Ohio’s cash bail system remains broken. Just ask Markcus Brown, the man locked-up for nine days because he did not meet the RTA’s dress code and he could not afford bail after his arrest for “trespassing” at the bus station. Mr. Brown’s case is another stark reminder that the cash bail status quo does a remarkably poor job of determining which defendants should be released before trial and which should wait in jail.

Aware of the bail system’s shortcomings, the Montgomery County Commissioners recently studied the bail practices of the county’s Court of Common Pleas and its municipal courts. The study found that from 2014 to 2017, defendants in the Montgomery County municipal courts on supervised release appeared for court 20 percent more often than those out on cash bail. Similarly, in the county’s Court of Common Pleas, defendants released using cash bail were nearly twice as likely to skip court as those released without any financial conditions, and defendants released with supervision performed comparably to those out on bail.

The Montgomery County study provides more compelling evidence that cash bail has little—if any—real correlation to defendants appearing for their court dates. Instead, the study found that even though bail did not improve court appearance rates, the Court of Common Pleas had an overall appearance rate 26 percent higher due in part to its use of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS).

The ORAS gives judges additional information about pre-trial defendants, helping them make a more accurate assessment of each defendant’s flight-risk and the potential threat that he or she poses to the community. Not surprisingly, after using the ORAS tools, the Montgomery Court of Common Pleas had a nearly 19 percent higher appearance rate for those released on bail, and a 42 percent higher appearance rate for those released on their own recognizance.

Unfortunately, Montgomery County municipal courts do not use risk-assessment tools and must instead rely on the limited information found in the case file or a ham-fisted bail schedule that crudely monetizes each alleged offense. Thus, municipal judges remain at a pre-trial disadvantage—and their communities and defendants continue to suffer for it.

The special interests in favor of preserving cash bail’s faulty status quo contend that pre-trial risk-assessment tools are subjective and time-intensive—ignoring the tools used in places like Ohio’s own Lucas County, for example, that have achieved better results using fewer than 10 objective data points such as prior failures to appear, convictions for violence, and age.

Lucas County courts have achieved remarkable results using the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) tool developed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Since implementing the nine-factor assessment tool, crime in Lucas County committed by defendants awaiting trial has been cut in half and more defendants show-up for court, even as the number of defendants released without bail has doubled.

Montgomery County’s careful study adds to the growing body of scientific evidence that risk-assessment tools work, while the traditional cash bail system does little to ensure a defendant’s appearance for trial. The county commissioners were right to take a hard, honest look at the systems and tools that judges must rely on to decide who poses a flight-risk, who may endanger the community, and who can be trusted to do no harm and return for trial. Cash alone cannot and does not accurately answer these questions.

Justice and public safety demand that Ohio and more of our local communities follow the examples of Montgomery and Lucas counties, and begin to give their judges the right kinds of tools for the job.

Daniel J. Dew is a legal fellow with The Buckeye Institute’s Legal Center and the author of “Money Bail”: Making Ohio a More Dangerous Place to Live.