1
2

00 0

. 00

$2 ,

Bond Policy Highest

Suggested Bond

$1,000.00

,
- $3

Sample Highest Bond

$2,000.00

$6,000.00
000

. 00

$7 ,

000

. 00

,
$12

00 0

. 00

30

Figure 16-- Felony Bond Amounts Compared to Bond Policy Suggested Amounts
C

$5,000.00

E
G

$50,000.00

0 00

. 00

Bond Policy Highest

Suggested Bond

$100,000.00
I

0,
-$5

Sample Highest Bond

Amount

$9,000.00

,
$50

$30,000.00
00 0

. 00

0,
$15

0 00

. 00

0,
$2 5

00 0

. 00

When comparing the bond policys Suggested Secured Bonds to the bond amounts actually set
during the pilot period the most striking finding is that for lower level misdemeanor crimes,
Magistrates are consistently setting bonds above the upper limit suggested by the bond policy.
The chart above shows how far above the suggested upper limit bonds went during the data
collection period, but it also shows the frequency with which bonds were set at or above the
upper suggested limit. The percentages shown outside of the blue bar indicate proportionately
how many of the defendants charged with that class of crimes were awarded a bond at or above
the suggested upper limit. The number of the total sample for each Class is in parenthesis. For
example, there were 7 defendants charged with a Class 3 misdemeanor and all of them, 100%,
had a bond set at or above the suggested upper limit. Because the suggested upper limit for a
Class 3 misdemeanor is a written promise to appear, any amount of money bail would exceed
this suggestion. All eight Class 2 misdemeanants were also given a bond at or above the
suggested upper limit (four were at the $500.00 upper limit and four exceeded it). Once the
charge reaches the severity of Class G, the amounts awarded and the suggested amounts begin to
even out, and for the most serious felonies, the bonds awarded are usually far below the upper
limit of the suggested range.18 This comparison suggests that Halifax Magistrates are setting

18 See Appendix D for a chart of all the bond amount data compared to the suggested amounts in Halifaxs Bond
Policy, including the medians and averages of the range in the sample population and the suggested range. For the
felony chart above, one must keep in mind that there were very few samples for the most serious felonies; the
single B1 and A felonies were excluded because their bonds were so high that the chart would be extremely difficult
to read.

31

money bond amounts too high for the low-level crimes. It is difficult to know if it is merely the
small sample size that is creating this apparent trend, but future research should look at this
phenomenon.

32

Another way of comparing the suggested bond amounts and the actual bond amounts is to look at
the median bonds of both the bond policy and those awarded during the pilot period.
Figure 17Comparison of Median Bonds: Suggested and Actual, Misdemeanors
$3,000.00
$2,500.00
$2,000.00
Sample's Median

$1,500.00

Suggested Median
$1,000.00
$500.00
$0.00
3

A1

DWI

Figure 18Comparison of Median Bonds:

Suggested and Actual, Felonies up to Class E
Comparison of Median Bonds: Suggested and Actual, Felonies up to Class E
$60,000.00
$50,000.00
$40,000.00

Sample's Median
Suggested Median

$30,000.00
$20,000.00
$10,000.00
$0.00
I

Comparison of the median bonds in the pretrial policy and during the pilot period suggest that
only for the lowest misdemeanors (Class 3-1) and felonies (Class I) are Magistrates setting bonds

