State Laws on RATs

RAT required by court order in Jefferson County.
Resolution Agreement directs Alabama’s Tenth Judicial Circuit to utilize the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (“VPRAI”) to make decisions on bail and the expenses relating to posting bail.¹Resolution Agreement, Equal Justice Under Law v. Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama

Judges consider RATs.
AK HB 49 2019: Risk assessment results are one of 12 elements judges consider in determining pretrial release.²Laws of Alaska 2019: HB 49

Judicial Administration authorized via Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 5-201 the use of validated pretrial risk assessments.³Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 5-201: Evidence-Based Pretrial Services. Administrative Order No. 2014-12⁴ARIZONA CODE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
Part 5: Court Operations
Chapter 2: Programs and Standards
Section 5-201: Evidence Based Pretrial Services
Courts operating pretrial services shall use a pretrial risk assessment tool approved by the Arizona Judicial Council to assist in determining a defendant’s likelihood of committing a new crime or failing to appear for court while on pretrial release.

RATs not required.
Criminal Justice Efficiency and Safety Act: Promotes risk assessments in parole and a behavioral health screening tool for mental health intervention, but does not list pretrial tools.⁵State of Arkansas, 91st General Assembly: Criminal Justice Efficiency and Safety Act of 2017

RATs not currently required, but many counties use RATs on their own. If passed by voters in 2020, SB 10 would require risk assessments.⁶California Courts: SB 10: Pretrial Release and Detention

Legislation encourages RATs.
CO HB 1236: Requires courts, if practical, to consider results of an “empirically developed” risk assessment instrument to improve the effectiveness of release decisions, by providing the court with information about predicted levels of risk of pretrial failure.⁷State of Colorado, Sixty-ninth General Assembly: HB 13-1236

Legislation requires RAT
Connecticut General Statues 54-63d: mandates that courts use a risk assessment for defendants who are not released either on their own recognizance or on an unsecured appearance bond and for those who are unable to meet financial conditions of bond.⁸Law Server: Connecticut General Statues 54-63d

Legislation requires RAT
Delaware HB 204: Require courts to consider risk by using empirically-based tools to determine whether a defendant is likely to stay out of trouble and come to court, and use that information to make individualized “assignments” of conditions of release.⁹Delaware General Assembly: House Bill 204

Legislation allows RATs
Florida statute s. 907.041(3)(b): before someone can be released on non-monetary conditions, pretrial release program must verify that it has investigated information about the accused’s family circumstances, employment record, criminal record, and prior appearances at court.¹⁰The Florida Statutes: 907.041
Florida statute 903.046: lists criteria that judicial officers take into consideration for pretrial release decisions: nature and circumstances of the offense, weight of evidence, defendant’s family ties, length of time in the community, employment history, financial resources, mental conditions, prior criminal history, prior history of appearance in court, current status on pretrial release, probation, parole, nature and probability of danger that release would pose to the community. Does NOT specify weight for each criterion.¹¹The 2019 Florida Statutes: 903.046

Legislation allocated funding to develop RATs
GA HB 1176 2012: Allocated resources to develop front-end risk and needs assessments, and directs courts to use risk and needs assessments to determine a person’s risk of recidivism and identify risk factors that, when addressed, can reduce recidivism – particularly in drug court and mental health settings.¹²House Bill 1176

Legislation requires RAT
HI S 2776 2012: Requires pretrial risk assessments for adult offenders within three working days of admission to a community correctional center, which must then be provided to the court for consideration when determining conditions of release.¹³Legiscan: Hawaii Senate Bill 2012-2776

Legislation allows RATs, but they must be “free of bias”
ID HB 118: Amends Idaho Code to add section 19-1910 regarding pretrial risk assessment algorithms:
-Pretrial risk assessment algorithms shall not be used until shown to be free of bias against any class of individuals protected from discrimination by law Pretrial risk assessment algorithms must be validated before use.
-All pretrial risk assessment algorithms must be transparent, and all documents and information used to build or validate the assessment must be public¹⁴Legislature of the State of Idaho: House Bill No. 118

Statute allows RATs
IL State Statute 725 ILCS 5/110-6.4: Provides that the Supreme Court may establish a risk-assessment tool for establishing bail. Establishes a “second look” provision for defendants detained only due to inability to make monetary bail.¹⁵IL State Statute 725 ILCS 5/110-6.4

Supreme Court requires RAT
Indiana Supreme Court Criminal Rule 26: Amended rule expands earlier IRAS-PAT pilot to all counties in the state as of January 1, 2020.¹⁶Indiana Supreme Court: Order Amending Criminal Rule 26

Legislation enacted a pilot that the governor halted
Four counties had a PSA pilot program that the governor stopped in December 2018.¹⁷Stephen Gruber-Miller: Free some defendants before trial? With a test program ending, the next steps are unclear, Des Moines Register, 2018 No current legislation on RATs.

