Effects and Perceptions of IRAS-PAT Implementation in Indiana

Sydney Ingel

Advisor: David B Wilson, PhD, Department of Criminology, Law and Society

Committee Members: Evan Marie Lowder, Devon Johnson, Stephen Demuth

Fenwick Library, #1009
April 04, 2025, 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM

Abstract:

A popular new practice being implemented in the criminal legal field is pretrial risk assessment. During the pretrial period, risk assessments are used to inform decisions about conditions of release from jail. The goal of pretrial risk assessments is to use structured and unbiased criteria—based on previous research—to predict a person’s likelihood of appearing in court for their case with no new arrests. Indirectly, pretrial risk assessments give local jurisdictions a way to make structured decisions on allocating resources (e.g., jail capacity, number of pretrial officers, open treatment slots), which are limited by chronic staffing shortages, shrinking county budgets, and ballooning detention costs. Further, results from several studies suggest that pretrial risk assessments may increase release rates and reduce the time defendants spend in pretrial detention. This has led people to embrace pretrial risk assessments as a potential way to reduce pretrial detention rates and limit the abuses of money bail. Critics, however, worry that the use of pretrial risk assessments will be difficult and time-consuming and that it will lead to more people being released pretrial, increasing crime rates. 

To inform the discussion about these competing concerns, I conducted two studies to evaluate the implementation of a pretrial risk assessment tool—the IRAS-PAT—in Indiana. My research aims for these two studies were to: (1) determine the impact of pretrial risk assessments on county-level arrest rates, violent arrest rates, and jail occupancy rates, (2) assess local implementation conditions, and (3) explore local stakeholders’ perceptions of the IRAS-PAT, to see where their opinions fall on the debate over pretrial risk assessments and identify barriers to implementation. In Study 1, I collated publicly available data into a panel dataset to evaluate the effects of IRAS-PAT implementation at the county level on overall arrest rates, violent arrest rates, and jail occupancy rates. In Study 2, I conducted a survey of 90 Indiana stakeholders (i.e., judges, law enforcement, prosecutors, and pretrial services staff) to assess their use and views of the IRAS-PAT. Results from these two studies show that implementation quality of the IRAS-PAT in Indiana was fair, overall and violent arrest rates did not increase after implementation, and stakeholders believe implementation of the IRAS-PAT led to decreased crime rates, fewer people incarcerated in jail, and less biased pretrial decisions. For the overall debate on pretrial risk assessments, this study has provided evidence that refutes critics, but it is not a resounding success for proponents. While these two studies showed that pretrial risk assessment implementation is not difficult or time-consuming and that it does not appear to have harmful backfire effects on crime rates, the data did not show evidence of benefits in terms of reduced jail occupancy.  There are preliminary indications from stakeholders that they believe implementing a pretrial risk assessment tool is beneficial, but more research is needed to make conclusive statements about actual benefits. For jurisdictions contemplating implementing a pretrial risk assessment tool, this research shows that satisfactory quality implementation is possible, there are limited backfire effects, and there are perceived benefits.