33

above the suggested range. Class A1, DWI, and H felonies no longer appear to be outside of the
suggested range when comparing median bond amounts, though certain defendants had their
bond set far outside the suggested range. Furthermore, Class E felonies suddenly appear to be set
far outside the suggested range; this is because there were only 2 Class E alleged felons in the
pilot project, and both of their bonds were set at the upper suggested limit.
Comparison between Magistrates
Given our small data set, looking for consistency across Magistrates is extremely difficult. We
compared the median bonds set by each Magistrate for each class of crime and found relative
consistency, with a few extreme outliers. This finding is due more to the sample size than it is
reflective of a larger pattern. Future research could track individual Magistrate decisions to
determine if similar bonds are being set for similar crimes and defendants. A risk assessment
instrument, such as Virginias, is designed to add this kind of consistency to the pretrial process.
Comparing Risk Levels to the Bonds Amounts Awarded During Pilot Period
This Pilot Projects main objective was to determine if the use of a Risk Assessment was
warranted in Halifax and, if so, how well the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment would
complement and add to the pretrial process already in place in Halifax County.
In order to answer the first part of the above question, we did two things. First, we collected data
on who was in the Halifax County jail. Secondly, we compared the bonds being set to the
guidance available in the current bond policy. As stated in the previous portion of this report, we
did find a sizable portion of the jail population to be what we considered lower risk, based on the
shortened version of the risk assessment we used on the jail population. This target population of
lower risk defendants should be examined to determine whether, for them, pretrial release is
more appropriate than pretrial detention. Furthermore, we found that for lower level crimes,
defendants bonds were consistently being set above the suggested range as stated in Halifax
Countys bond policy. This data suggests that implementation of a Risk Assessment in Halifax
County would benefit the entire pretrial system by identifying the defendants with low-level
charges and lower risk who could be released pretrial without decreasing the communitys safety.
Now, in order to address the second part of our main objective, we will need to compare the Risk
Levels of the defendants in the Magistrate Sample to the bond amounts they were actually
awarded. Here, we are trying to determine whether the Virginia Risk Assessment would suggest
similar or dissimilar bond amounts for the defendants than the Magistrates actually awarded
during the pilot period. We are looking for an increase in bond amounts as the Risk Levels of the
Sample rises. Figures 21 and 22 illustrate the relationship between the Risk Levels assigned the
defendants and the bond amounts awarded.
Figure 21Misdemeanor Defendants by Bond Amount & Risk Score

34

$12,000.00
$10,000.00
$8,000.00
Bond Amount

$6,000.00
$4,000.00
$2,000.00
$0.00

1
24(3)
(DW
6(DW
12
(DW
28
I)35
I)(1)
42
I)(1)
44
(1)
45
(2)
51
(2)
52
(A1)
54
(3)
(A1)
80
81
(2)
109
(2)
112
128
(2)(2)
16
(2)
17
(DW
18
(1)
26
(1)
27
I)(3)
(A1)
40
53
(1)
59
(1)
71
(1)
77
(1)
87
(2)
88
(2)
(A1)
90
92
(A1)
104
(2)
113
(A1)
115
116
(T)
131
(2)
(A1)
10
(DW
14
20
(1)
(A1)
(A1)
I)
23
34
(A1)
39
61
(3)
(A1)
68
(1)
70
(DW
(A1)
73
(A1)
74
I)75
(1)
76
(1)
89
(1)
97
(1)
108
110
(A1)
(3)
120
121
(1)
(DW
126
(2)
15
(A1)
21
I)
32
(1)
(1)
55
(3)
(DW
69
99
100
(2)
(1)
114
I)(1)
118
(A1)
122
130
(3)
13
(1)
(1)
19
(1)
(A1)
29
48
(2)
84
(1)
(A1)
96
31
(A1)
56
(2)
(T-3)
58
60(2)
66
(1)
(DW
67
(A1)
22
124
93
(1)
I)(3)
63
(1
(

Defendant ID # & Charge Class

Figure 22Felony Defendants by Bond Amount & Risk Score

$60,000.00
$50,000.00
$40,000.00
Bond Amount Up to 60,000

$30,000.00
$20,000.00
$10,000.00
$0.00
7891
95
(E)
9(I)
11
(H)
(H)
37
79
(H)
111
(H)
123
(H)
127
(I)
8(H)
38
(H)
43
(C)
62
83
(I)
(H)
98
105
(I)
(B1)
125
(I)
129
(H)
(H)
325
36
(I)
41
(I)
47
(H)
(H)
82
101
(G)
106
107
(I)(H)
(H)
7
24
(G)
(I)
30
46
(H)
65
102
(I)
(H)
103
(H)
50
(H)
57
(H)
72
(E)
(H)
49
64
(G)
86
(I)
94
(H)
117
(H)
(H)
(H)
Defendant ID # & Charge Class

For felony cases, the single murder charge was excluded.19 Furthermore, the high bond amount
on the felony chart was capped at $60,000, though defendants numbered 83 and 86 both had
bonds of $100,000.00. Those higher amounts were removed from the chart so that the lower
bonds could be seen more easily. Defendants given an unsecured bond were recorded as being
given a bond of $0, since they can simply sign themselves out of jail.
Figures 21 and 22 show the risk levels in progressive increments along the x-axis (grouped by
color) with bond amounts in increasing amounts along the y-axis. Ideally, we would see
simultaneous and proportionate increases in bond amount as a defendants Risk Level increased.
19 That individual was defendant number 119 in the data, was denied bond outright, and was a Risk Level of 3.
Inclusion of this individual would skew the data.