Statute allows RATs
KS Statute 22-2815: Directs release on recognizance programs to include interviews to gather information about the person and determine if the person will appear in court if release through objective analysis.
Basic variables to determine release include length of residence in the community, nature and extent of local family ties, time in the local area, stability of employment, and extent of prior criminal history.¹⁸Kansas 2019 Statute: Article 28: Conditions of Release

Legislation requires RATs
HB 54: Amends 2011 House Bill 463. Clarifies that courts are to consider a pretrial risk assessment, in addition to other specified factors, when determining pretrial release and bail. Instructs the court to order conditions for pretrial release if it is determined that the defendant is a flight risk or danger to others.¹⁹Legiscan: KY HB54 2012
HB 463: Requires risk assessment scores to be provided to the judge, who must consider the assessment along with other factors to determine supervision level appropriate for the defendant.²⁰Legiscan: KY HB 463 2011

RATs not required
Law does require risk assessment for domestic violence cases with specific factors.²¹Regular Session, 2014: House Bill No. 1142, Act No. 318

RATs not required
Two bills that would have required RAT use failed.²²127th Maine Legislature: An Act to Replace the Bail Code with a System of Validated Risk Assessment Tools²³128th Maine Legislature: An Act to Enhance Pretrial Justice through Risk-based Decision Making with Enhanced Diversion, Release and Treatment Options for Eligible Defendants RATs still used in most counties, after bail has been set to determine eligibility of release to pretrial services

Courts required to consider RATs
Pretrial Release Rules include a requirement that courts consider “the recommendation of any pretrial release services program that has made a risk assessment of the defendant in accordance with a validated risk assessment tool and is willing to provide an acceptable level of supervision over the defendant during the period of release if so directed by the judicial officer”²⁴Brian Saccenti: Pretrial Release & Detention in Maryland after the 2017 Amendments to the Pretrial Release Rules, University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender, and Class (2017)

RATs not required
Our research found no RATs in use in Massachusetts.

RATs not required
One-time funding in budget to pilot pretrial risk assessment tool through the Michigan Supreme Court (piloting the PSA) through 2020.²⁵MI HB4323: Appropriations for fiscal year 2017-2018 (see Sec. 316) Many other counties use locally adapted version of VPRAI, Michigan PRAXIS.

Minnesota Judicial Council requires RATs
Minnesota Judicial Council Pretrial Release Evaluation: Directs judges to use evidence-based assessment of risk to set pretrial release conditions and use non-financial release conditions to greatest ability, consistent with risk assessment’s evaluation of flight risk and threat to public safety ²⁶Minnesota Judicial Branch Policy: Pretrial Release Evaluation
State selected Hennepin County tool as the Minnesota Pretrial Assessment Tool (MNPAT)
Statute allows RATs
MN Statute 626.74: Pretrial Bail Evaluation: Requires the local corrections department to conduct a pretrial bail evaluation of each defendant charged with crime of violence, gross misdemeanor, or nonfelony violation.²⁷2019 Minnesota Statutes: 629.74 Pretrial Bail Evaluation

RATs not required for general pretrial determinations
HB 1089: pilots the use of evidence-based practices, including risk and needs assessment tool to identify potential participants and evaluate their treatment needs for mental health diversion programs²⁸Senator Tindell: Amendment No 1 to House Bill No. 1089

Supreme Court rules require consideration of RATs when available
Missouri Supreme Court rules state that the court should base decisions about conditions of release and detention on available information, including a validated evidence-based risk assessment tool approved by the Supreme Court²⁹Supreme Court of Missouri en banc. Order dated December 18, 2018, re: Rules 21, 22, and 33

Legislation funds RAT pilot
HB 110: Directs court administrator to develop and administer a pretrial program, within available funds, that includes the use of a validated pretrial risk assessment tool and identifies priorities to fund the tool to assign release conditions and determine placement options HB 110 Amends SB 59 that established the pilot project and expands the program.³⁰2019 Montana Legislature: House Bill No. 110
SB 59: Required the Office of the Court Administrator to create a pretrial program and allowed the court to use information from a pretrial risk assessment tool for pretrial release and detention decisions³¹65th Legislature: SB 59

RATs not required
Legislature resolution 206 (pending): creates the possibility for an interim study to examine options for the elimination of cash bail and the use of risk assessment tools³²Legiscan: Nebraska Legislature Resolution 206

