By JFA Institute

The Colorado Justice Data Landscape Report is provided as a service to the public and to policy makers interested in Colorado’s adult criminal and youth justice systems. This report is a compilation of existing information available on criminal justice systems that should be seen as a summary and a benchmark for future data metrics. It is not intended to be an exhaustive or single-use resource. The report also provides an overview of Colorado’s adult and juvenile justice legislation from 2013 to present. Direct links to how this legislation may have quantitatively affected the criminal justice system cannot be made from this analysis. This report is first an almanac of key criminal justice system indicators but can serve as a means to highlight areas where more in-depth research can be done to expand understanding on how demographics, socio-economic factors, and racial inequities can influence an individual’s involvement in the Colorado justice system. Criminal justice systems are often complex and influenced by many factors. It is impossible to attribute a single cause or condition to “explain” what may cause crime, individual behaviors, or emerging trends that cause harm or jeopardize public safety. The best we can hope for is to use historical data and provide context to explain trends and better inform policy makers. Government policy should be based on informed decision making and this report is designed as a visual summative reference document of tables, charts, and narrative to offer highlights into criminal justice trends in Colorado. The most up to date trend data on state demographic, socio-economic factors, crime, arrests, court processes, incarceration, and community supervision are provided by age, race/ethnicity, gender, and region, where available. This report attempts to use “person first” language where possible and will generally use this language unless directly referring to, citing or quoting data sources. Words that encompass and define multiple groups of individuals and situations, like homeless or absconder, remain unchanged.

The presentation of data in this report shows Colorado as a State that has been greatly impacted by high levels of overall population growth over the past twenty years. According to U.S. Census data, Colorado’s overall population grew every year in the last decade making it the 6th fastest growing state in the US since 20101 . During that time, the population became less White with People of Color making up almost 35 percent of the state population by 2022. While this percentage is still well below the comparable US percentage, it marks a sizeable shift in Colorado demographics. Total population growth was concentrated in but not limited to urban areas. While the resident population grew, Colorado also experienced positive metrics of prosperity as the unhoused population and unemployment declined universally prior to 2020. After implementation of COVID-19 societal restrictions in 2020, Colorado saw a sharp increase in unemployment to over two and half times that of pre-COVID levels, followed by a quick rebound two years later. The unhoused population has been a recent issue in Colorado’s Denver capital area since COVID, gaining both political and media attention. Incidents of homelessness in the metro Denver area have increased almost 30 percent since 2019. The number of individuals experiencing homelessness throughout the rest of the state, however, followed a different trend, declining slightly from 2020 to 2022. Like national trends, crime rates in Colorado have been on a long-term trajectory of decreasing. Because of Colorado’s rapidly growing population, it is necessary to examine crime as a rate standardized against the size of the state population. Beginning in 2021, Colorado experienced a sharp rebounding increase in both violent and property crime rates, although the increases were pocketed to certain crimes in each category. Total increases in the violent crime rate were fueled by an increase in aggravated assaults while increases in the total property crime rate were fueled by a spike in thefts of motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts. Court filings, felony case resolutions, and sentence dispositions have remained stable in recent years, with declines in 2020 due to COVID-19 court shutdowns. Directly related to the slowing of case processing by courts and decreased law enforcement activity, newly sentenced prison admissions and jail bookings both saw a downward trajectory. Like US trends, all Colorado adult incarcerated and supervised populations were greatly impacted. As the pandemic waned in recent years, these populations have begun to rebound but have yet to reach pre-CVOID levels. Colorado’s Youthful Offender System continues its long-term de-incarceration trend, housing less than one-quarter of the youths it did in 2005. This is the result of a historic movement in 1991 by the state to limit the use of the criminal justice system for youths. As Colorado and the nation move beyond the impacts of COVID 19, it is important to learn from both the non-intended impacts and the impacts of measures taken intentionally to address the pandemic on the criminal justice system to better inform future decision making.    