35

The grey diagonal line on the chart represents the trajectory of that ideal situation, where bond
amount is dictated by Risk Level in a 1:1 ratio. Once illustrated in this manner, it is easy to locate
the bonds that deviate from the expected distribution of bond assignments. Analysis of bond data
in this manner on a routine basis would be a valuable tool in evaluating the pretrial system in any
jurisdiction.
One drawback of the risk assessment tool is that the severity of the crime indicator is simply
whether or not the charge is a misdemeanor or felony. In Halifax, bonds are set according to the
class of the crime charged (there are four misdemeanor classes and nine felony classes) using a
bond schedule, rather than simply distinguishing between felonies and misdemeanors. The charts
above do include the class information. We can see, for example, that the one defendant with a
Risk Level of one that has a high secured bond was charged with a Class E felony, which might
explain why a low risk defendant would be given such a high bond. Similarly, the risk
assessment tool piloted in this project doesnt distinguish between an extensive criminal history
and a defendant with only one previous conviction in his/her history. That information is not
available in this chart, nor in the data we collected for this pilot, but must be kept in mind as a
potential explanation for outliers.
In fact, The ABA RJIP Evaluation of the Halifax County Risk Assessment Pilot Project
concluded that Halifax County Magistrate bond decisions did correlate to the risk levels of the
defendants as scored by the modified Virginia Risk Assessment tool. This means that defendants
who are considered high risk (as determined by the Virginia tool) were given higher bonds, and
those deemed low risk were given lower bonds. The deviations from that correlation (as
illustrated in Figure 21 and 22) were deemed to be statistically insignificant, or likely due to
chance. The ABA evaluation also found that there were no significant differences in bond
amounts by race after controlling for seriousness of crime as well as criminal and failure to
appear history.
It appears that Magistrates are making decisions in line with what the Virginia Risk Assessment
Tool would suggest if it were to be used in Halifax County and that those decisions are already
free of bias.
Notwithstanding these positive results, Figures 21 and 22 show that the correlation between risk
and bond amounts still is not in an ideal relationship. It is important to remember that our sample
size was small and we cannot discount the possibility that a larger sample size would find
statistically significant deviations and/or evidence of bias due to the race of the defendants. A
risk assessment could minimize the risk of high bonds for low risk individuals and any potential
future bias.
Furthermore, charts like Figures 21 and 22 could also aid in the management and improvement
of Magistrate functioning in Halifax County. While the current data indicates that Risk Levels

36

and bond amounts are sufficiently correlated, the analysis above allows Magistrates to quickly
determine which, if any, bonds are set outside the normal range. Those that are set outside the
normal range could be reviewed to determine the reason for deviation. This data tool could
provide the Chief Magistrate with a powerful management tool that would ensure that bonds are
being set in a consistent manner that correlates to the risk of pretrial failure rather than to
arbitrary factors.
The ABAs Evaluation of the Pilot Project also shows us that the Risk Assessment is consistent
with bond practices already in place in Halifax County. Since the bond amounts assigned during
the Pilot Period correlated to the Risk Levels defendants received, implementing the Risk
Assessment would not drastically alter Halifaxs pretrial system. The Risk Assessment would,
however, provide Halifax officials with assurance that they are making bond decisions based on
the factors that have been scientifically validated to indicate a risk of pretrial failure.

37

QUALITATIVE DATA
Comparing Bond Types Awarded During Pilot Period to Self-Reported Outcomes
Figure 23Bond Type Distribution: Actual Compared to Self-Reported Estimates
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

