Data Stories

Jefferson County has a strong culture of collaboration among justice system agencies, formalized through the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC), whose mission is to promote the highest quality of justice through collaboration and consensus. As a CJCC member, our office works with the Colorado State Public Defender’s Office, First Judicial District Courts, First Judicial District Probation Department, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, Jefferson County Justice Services, and the Community Connections Center to implement innovative, evidence-based solutions that advance fairness, accountability, and public trust in the justice system.

One focus of the CJCC has been reducing bench warrants. A bench warrant is issued by the Court (“bench”) when an individual fails to appear (FTA) for a scheduled court date or fails to comply (FTC) with court-mandated conditions or a community-based sentence, such as probation. While some individuals intentionally avoid their obligations to the Court, many miss court due to confusion, fear of the process, difficulty navigating logistics, or simply failing to plan properly (1).

Missed court dates carry significant costs for both the justice system and individuals. In some jurisdictions, failures to appear are a primary driver of jail bookings, contributing to unnecessary system strain and disruption to people’s lives.

Importantly, individuals facing more serious felony charges generally have high court appearance rates, perhaps because they are more likely to have supportive pretrial services, or to have paid a financial condition of release. In contrast, misdemeanor and traffic cases, which represent more than 80% of cases in the First Judicial District, tend to have the highest FTA rates.

Research demonstrates that small, behavioral science-informed changes can meaningfully increase court appearance rates, reduce costs, and improve system efficiency without compromising accountability or public safety. Aligned with the four principles of the Unwarranted Project, the following local strategies focus on reducing missed court dates and unnecessary warrants by improving how people receive, understand, and act on court information.

• Statewide court date text reminders. Just like salon and doctor appointments, the texts remind individuals about upcoming court dates and follow up quickly after an FTA. (Principle 1, Make information clear, timely and accessible.)
• A new summons based on state-of-the-art behavioral science of how individuals receive and interpret information, developed with technical assistance from ideas42. (Principle 1, Make information clear, timely and accessible.)
• The expansion of virtual hearings since Covid-19. (Principle 3, Add flexibility.)
• Transportation solutions through the Community Connections Center, which help individuals get to court dates and probation appointments. (Principle 4, Provide useful resources for those who need them.)

To resolve active warrants and reduce logistical challenges (Principle 2), the CJCC launched Fresh Start in 2021, a warrant clearance event designed to help individuals address outstanding warrants in a more accessible way.

Eligibility at Fresh Start is limited to warrants for low-level, non-violent misdemeanors and traffic cases, along with select low-level non-violent felonies. Victim Rights cases are not eligible.

At the first event, held on a Saturday in August 2021, 39 people attended, and 48 warrants were quashed. Since then, Fresh Start events are held twice a year, and participation has grown through the use of text notification, active community outreach, social media, and earned media like newspaper articles and television stories. More recent Fresh Start events typically resolve about 100 warrants at each event.

November 2024 marked the first multi-jurisdiction Fresh Start, coordinated with Denver, Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, and Pueblo counties. It enabled participants attending in person at the local Fresh Start to, for example, clear a Denver warrant by virtual appearance in the Denver courtroom (and vice versa). A record number (141) of local warrants were cleared that day.

Over nine events spanning four and a half years, 626 individuals resolved 757 warrant cases through Fresh Start. Resolving their warrants in a supportive, collaborative environment not only prevents a disruptive, costly arrest for the individual, but collectively avoids hundreds of thousands of dollars in jail costs (2).

About 75% of resolved warrants involved Failures to Appear, with the remaining 25% related to Failures to Comply with probation or court-imposed conditions.

Although eligible participants’ warrants are cancelled, the ultimate outcome of each criminal case depends on its severity and specific facts. Many cases are resolved and closed during Fresh Start. For example, some individuals arrive with documentation showing they have already completed required obligations, such as obtaining automobile insurance or reinstating a driver's license, and their cases are dismissed. Others may plead guilty after consulting with the public defender. Cases that are not resolved at Fresh Start may have a new court date set, putting the individual back on track for accountability and to address any needs necessary to achieve long term success. Finally, some cases are re-sentenced to probation, allowing the person to re-engage with supervision and access needed rehabilitative services or treatment. Regardless of the case outcome, all participants also have an opportunity to connect with supportive resources at Fresh Start events through the Community Connections Center.

