What is the Difference Between Own Recognizance Release versus Private Bail Bonds in Terms of Follow-up?

The efficacy of public versus private is a longstanding debate that many researchers have examined, including notable writers, Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok (who are referenced in this article, as well as other articles that have to do with bail bonds).  Many people reason that private organizations have an increased responsibility and interest to ensure their success.  While those preferring the public method argue in favor of relying on the government to ensure the success of a system or agency. 

Helland and Tabarrok wrote an article in which they debate the two different forms of bail bonds: “Public versus Private Law Enforcement: Evidence from Bail Jumping.”  The article points out the importance of the commitment that a defendant has in fulfilling a surety bond, stating, “Most obviously, a defendant who skips town will owe the bond dealer the entire amount of the bond just as with the deposit bond system…If a defendant does fail to appear the bond dealer is granted some time to capture him before the bond dealer’s bond is forfeited.  Thus, bond dealers have a credible threat to rearrest any defendant who flees.” 

Moreover, Helland and Tabarrok believe that a major issue that leads to the role of private bounty hunters has to do with the lack of available resources at public police bureaus to employ on bringing defendants to justice, writing, “…public police bureaus are often strained for resources and the rearrest of defendants…is usually given low precedence.  The flow of arrest warrants for failure to appear has overwhelmed many police departments so that today many counties are faced with a massive stock of unserved arrest warrants.” As such, private bounty hunters are often the only available resources to get the defendants that have skipped their trial dates.

Dr. Michael Block, a professor of Economics and Law at the University of Arizona, also studied the role of private versus public bail bonds in an academic setting. He wrote about the advantages of surety bonds in his article entitled, “The Effectiveness and Cost of Secured and Unsecured Pretrial Release in California’s Large Urban Counties: 1990-2000.”  In the article, Block first examines the FTA (failure to appear) rates of surety bonds versus those released on their own recognizance, finding a large increase in the FTA rates of those released on their own recognizance. As such, a judge is taking a statistically greater risk when he releases a defendant on his own recognizance.

Block also projects the savings that would result from an increase in surety bonds, stating, “We find that if Surety Bond releases comprised 52% rather than 45% of all releases in California’s 12 largest counties in 2000, the budget savings in these urban counties would have been over $1.3 million…In addition, we estimate there would have been a savings in social costs due to a reduction in the number of fugitives of about $13.3 million.”  Certainly the arguments of both articles provide convincing proof of the advantages of surety bonds.