WPA/CUS

50%

UNSEC

40%

SEC

30%
20%
10%
0%
Actual

It appears that the Halifax Magistrates are relatively accurate in their assessment of the number
of secured bonds they are setting. The x-axis here indicates one bar for each Magistrate and the
actual bar that indicates the percentages from the pilot period data. The variations in each bar
of the chart could reflect an individual Magistrates discretion in the types of bonds s/he chooses
to award. The larger question is about the ideal proportion of secured to unsecured bond types
does Halifax want to be requiring secured bonds in 70% of its cases when jail overcrowding is an
issue? Could a Pretrial Risk Assessment help target the low-risk population that could be
released on non-money bail without endangering the community and bring the proportion of
secured bonds down?
Bail Factors Most Important to Magistrates
In order to determine which defendant traits were swaying Magistrates to set particular bonds,
we used an anonymous survey to ask all seven Halifax Magistrates about the factors they
consider when setting pretrial release conditions. First we asked which of the statutory factors
they considered when setting bail conditions, and secondly, which three were most important in
their analysis. N.C.G.S. 15A-534(c) lists the statutory factors that are to be considered in
setting pretrial release conditions. Those factors are: the nature of the circumstances of the
offense charged, the weight of the evidence, family ties, employment, financial resources,
defendants character and mental conditions, length of residence in the community, criminal
convictions, prior history of appearing in court, prior flight to avoid prosecution, the victims
safety, any other persons safety, and the communitys safety. Three Magistrates responded that
38

they took all statutory factors into consideration. Three other Magistrates reported that they took
all factors but the defendants financial resources into consideration. The final Magistrate
reported that s/he only considered the nature of the circumstances of the offense charged, the
weight of the evidence, criminal convictions, prior history of appearing in court, and the victims
safety.
The factors that Magistrates self-reported were most important when setting bonds were (1) the
nature of the circumstances of the offense charged, (2) prior history of appearing in Court, and
(3) the victims safety. Table 5 outlines the entire tally for the most important factors.20
Table 5Statutory Factors Most Important to Halifax County Magistrates
Factors
Nature of Circumstances of the
Offense Charged
Prior History of Appearing in Court
Victim's Safety
Community's Safety
Character and Mental Conditions
Criminal Convictions
Any Other Person's Safety
Weight of Evidence
Family Ties
Employment
Financial Resources
Length of Residence in the
Community
Prior Flight to Avoid Prosecution

Tally
5
5
3
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

It is interesting that some of the scientifically validated risk factors, as determined by Virginias
research, are not in the list of the most important factors to Halifaxs Magistrates. The majority
of Magistrates, for example, are considering the nature of the circumstances of the offense
charged as one of the most important factors when determining pretrial release conditions, but
this is not one of the factors determined by Virginias research to accurately predict pretrial
failure. Some factors that are considered less important to Halifax Magistrates, such as
employment and length of residence in the community are considered to be strong predictors of
pretrial failure.

20 One Magistrate responded that one of the most important factors s/he considered was flight risk, which we
counted as the prior history of appearing in court, but it could reasonably be meant to include that factor along
with family ties, employment, length of residence in the community, and prior flight to avoid prosecution.

39

Using Virginias Risk Assessment would not keep Halifaxs Magistrates from considering all of
the required statutory factors, but it would help concentrate their attention on those factors that
have been shown to accurately determine whether a defendant needs to be detained pretrial.
Perception of Racial Disparities as an Outcome of the Pretrial Process in Halifax County
At the end of our anonymous survey, we asked Magistrates if they perceived any racial
disparities in Halifaxs pretrial process. Four Magistrates reported that they did not perceive there
to be any racial disparities in the pretrial process. A single Magistrate indicated that deviation
from the bond policy could, potentially, cause racial disparities to occur, though s/he did not
indicate there was current evidence of this in Halifax. Another Magistrate noted that s/he thought
that the relevant disparity was a result of classthe number of people in Halifax living at or
below the poverty level is high. Presumably this Magistrate was pointing to the fact that those
with little means are less likely to be able to bond out of jail and are less likely to have the
community resources and support to make pretrial release successful.

