No holds barred in debate on pretrial release system

By Dan MacArthur
North Forty News

Is the public or the private sector best suited to decide who gets out of jail until trial?

That's the question driving a debate between independent bail bond agents and advocates of the county's pretrial release program. Each faction cites stacks of facts, statistics and studies to claim credibility, while harshly challenging those of the other.

"You get a return on your dollar for pretrial services," said Sharon Winfree, Larimer County's court services supervisor. She estimated that the $1 million program saved the county $3.5 million last year by facilitating the release and supervision of arrestees who otherwise would be occupying costly jail cells. And, Winfree said, the pretrial service resulted in an additional $474,000 savings by working with the probation department to streamline the sentencing process.

But Vicki Donoho, a Fort Collins bond agent for 12 years, angrily disputes those numbers, contending, "Pretrial is not telling the truth," and is "cherry picking" statistics to make the failed and costly program look good.

She insists that pretrial services is an unnecessary governmental boondoggle that should be eliminated, leaving the job of releasing arrestees to bond agents. "All it does is burden the system with more paperwork," she maintained.

"These figures are not cooked, I can guarantee you," Winfree countered.

Sheriff Jim Alderden agreed with Winfree, directly crediting the pretrial program with reducing the detention center population.

The pretrial program

At issue is the pretrial services program funded this year with nearly $974,000 from the county general fund and $75,000 in client fees. Started in 1977 and expanded with additional staffing in 2005, the program was slated for additional expansion in November's failed criminal justice property tax initiative, which Donoho and other bond agents vigorously opposed.

Pretrial staff members are on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week at the detention center. They conduct bond applications for each arrestee, totaling almost 450 a month, according to figures provided by Winfree.

All sworn as deputy clerks and bond commissioners, the staff assesses each defendant to determine the least restrictive bond based on the nature of the offense and the defendant's criminal history, connection to the community and potential to commit another offense. They also conduct criminal background checks, initiate applications for court-appointed defense attorneys and conduct mental health and domestic violence screenings.

In most cases, other than the most serious felonies or crimes involving victims' rights considerations, the pretrial staff has the ability to recommend four types of bonds.

Personal recognizance bonds require only the defendant's promise to appear for court proceedings. A co-signed personal recognizance bond requires the additional signature of a friend or family member who shares responsibility for ensuring appearances.

The most restrictive bonds require that cash or property of a specified amount be held by the court as an incentive for defendants to make court appearances. Such assets are released to those making all court appearances, but no-shows can result in forfeiture.

Bond agents come into play for defendants who cannot post cash or property bonds. Surety bond agents can, at their discretion, agree to guarantee payment of the full amount of the bond should clients fail to appear. Bond agents typically charge a nonrefundable 10- to 15-percent fee. They may also attempt to secure collateral from family or friends for the full bond amount.

Big bucks for bonds

Alderden said he believes the bond agents so fiercely oppose the pretrial program because they think the county is "cutting into their profits."

And those profits are considerable, according to Maj. Gary Darling, who oversees detention center operations. In 2005 alone, he said, some $22 million in surety bonds were written in Larimer County. "Big money is the issue here," he said.

"There's a great bias with the judges and (district attorneys). They think we make too much money," Donoho responded. But, she said, such claims based on reports to the state division of insurance don't take into account actual income after expenses. She equates bond agents to any small business.

Supervision issues

In addition to making bail recommendations, the pretrial program also provides monitoring and supervision. Almost 1,100 defendants now are under pretrial supervision, which ranges from the least restrictive phone-in system to acknowledge court appearances to more intrusive ankle-mounted tracking devices.

Donoho contends, however, that the pretrial staff is poorly trained and unqualified to make such a determination based on inadequate information --a claim Winfree strongly disputes.

Bond agents rather than pretrial staff, Donoho insists, are best qualified to assess whether defendants should be released from jail and to assure they make court appearances. She cites three independent studies, concluding that "commercial private bail is the most successful, cost-effective application of the bail system without cost to the taxpayer."

Winfree in turn points to a study by the National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies showing that "surety bonds do nothing to promote community safety or guarantee the return to court."

"The reason a lot of the states and the feds don't have bonds is because they're not effective," Alderden added.

The pretrial program, Donoho contends, is effectively an unconstitutional probation because it imposes monitoring requirements on defendants who have been arrested but not convicted. "These people have not been convicted of anything, but they're being punished," she said.

In contrast, the service provided by bond agents "is more of a healing process for everybody," according to Donoho. "We become part of their family like their doctors, their clergy. It's kind of like an intervention."

"They'll tell you that they monitor them, but I can guarantee you they don't," Winfree countered.

It's a sentiment shared by Alderden. In fact, he said, there's little incentive for bond agents to supervise their customers because it's typically police who end up capturing defendants who fail to appear. And after they are apprehended, Alderden said, the bond agents can request that the court return their bond.

Failing to appear

"Almost exclusively the people picked up are by law enforcement," the sheriff said. "There's actually very little risk to the bondsman, and it's a benefit to those people when they fail."

"That's an outright lie," Donoho responded. She insisted that agents go to great lengths to apprehend their bond jumpers, at no expense to the police or public. In fact, she said, bond agents work closely with law enforcement. Donoho cited one time, for instance, when she said deputies asked her to break into a defendant's house - because they legally could not - and deliver him to the curb for arrest on an outstanding warrant.

Alderden said such stories illustrate another problem with bond agents. "The regulation of the bonding industry is a joke," he said. For example, Alderden noted, no regulations prevent bond agents from writing bonds while they are jailed, as three were last year on serious criminal charges.

Winfree said pretrial's value is demonstrated specifically through the effectiveness of its supervision efforts. She notes that the rate of defendants failing to appear for court appearances is less than 2 percent for the pretrial program compared with 12.6 percent for bond agents.

Donoho calls those figures misleading, contending that "pretrial people are the ones who really don't need monitoring and supervision." She equates the defendants handled by the program as "kindergarteners," typically those who are charged with first-time or lesser offenses. In contrast, she said, bond agents deal with more serious felony offenders.

As long as county commissioners continue to budget for the pretrial program at current levels, however, bond agents will be getting less business.