Supreme Court requires RATs
Supreme Court ADKT 0539 (2019): Nevada Supreme Court ordered statewide adoption of the Nevada Pretrial Risk Assessment, following a pilot study in 2015 of the use of the tool in four counties³³Supreme Court of the State of Nevada: No. ADKT 0539

Legislation allows examination of RATs
SB 314: re-established commission on pretrial detention, pretrial scheduling, and pretrial services to review and provide recommendations on risk assessment.³⁴Legiscan: New Hampshire Senate Bill 314

Legislation requires RAT
NJ S 946 2014 Pretrial Detention of Criminal Defendants: Constitutional amendment requires statewide use of PSA. State shifted from cash bail system to risk assessment system, and risk assessments provide recommendations of release conditions. Also allows for pretrial detention under certain circumstances. ³⁵State of New Jersey, 217th Legislature: Senate Resolution No. 128

Supreme Court advises consideration of RATs
Supreme Court Pretrial Release Rule 5-401: judges shall consider but not be controlled by the results of a risk assessment tool that is approved by the Supreme Court³⁶CJRS: 5-401 Pretrial Release

Legislation allows RATs
NY Criminal Procedure Law Part JJJ Section 510.45 Re: Pretrial Services Agencies: Courts may consider information from assessment tools that are designed to predict a defendant’s likelihood of appearing in court. Any such tools are required to be publicly available, free of racial or gender bias, and validated for predictive accuracy. Release decisions may not be based on an assessment of the defendant’s future dangerousness or risk to public safety.³⁷Center for Court Innovation: New York’s Bail Reform Law: Summary of Major Components

RATs not required on statewide basis
North Carolina General Statute 15A-535: Pretrial release policies decided by senior resident superior court judge for each county.³⁸NC Leg. 15A-535: Issuance of policies on pretrial release 
In some counties, judicial orders have mandated the use of a RAT – such as Mecklenburg County.³⁹State of North Carolina, County of Mecklenburg: Bail Policy for Twenty-Sixth Judicial District

Supreme Court piloting RATs in three judicial districts
North Dakota Supreme Court Pretrial Detention Reform Subcommittee helped the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation choose three judicial districts to pilot pretrial service programs, which includes risk assessment.⁴⁰Jack Dura: North Dakota pretrial services pilot project moves ahead, Bismarck Tribune (2019)

Legislation does not require RATs, but ORAS-PAT is used almost statewide
Task Force examining the Ohio bail system recommended the use of pretrial risk assessments in 2019,⁴¹Report & Recommendations of the Task Force to Examine the Ohio Bail System, The Supreme Court of Ohio but in January 2020 the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the proposed criminal justice reform language that would require all judges to have a validated risk assessment tool. The state legislature can vote to either accept or reject the entire package of reforms, but if they do nothing these reforms will go into effect July 1, 2020.⁴²Dawn R. Wolfe: Criminal Justice Group Drops Support For Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools as Ohio Justices Seek to Block Their Use, The Appeal

Legislation suggests RATs for those being released to pretrial services programs
Oklahoma Statute §22-1105.3: Courts are instructed to conduct an evaluation of a person applying for pretrial release, and the pretrial program will then make a recommendation to the court, which indicates supervisory conditions to the court.⁴³Justia: 2018 Oklahoma Statutes Title 22. Criminal Procedure §22-1105.3. Pretrial Release Act -Pretrial release programs – Persons eligible -Minimum criteria.

RATs not required
RATs used in some counties, introduced by the courts⁴⁴National Institute of Corrections: Yamhill County, Oregon Evidence Based Decision Making⁴⁵Multnomah County: Risk Assessments
OR HB 2238: Established a Task Force on Public Safety to study security releases, with a focus on reducing racial and ethnic disparity in pretrial incarceration, including utilizing pretrial risk assessments and methods to reduce failure to appear⁴⁶Oregon Legislative Assembly – 2017 Regular Session: Enrolled House Bill 2238

RATs not required
RATs required at sentencing but many counties have determined to use RATs in pretrial settings as well.