40

CONCLUSION
The goal of this pilot project was to determine if Virginias Pretrial Risk Assessment is applicable
in Halifax County. We determined that there is reason for Halifax to institute a risk assessment,
and that Virginias Risk Assessment would be an appropriate choice.
Indications that Halifax could manage risk more effectively:
6. Thirteen of the 88 pretrial detainees (15%) in jail during the pilot period were lower risk,
as measured by our modified risk assessment. All but two of these defendants were
charged with misdemeanors. This is some evidence that a portion of the jail population is
being unnecessarily detained pretrial, contributing to overcrowding. Furthermore, ten of
these 13 were Black defendants.
7. Sixty-seven percent of all bonds awarded during the pilot period were secured bonds.
Some consideration should be given to whether this is an acceptable percentage.
8. Bonds for low-level offenses often exceed the recommended amounts per the Bond
Policy. Lower level crimes are more likely to be committed by those with lower risk of
pretrial failure, so it would be beneficial to use a risk assessment to objectively determine
the risk of a defendant so that the appropriate bond could be chosen.
9. Although the lack of correlation between risk level and bond amount in the Magistrate
sample was found to be statistically insignificant, the correlation could be much stronger.
10. Although there is no statistically significant evidence of racial bias, use of an evidencebased risk assessment can serve as a prophylactic measure for future Magistrates.
Studies and evaluations of national best practices show that evidence-based, pretrial risk
assessments can serve as an invaluable tool for judicial officials to efficiently assess the risk level
of individual defendants.21 The Virginia Risk Assessment would suggest bonds in line with the
decisions that are already being made, and might provide a way to locate those that are low-risk
and could safely be released pretrial. The Risk Assessments guidance would be no more of a
limit on the Magistrates discretion than is the Suggested Secured Bond chart that is currently
part of Halifaxs Pretrial Release Policy. Assessing risk based on a number of factors rather than
simply the severity of the crime would certainly be a more accurate assessment of the
appropriate pretrial release policies.
Following the suggestions of the Pretrial Justice Institute, the American Bar Association, and the
Conference of State Court Administrators22, NC-CRED recommends that Halifax County
21 Mamalian, Cynthia (2011). State of the Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment. Last retrieved from Pretrial Justice
Institute on June 1, 2015 at: http://www.pretrial.org/download/riskassessment/PJI%20State%20of%20the%20Science
%20Pretrial%20Risk%20Assessment%20%282011%29.pdf

22 Pepin, Arthur W., 2012-2013 Policy Paper: Evidence Based Pretrial Release, Conference of State Court
Administrators.

41

implement an evidence-based risk assessment. Based on the results of this pilot study, the
Virginia Risk Assessment would be an appropriate tool.
As stated above, the survey was given to all seven Magistrates and we had a 100% response rate.
The jail snapshot was taken on November 14, 2014, when there were 88 pretrial detainees in
the jail. Data was missing on two of the defendants, so when we are analyzing the data, we are
looking at a total of 86 individuals. It should be noted that the capacity of the Halifax County jail
is 85.
The total Magistrate sample was 131 defendants. Two defendants in this sample had to be
excluded as well; the first because his bond was preset, so no risk assessment was completed,
and the second because of missing data.
The racial composition of the two sample groups and Halifax as a county are illustrated in the
charts below.
Figures 1-3 Race & Ethnicity of the General and Sample Populations
General Halifax Co. Population
Total=52,970
Black

White

3% 4% 1%

His panic

39%
As ian

Native American

Magistrate Sample
Total=129

Black

His panic

21%

White

2% 1%

Native American

Jail Population
Total=86

Black

White

1%

19% Native American

His panic

53%
As ian

76%

As ian

80%

These charts illustrate that the population charged with crimes has a higher proportion of Black
individuals than the general population. That proportion grows even higher when we look at the
group of individuals detained pretrial. Without a statistical multivariate analysis and a larger
sample, we cannot draw conclusions about these disproportionalities. Potential explanations are:
differential offending rates, higher criminal and failure to appear histories for Black defendants,
and racial bias in the policing and pretrial decision making processes.
Races, other than Black or white, and ethnicities of the general population do not seem to be
reflected in the defendants coming before a Magistrate nor into jail, but this is most likely due to
the difficulty of data collection on some races and ethnicities in the court or jail setting. It is
practice in Halifax County for the Magistrate or Sheriff to determine the ethnicity and/or race of
the individual based on his/her perceptions, which is unreliable and often results in the
underreporting certain populations of color.
We are well aware that the sample sizes of these two populations are extremely small. No hard
and fast conclusions can be drawn from this data, and we are not suggesting that these data are
conclusive. However, we see value in this data analysis in that it can serve as a baseline for
42

future investigations. Many of our data points can also help pinpoint where problem areas might
exist in Halifaxs pretrial system, helping to guide any future research.

FINDINGS
PROJECT SUMMARY
The North Carolina Task Force (NCTF) decided to focus their reform efforts on the issue of
racial and ethnic disproportionate representation in the pretrial release process. This decision was
made after an interim bond study conducted by the North Carolina Commission on Racial and
Ethnic Disparities (NC-CRED) showed that the mean pretrial bond for Black defendants was
significantly higher than for their white counterparts, that the length of stay in jail for defendants
unable to bond out was almost three times higher for Black defendants, and that a lower
percentage of Black defendants than white defendants received unsecured bonds. Furthermore, it
was found that when making pretrial bond decisions, prior convictions and prior misdemeanor
convictions seem to have less of an impact on bond amount than race. NCTF sought to addresses
these racial inequities by seeking a better way to guide Magistrates when making pretrial release
decisions in Halifax County and decided to pilot the implementation a new risk assessment tool.
Implementation of the risk assessment occurred in two phases. The first phase was a pilot project
that took place between November 1st and December 1st, 2014. Magistrates in Halifax completed
a risk assessment modeled after Virginias validated instrument while determining bonds for each
defendant who came through Halifax that month. While Magistrates initially filled the risk
assessment tool, it was scored separately by NC-CRED staff. Data was collected to determine if
there was a correlation between the pretrial bonds being set and the scores assessed by the
modified risk assessment and to determine whether a risk assessment would improve the
efficiency and fairness of bail decision. Data was analyzed for 131 defendants and it was found
that the risk assessment score was not related to the amount of the bond assigned to the
defendant.
In the second phase, the Halifax Jail Administrator filled out a shorter version of the modified
Pretrial Risk Assessment for all individuals housed in the Halifax County jail for pretrial
detention. This data was gathered to assess (1) the risk levels of the defendants who are detained
in the Halifax County jail pretrial as determined by the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment (as
modified to exclude defendant interviews), (2) what bond types and amounts are acting as
barriers to gaining pretrial release, and (3) whether race is playing a role in who is detained
pretrial in Halifax County. 88 defendants incarcerated in the Halifax County jail were used as the
sample and it was found that Blacks in general were given higher bail amounts than were Whites
and that, when seriousness of the crime was accounted for, there were significant differences in
the amount of bond set between white and Black defendants.
In addition to the data collected via the risk assessment form, the TF also surveyed the
Magistrates to assess their perceptions of their bond amount decision-making. The data indicate
wide variations in responses, with Magistrates ordering secured bonds between 45% and 95% of
the time. Five of the seven Magistrates indicated that they had not received any training on bail
setting and three of the seven stated that they would like training on bail setting, as well as other
topics.
43

Finally, based on the Magistrate survey data, NCTF hosted a training on Pretrial Release Best
Practices and implicit bias in the courtroom on September 19th, 2014. NCTF was able to provide
Halifax County court officials with the most up-to-date information about pretrial best practices
and the opportunity to dialogue with pretrial experts.

NEXT STEPS
During the pilot phase of the project, NCTF found that 15% of the detained population in Halifax
County, NC are being detained because they cannot afford bail and not because they are a danger
or have criminal history. This is to say that that the inability to pay bond has led to the prolonged
incarnation of these individuals, predominately individuals of color, and subsequently these
individuals are being subjected to the well-researched collateral consequences that come along
with pretrial detainment. NCTF is currently working to research and implement solutions to
reduce this population as well as apply for sustainability funding. See Appendices M, N, and O
for more information about North Carolinas next steps

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: NCTF INTERIM FINDINGS JUNE 2ND 2014

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

APPENDIX B: RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ANNUAL REPORT:

JULY 2014

56

57

58

APPENDIX C: PRETRIAL BEST PRACTICES TRAINING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 19TH

2014

59

60

APPENDIX D: PRETRIAL RELEASE PILOT PROJECT DESCRIPTION

61

62

APPENDIX E: HALIFAX COUNTY MODIFIED PRETRIAL RELEASE RISK

ASSESSMENTMAGISTRATES

63

64

65

APPENDIX F: HALIFAX COUNTY MODIFIED PRETRIAL RISK ASSESSMENTJAIL

66

APPENDIX G: HALIFAX COUNTY MAGISTRATE SURVEY

67

68

69

70

71

APPENDIX H: PRETRIAL RELEASE HALIFAX COUNTY DATA

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

APPENDIX I: OCTOBER 14TH 2014 ANNUAL RJIP PRESENTATION

79

80

81

82

APPENDIX J: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND PEER-TO-PEER NYC SITE VISIT

AGENDA JANUARY 16TH 2015

83

84

85

APPENDIX K: RJIP NCTF FEBRUARY 2015 REPORT

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

APPENDIX L: IJAY CONSULTING EVALUATION

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

APPENDIX M: NC NEXT STEPS PROPOSAL MEMO

106

107

APPENDIX N: PROPOSED MISDEMEANOR SUPERVISION PILOT PROGRAM

108

109

110

111

APPENDIX O: MARCH 2016 EMAIL MEMO

112