New study shows no connection between bail reform and crime rate

Bail reform has had no statistical impact on crime rates nationwide, according to a study released Thursday by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

While efforts to reduce or eliminate bail have been a hot topic in recent years, with some attributing the rise in violent crime to such reforms, analysts examined 33 U.S. cities, 22 of which – such as Atlanta and Dallas – had implemented bail reforms, but 11 of which had not. They found that there was no statistically significant difference between crime rates in either category.

“In other words, there is no reason to believe that bail reform has led to an increase in crime,” the Brennan Center said.

According to the Brennan Center, it is the first nationwide study of the impact of bail reform on crime rates. Authored by Terry-Ann Craigie, an economist at the Brennan Center, and Ames Grawert, a senior attorney, the study examined crime data on major crimes such as murder, robbery, assault and grand theft from 2015 to 2021 in cities including Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas and San Francisco.

They analyzed the data by looking at crime rates six months before the reforms were implemented in certain cities and comparing them to crime rates 12 months after the reforms were implemented. They also compared the six-year trend in crime rates in cities with and without bail reform.

According to the report, the data showed that overall serious crime rates remained largely stable in cities that enacted bail reform. It also showed that overall serious crime rates were slightly higher in cities that did not enact bail reform, and that violent crime rates were essentially the same in cities with and without bail reform.

The study took several different variables into account, Grawert and Craigie said in a live online discussion Thursday, specifically looking at different types of bail reforms – whether they were implemented by law, which tends to be more comprehensive, the study says, or by a prosecutor or court.

They also identified cities where there was particularly intense political conflict over bail reform, including Buffalo, New York, Chicago, Houston and Newark, New Jersey, to see if the relationship between crime rates and bail reform was stronger in those places, Craigie said.

She said they used advanced statistical models that economists typically use to analyze economic phenomena and forecast trends.

“There are so many factors, so many policies operating simultaneously with bail reform that could confound or confound our results,” Craigie said. “By using these sophisticated econometric methods, we were able to specifically identify the impact of bail reform and how it affected various crime outcomes.”

Grawert noted that while crime rates did increase after the pandemic began, they have since started to decline. But even as crime rates spiked, analysts found no evidence that bail reform influenced the increase, as similar trends were seen in cities across the country where bail requirements had not been eliminated or reduced.

“There is never a single factor why crime rates rise or fall so dramatically, especially as they did in 2020. I think the need to look for that easy solution was one of the reasons bail reform became the scapegoat instead of having more serious conversations about what we can do to build safer communities,” Grawert said. Some states and jurisdictions have even rolled back some of its reforms under pressure.

“And the pressure was so great that some states and jurisdictions even rolled back some of their reforms.”

One unintended consequence that surprised Grawert and Craigie in the data was that some judges in jurisdictions where bail had been abolished tended to simply keep offenders in jail.

“I think the expectation is that when bail is no longer an option, judges will move from setting bail to releasing more people on bail,” Grawert said. “That's broadly true. That's happening in many jurisdictions. But you're also seeing an increase in cases where judges are just skipping bail and sending someone to jail. That's an unfortunate outcome in some cases, but I think it makes sense considering that some judges see bail as a middle ground.”

The key to solving this problem, says Grawert, is investing in pretrial detention and programs that can serve as alternatives to incarceration but lack financial resources. He even predicts that investing in such programs could have a positive impact on crime rates in the long run.

“I want to convey to people that we can make reforms that can improve both security and justice and create a safer country that is fairer to everyone, regardless of the amount of money in their bank account, regardless of their access to credit and, God willing, regardless of the color of their skin,” Grawert said.

–Editing by Lakshna Mehta.