Legislation requires RATs
RI HB 5128: Corrections Department directed to adopt and use screening and assessment tools to inform decisions regarding arraignment and bail and pretrial conditions and supervision⁴⁷State of Rhode Island In General Assembly January Session 2017: 2017 — H 5128

RATs not required
State release rules, SC Statute §17-15: In determining conditions of release that will assure appearance in court and not constitute danger to the community or any individual, court should consider factors such as family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in community, convictions, record of flight, pending charges, and any other pertinent information.⁴⁸South Carolina Legislature: South Carolina Code of Laws Title 17 – Criminal Procedures, Chapter 15: Bail and Recognizances

RATs not required
Two counties using PSA with support from the Arnold Foundation⁴⁹Kealey Bultena: New Technology Analyzes Defendants’ Risk To Public Safety, SDPB Radio
Risk and needs assessments in use in probation, parole, and mental health settings⁵⁰An Act to improve public safety

RATs not required
Pilot program: Tennessee Pretrial Justice Technical Assistance through the Office of Criminal Justice Program initiated pretrial project to enhance local pretrial practices through the implementation of an empirically validated risk assessment⁵¹TN Department of Finance & Administration: Office of Criminal Justice Programs Annual Report FY 2016/2017

RATs not required
At least 25 counties use RATs⁵²Dottie Carmichael, George Naufal, Steve Wood, Heather Caspers, and Miner P. Marchbanks, III: Liberty and Justice: Pretrial Practices in Texas, Public Policy Research Institute
PRAISTX: web-based risk assessment tool, developed by the Office of Court Administration, piloted in several jurisdictions.⁵³Pretrial Risk Assessment Information System Texas (PRAISTX)

Judicial decision to require RAT
Utah State Court implemented statewide use of the PSA⁵⁴Paighten Harkins and Jessica Miller: Utah courts quietly rolled out a new way to set a suspect’s bail based on one’s risk. Bail bondsmen are not pleased. The Salt Lake Tribune⁵⁴Utah Courts: Public Safety Assessment. Utah State Court has also created a standing committee on pretrial release and supervision.⁵⁵Utah Courts: Pretrial Release and Supervision Committee

Legislation requires RAT
13 V.S.A. § 7554c: Requires that risk assessments must be offered to anyone arrested, lodged, and unable to post bail within 24 hours, as well as a needs screening if deemed appropriate, prior to arraignment. Participation in the risk assessment is voluntary. The results are provided to the defendant, their attorney, the prosecutor, and the court.⁵⁶Vermont General Assembly: The Vermont Statutes Online: Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedures, Chapter 229: Bail and Recognizances, § 7554c. Pretrial risk assessments; needs screenings

Legislation requires RATs
VA Code § 19.2-152.3, based on Pretrial Services Act: The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services developed the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument to be used by pretrial services programs across the Commonwealth of Virginia. The General Assembly mandated, as a part of the Pretrial Services Act, that the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services “…shall develop risk assessment and other instruments to be used by pretrial services programs in assisting judicial officers in discharging their duties.” A pretrial risk assessment instrument is used to identify a defendant’s risk of failure (failure to appear for a scheduled court appearance or arrest for a new offense) if released pending trial.⁵⁷Virginia Law, Code of Virginia: § 19.2-152.3. Department of Criminal Justice Services to prescribe standards; biennial plan.

RATs not required
RAT is required for domestic violence.⁵⁸Domestic Violence Risk Assessment: Report to the Washington State Legislature and Governor Jay Inslee
Tools used in some counties.
The Pretrial Reform Task Force took no position in February 2019 on whether or not local jurisdictions should adopt a pretrial risk assessment, but did recommend that those jurisdictions that do implement a RAT follow certain key goals.⁵⁹Pretrial Reform Task Force: Final Recommendations Report

Legislation requires RAT
WV Code §15A-5-7: Within three days of arrest and placement in jail, the court shall conduct a pretrial risk assessment approved by the WV Supreme Court of Appeals. The results are shared with court, both attorneys, and the subject of the assessment, as well as magistrate and circuit clerks, judges, and magistrate as needed.⁶⁰West Virginia Code: §15A-5-7 Pretrial Risk Assessment

RATs not required
RATs in use in many counties
Pretrial Release determined by WI Criminal Code 969.01: eligible for release under reasonable conditions to assure appearance in court, protect public safety, and prevent witness intimidation⁶¹Wisconsin State Legislature: Chapter 969: Bail and other conditions of release

RATs not required
Committee on Pretrial Release Policies convened in 2017 to make recommendations about RATs⁶²Wyoming Legislative Service Office Memorandum: Evidence Based Pretrial Release Policies

RAT not required by law but in place
DC eliminated bail in 1991 and RAT has been used since 1960s.⁶³Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia: 50th Anniversary Commemorative Review
DC Code § 23–1301. Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia: Pretrial Services Agency shall “secure pertinent data” and provide to judicial officers and police reports with verified information concerning anyone about whom a bail or citation determination is to be made.⁶⁴Code of the District of Columbia: § 23–1301. Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia