Non-Profit Complains About Prosecutors Not Recommending Release Through Their Pretrial Program

If a Pretrial Services Program Wants More Defendants, then Maybe they Should be More Effective

A recent story from KOSU and The Frontier highlighted Oklahoma County’s TEEM pretrial release program, which helps low-income defendants get out of jail before trial. The article criticizes prosecutors for opposing most TEEM bonds and suggests that their reluctance contributes to unnecessary detention of poor defendants. However, the story largely overlooks a more important question: Why are prosecutors so reluctant to support this program in the first place?

One plausible explanation is that prosecutors have seen the results. Defendants released on financially secured surety bonds, the traditional commercial bail system, consistently show up to court at higher rates and are less likely to reoffend compared to those released through charitable or government-supervised programs like TEEM.

The Data Behind Surety Bonds

Multiple studies over the past two decades have shown that financially secured surety bonds outperform other forms of pretrial release when it comes to court appearance and public safety. Landmark research, including the 2007 Bureau of Justice Statistics study by Cohen and Reaves, found that defendants released on surety bonds had significantly lower failure-to-appear rates than those released on their own recognizance or through pretrial services programs. Other studies, such as Helland and Tabarrok (2004), found that surety bond defendants were 28% less likely to fail to appear than similar defendants released without financial accountability.

The reason is straightforward: surety bonds create real consequences. When a defendant is released on a surety bond, a licensed bail agent and the defendant’s indemnitors (often family members) have skin in the game. If the defendant fails to appear, the bail agent can lose the full amount of the bond. This creates strong incentives for active monitoring, reminders, and, when necessary, apprehension. TEEM, by contrast, relies on case managers and voluntary compliance, with far less leverage when someone decides not to show up.

Questionable Claims About TEEM’s Effectiveness

The KOSU/Frontier article points to TEEM’s reported 84% court appearance rate as evidence of success. While that number sounds decent, it is not particularly impressive when compared to the performance of surety bonds in similar jurisdictions. More importantly, appearance rates alone do not tell the full story. Prosecutors are also concerned about new criminal activity while defendants are out on release.

The article notes that only 2% of TEEM participants were sentenced to prison after release. While that statistic is presented positively, it could also reflect lenient charging or plea practices rather than genuine public safety success. Without transparent data on new arrests or convictions during the pretrial period, it is difficult to know whether TEEM participants are truly staying out of trouble or simply not being held accountable for new offenses.

The Real Difference: Accountability

Prosecutors in Oklahoma County appear to be making calculated decisions. District Attorney Vicki Behenna stated that her office supports TEEM release for defendants they believe are likely to appear and comply. Their reluctance to approve it for many others, particularly those without stable housing or with mental health and substance abuse issues, suggests they have seen these individuals struggle under less accountable forms of release.

Commercial surety bonds are not perfect, but they provide a level of private-sector accountability that government-funded programs like TEEM often lack. Bail agents have both the legal authority and financial incentive to locate and return defendants who violate release conditions. TEEM case managers, while well-intentioned, operate with far less leverage.

Poverty vs. Public Safety

Advocates point out that poverty should not be the sole reason someone remains in jail. However, completely removing financial accountability in favor of expanded charitable release programs is not a neutral policy choice. It shifts risk from the defendant and their support network onto the community. When prosecutors push back against programs like TEEM, they may simply be prioritizing the evidence they see every day: defendants released with real consequences tend to show up more reliably and commit fewer new crimes.

Oklahoma County’s experience with TEEM is not unique. Across the country, other jurisdictions have experimented with moving away from traditional surety bonds in favor of broad pretrial release programs...and in almost every instance see the same result...increases in failures to appear and, in some cases, new criminal activity. Prosecutors who resist these changes are not necessarily being punitive, they may simply be paying attention to outcomes.

The best way to ensure both fairness and public safety is not to eliminate financial accountability, but to maintain a system that includes strong, professional supervision with real consequences for non-compliance. Surety bonds have a long track record of delivering both.