By Amy Pisani, Sara Rahman, Madeleine Griffiths and Suzanne Poynton

To determine which factors of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), are influential in first-court bail decisions in NSW Local Courts, and the reasons why courts release adult defendants who have already been refused bail by police. METHOD We descriptively and thematically analysed a dataset combining observations of 252 first court bail hearings in the NSW Local Court between February and May 2023, and administrative data from the BOCSAR Re-offending Database (ROD) and the New South Wales (NSW) Police Force’s Computerised Operational Policing System. We supplemented these data with a thematic analysis of 40 interviews with criminal justice stakeholders involved in adult bail proceedings in NSW Local Courts. RESULTS Of the 252 observations where police had refused bail, 110 defendants (44%) were released on bail by the court, with six released unconditionally, 12% were finalised at first appearance or had their bail dispensed with, and 44% had their bail refused by the court. Similar to prosecutors and police, magistrates were most concerned with a defendant’s criminal history and the nature and seriousness of the offence, and to a lesser extent defendant vulnerabilities and needs, when determining bail. There was also general agreement between police/prosecutors and the courts regarding bail concerns, with both parties most frequently identifying reoffending and endangering the safety of victims/community as their primary concerns. Two main differences between police and court decisions emerged from the analysis. Firstly, while magistrates identified bail concerns in the majority of matters observed, they were often satisfied that these risks could be mitigated by bail conditions. The bail conditions most commonly imposed were accommodation (82%), reporting (60%), non-contact orders (47%), and place restrictions (34%). Secondly, police rarely grant bail to people charged with show cause offences, whereas 55% of defendants charged with a show cause offence, who were refused bail by police, were able to successfully demonstrate to the court why their detention was not justified. Stakeholders reported that this occurred because police prioritise community and victim safety, have limited access to information from defendants and legal representatives, and do not apply discretion when applying the show cause requirement. CONCLUSION Legal factors, such as criminal history and seriousness of offences, are the most influential factors in both the police and courts’ bail decisions. However, magistrates who are legally trained, less subject to time pressures, and can be informed by legal practitioners, are more able to thoroughly assess show cause requirements and the suitability of bail conditions at the first court bail hearing. In the absence of these factors, police are more risk-averse  

Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2024. 42p.

By: Oded Oren, Chad M. Topaz, and Courtney Machi Oliva.

Key Findings:

1. An analysis of public pretrial data from 2020 - 2022 reveals that some New York City judges are disproportionately carceral, i.e., these judges are substantially more likely to order pretrial detention than their peers, even when accounting for factors such as the severity of the case and the defendant’s prior criminal history.

2. The fourteen judges who exhibited the most carceral discretion compared to their peers are Felicia Mennin, Gerald Lebovits, Quynda Santacroce, Josh Hanshaft, Kerry Ward, Bruna DiBiase, Gerianne Abriano, Beth Beller, Phyllis Chu, Alan Schiff, Tara Collins, Derefim Neckles, Joseph McCormack, and Lumarie Maldonado-Cruz.

3. These fourteen judges’ disproportionately carceral decisions over 2.5 years resulted in an estimated 580 additional people detained, 154 additional years of pretrial detention, and over $77 million of additional costs borne by New York City taxpayers

Key Recommendations:

1. Closer scrutiny of judges’ bail decisions is crucial because of the link between pretrial detention and increased recidivism rates, exacerbated racial disparities, and influence over case outcomes.

2. New York (and other jurisdictions) must evaluate whether judicial discretion should be constrained given that legislative efforts to reform bail have not prevented some judges from exercising discretion in disproportionately carceral ways.

3. New York lawmakers should consider the following approaches to constraining disproportionately carceral judges:

• Making additional judge-level data publicly available to all New Yorkers.

• Removing disproportionately carceral judges from overseeing criminal cases.

• Limiting judges’ discretion to detain, including by mandating release from detention upon the preparation of a release plan by holistic teams of experts.

Scrutinize, Institute for the Quantitative Study of Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU School of Law, 2023. 29p.

