Lawmakers pledged their ongoing support for, and Judge Glenn Grant pointed up the various successes of, New Jersey's revamped bail system as he appeared before the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee Tuesday, though the judge acknowledged the reform remains “a work in progress.”

Grant, acting administrative director of the New Jersey courts, said Tuesday that violent crime had decreased statewide per State Police data, and the jail population had decreased 20 percent, since implementation of a risk-based rather than cash-based bail system provided for in the state Criminal Justice Reform Act.

“As a state we modernized and transformed a monetized bail system,” Grant told committee members, praising the system's reliance on judicial discretion and a set of risk factors used to evaluate criminal defendants.

“The remarkable thing about this whole criminal justice reform effort is the statewide partnership,” he said later in the hearing. “It really is one of the most remarkable collaborations we've had in state government.”

Grant added, however, “That does not mean the public will be happy with every pretrial decision made, or that every decision will result in a satisfactory outcome,” referring to instances where defendants were released and committed new offenses.

“No criminal justice system can guarantee that every defendant released pretrial will obey the law or show up in court,” Grant said.

Indeed, some criticism has come not just from the bail bond industry but also from public officials.

The system, Grant added, “appropriately remains a work in progress,” noting that officials are gathering data on recidivism and rearrest among pretrial defendants who are released.

The judiciary seeks a fiscal 2019 budget of $981.9 million. That's technically $14.9 million less than the prior budget. But because there was an adjustment to reflect contributions from an interdepartmental fund used in part for employee salaries, the budget sought is an effective $4.5 million increase over the prior budget, according to the testimony.

Increases will be needed if bail reform is to remain viable, according to Grant. Bankrolling the program through court fees ”is simply not sustainable,” he said, warning of future shortfalls culminating in the program running out of funds by the fourth quarter of 2020.

Another challenge, according to Grant, is data collection. The Administrative Office of the Courts is in the process of collecting five years of prereform data in order to make comparisons. The collection is necessary, it seems, because the manner in which criminal cases are tracked has changed in recent years.

In discussing ways that the bail system was shaped in its first year, Grant pointed to guidelines that apply a presumption of incarceration to gun crimes under the Graves Act. He also said the judiciary is exploring, with a consultant's help, whether domestic violence can be added as a 10th factor in determining risk.

In all, Grant apparently found a friendly reception at the hearing, where he was joined by a few assignment judges and AOC staff, and questioned by legislators who pronounced their continuing support for the bail system and praised Grant's efforts. The legislators emphasized the difficulties in trying to “prove a negative”: that evidence of errors in releasing defendants who commit crimes exists, while evidence that crimes were avoided in holding defendants who aren't free to commit them doesn't exist.

“You cannot let the one bad fact drive the policy conversation,” Grant said. “You need the empirical data.”

There were other topics of discussion, including S-1229, which recently was voted through the Assembly and Senate. It would give judges raises for three consecutive years and tie future enhancements to the Consumer Price Index. Grant said stagnant judge pay ”represents a challenge in the ability of the organization” to attract and maintain solid candidates. He talked about the importance of diversity of all kinds on the bench, including “diversity of legal experience,” and said judicial candidates are needed from “big firms and small firms,” not just government entities.

Grant also lauded what he said was a historically low number of judicial vacancies. Committee Chairman Paul Sarlo noted that, as of April 8, only 14 Superior Court vacancies existed. That's compared with 27 last year, 42 in 2016, 51 in 2015, and 54 in 2014, Sarlo said.

“You're approaching record-breaking numbers,” Grant said, noting that the filled ranks are leading to case backlog reductions. “This really is a positive time for the judiciary.”

“Cases move when the lawyers fear that there's going to be a trial,” Grant said.