Warning Washington: Learn From the Mistakes of Philadelphia and the Failings of 10% Deposit Bail
Washington State Must Learn from the Failed 10% Deposit Bail Experiment in Philadelphia that Cost the City Over $1 Billion
In a recent article from Eric Granof, Vice President Corporate Communications for AIA Surety, he critiques proposed ineffective pretrial release methods. Specifically, he highlights the flaws in bail reform initiatives like the 10% deposit bail system, often promoted as an alternative to secured bail to make justice more accessible. It outlines the three primary release mechanisms for accused individuals: release on recognizance (cashless bail), financially secured surety bonds via licensed agents (praised for accountability), and full cash bail, which requires significant upfront payment. The 10% deposit bail hybrid allows defendants to pay just 10% of the bail amount directly to the court, with the promise of the money being returned upon completion of your trial, minus any court costs and fines. However, if they don’t show for all their court appearances, the defendant is on the hook for the remaining 90%. History has shown us that this approach is ineffective. In addition to providing an instant 90% discount on bail, it also creates uncollectible debts, incentivizes flight from justice, and undermines public safety without the oversight of commercial bondsmen.
Drawing from Philadelphia's experience, Granof argues that 10% deposit bail exacerbates issues in pretrial release by generating massive paper debts that courts struggle to recover, turning them into inefficient collection agencies. In Philadelphia, this led to over $1 billion in unpaid bail forfeitures from 210,000 defendants, with only about 3% realistically collectible due to poor enforcement, lost records, and debtors' lack of assets. The system fosters higher failure-to-appear rates, nearly doubling rearrest risks compared to surety bonds, resulting in a fugitive crisis, increased crime, and strained resources for warrants and arrests. Critics note it burdens taxpayers with fiscal waste and diverts focus from true bail reform, while failing to ensure equity, as low-income individuals still face barriers to posting even 10%.
Ultimately, Granof warns Washington State against adopting 10% deposit bail policies, viewing it as a complete failure that promotes lawlessness over accountability. Instead, he advocates maintaining established bail systems with surety bonds, which balance public safety, fiscal responsibility, and fairness in pretrial release, avoiding the pitfalls of cashless bail experiments that prioritize accessibility at the expense of effectiveness. Below is an excerpt from the article as well as a link to the full article.
The Pitfalls of the 10% Deposit Bail System: A Billion-Dollar Lesson from Philadelphia
Why Washington State Should Reject Recently Proposed Court Rules to Implement a 10% Deposit Bail System
by Eric Granof
There are three main methods by which accused individuals can gain pretrial release. Each of these methods has different levels of accountability and success. They include the following:
- First, a defendant can be released on their own recognizance (basically a non-financial promise to appear in court). This method was intended for very minor, non-jailable offenses and for people who were indigent or had special needs.
Member discussion