By Florida International University and Loyola University Chicago

This project is a groundbreaking partnership between prosecutors and researchers to promote more effective, just, and transparent decision-making in prosecution. It is a bipartisan effort to be smart on crime, to think about new ways to maximize public safety, to enhance fairness, and to create a new system of accountability to the public. It involves four forward-thinking prosecutors in Cook County (IL), Jacksonville (FL), Milwaukee County (WI), and Tampa (FL) working with researchers at Florida International University and Loyola University Chicago to take a new look at prosecutorial performance and decision-making. This partnership is supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Improving prosecutorial performance and decision-making is impossible without data. Data takes center stage in the project because it tells prosecutors what problems are the biggest threats to community well-being, and it points to ways to tackle those problems. Data helps measure the overall impact of prosecutors’ work, and it alerts them that a policy or practice needs to be continued or changed. Unfortunately, most prosecutors’ offices cannot collect, analyze, and apply data to these ends. Many offices do not record the data they need. Others are missing the staff and knowledge necessary to analyze their data. Still other offices—probably most—do not have the ability and commitment to use data to guide their decisions and reforms. This project focuses on helping our partner offices and other interested jurisdictions overcome these hurdles. The project has four distinct objectives: What The Project Is About While the project targets performance in our four partner jurisdictions, it also aims to use the knowledge generated from this experiment to advance the field of prosecution nationally. There are more than 2,300 local prosecutors’ offices in the United States, but very few organizations specialize in prosecutorial research and technical assistance. Realistically, most prosecutors’ offices will not receive any direct meaningful assistance. By building sustainable data collection, performance measurement, and communication practices for the four offices, this project provides a set of blueprints that offices across the country can use to make their own internal improvements. We realize there is no one-size-fits-all approach to prosecutorial office management that will meet every office’s needs. Writing a prescription for a patient we have not examined is hard. However, the project provides a model that other offices can use to start thinking about forming local partnerships, improving data capacity, and producing metrics for assessing their own impact. The backdrop for this project is the Safety & Justice Challenge, the MacArthur Foundation initiative to reduce jail misuse and overuse as both a crucial component and a major driver of America’s over-reliance on incarceration. Unnecessary jail incarceration carries significant costs to individuals, families, communities, and society at large. These costs take their greatest toll on low-income people and communities of color. The Safety & Justice Challenge supports local leaders who are dedicated to safely reducing jail populations, improving justice systems, and ultimately strengthening their communities. To expand offices’ data and analytical capacity by assessing case management systems, making better use of existing data, and exploring options for capturing new information without creating additional burdens for prosecutors. To assist prosecutors with tracking their progress toward greater efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness using prosecutorial performance indicators at the office and unit levels (as opposed to the individual prosecutor level). To identify possible racial and ethnic disparities at various stages of case processing across offense categories, and to work with stakeholders to develop specific solutions to reduce them. To establish a practice of using data to measure monthly or quarterly performance and engage with the communities While the project targets performance in our four partner jurisdictions, it also aims to use the knowledge generated from this experiment to advance the field of prosecution nationally. There are more than 2,300 local prosecutors’ offices in the United States, but very few organizations specialize in prosecutorial research and technical assistance. Realistically, most prosecutors’ offices will not receive any direct meaningful assistance. By building sustainable data collection, performance measurement, and communication practices for the four offices, this project provides a set of blueprints that offices across the country can use to make their internal improvements. We realize there is no one-size-fits-all approach to prosecutorial office management that will meet every office’s needs. Prescribing for a patient we have not examined is hard. However, the project provides a model that other offices can use to start thinking about forming local partnerships, improving data capacity, and producing metrics for assessing their impact. The backdrop for this project is the Safety & Justice Challenge, the MacArthur Foundation initiative to reduce jail misuse and overuse as both a crucial component and a major driver of America’s over-reliance on incarceration. Unnecessary jail incarceration carries significant costs to individuals, families, communities, and society at large. These costs take their greatest toll on low-income people and communities of color. The Safety & Justice Challenge supports local leaders who are dedicated to safely reducing jail populations, improving justice systems, and ultimately strengthening their communities. This report presents findings from an assessment of racial and ethnic disparities in prosecution and sentencing in Cook County, Illinois. Multiple decision points are analyzed, including case charging, changes in charge severity from arrest to charging, disposition type, changes in charge severity from charging to conviction, and sentencing. Because the findings vary by decision points and offense categories, each finding should be examined and assessed independently

Miami; Florida International University and Chicago: Loyola University Chicago, 2019. 50p.