However, numbers of warrants quashed and cases resolved is only part of the impact. At Fresh Start, we also bear witness to personal stories of relief and transformation. Participants are often grateful for an opportunity to get back on track with their case and their lives.

• “Mary” was living in her car, but attended Fresh Start after seeing a flyer. She had several warrants for low-level traffic cases and cried when the Judge dismissed all of them.

For some, clearing an arrest warrant can be transformative and closely tied to broader personal growth.

• After driving from Colorado Springs to resolve his warrant, “Joe” shared that addressing his case at Fresh Start was the last step in “putting [his] life back together after running from a 35-year addiction.”
• “Sam” avoided Colorado for years due to a failure-to-comply warrant stemming from a 1994 felony case with a charge that has since been reclassified as a misdemeanor. After appearing virtually at the November 2025 event to clear the warrant, he wrote to the Court: “I'm now free to show my children where I grew up. I can now visit [the graves of] my Grandparents, Mother and Father all buried at Crown Hill. This means the world to me. Thank you.”

Participants have appeared virtually from Japan, Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and flown in from Florida and Texas to attend in person.

Powered by court staff, attorneys, and community partners who volunteer their time, Fresh Start produces measurable results for both individuals and the justice system. By resolving hundreds of warrants, reducing failures to appear, and avoiding unnecessary arrests and jail bookings, the program delivers meaningful cost savings while improving court efficiency.

At the same time, Fresh Start demonstrates what effective justice looks like in practice, with agencies working together to create a safe and accessible path to accountability. For the deputy district attorneys who participate, the experience is a reminder of why this work matters, as they witness firsthand the determination of people who choose accountability and a path forward. These outcomes reduce system strain, strengthen public trust, and reinforce the legitimacy of the justice system, with benefits that extend well beyond the day of the event.

Notes

1. https://www.ideas42.org/unwarranted/ and Court Reminders have Broad Bipartisan Support (Pew Charitable Trusts)
2. A jail booking costs taxpayers approximately $100 and each day in jail costs $125 or more.

We are grateful for our partnership with Jefferson County Justice Services, who have provided the data highlighted in this story.

History and Implementation

When I took office, the 1st Judicial District Attorney’s Office (1st JDA) adopted a rational, transparent, and binary hold/release bond model designed to prioritize community safety and eliminate release based on access to money. (See previous data story Community Safety Focused Bond Reform.) The policy was a shift from prior practices and includes the following:

• Trained, experienced Deputy District Attorneys (DDAs) develop recommendations and staff advisement hearings.
• Recommendations are limited to Personal Recognizance (release) or Cash Only (hold).
• Recommendations are structured based upon a decision-making matrix that considers the charge and actuarial pretrial risk assessment (“CPAT”) score.
• Data and research are reviewed regularly to inform and refine the policy.

The April 2021 change of practice and the judicial response was abrupt, as illustrated below.

Deputy DA (DDA) recommendations were primarily split between Personal Recognizance (PR) and Cash Only, while Cash/Surety requests – previously 75% of cases - were nearly eliminated.

Judicial orders were immediately responsive to our new policy, with judges increasing orders for PR and Cash Only, and decreasing Cash/Surety orders.

Four years of data demonstrate consistent and sustained adherence to bond policy by our office.

The 1st JDA recommends approximately half of cases to PR and half to Cash Only (cumulative 2021-2025, below left ).(1) Judges order approximately half of cases to PR, 33% to Cash/Surety, and 17% to Cash Only (cumulative 2021-2025, below right).

Recommendations from our office appear to influence judicial decision making.

High alignment (90+%) between our PR recommendations and court orders (below, left).

Partial alignment (36%) with Cash Only recommendations; most (53%) result in Cash/Surety order (below, right).

Generally, cases heard at advisement have high court appearance rates.

Most cases are ordered to Pretrial Services and have an overall appearance rate of 88%. Risk level is the strongest predictor, with appearance rates ranging from 95% for CPAT 1 defendants to 70% for CPAT 4 defendants. Generally, felony cases have higher appearance rates than misdemeanor cases. Assault (93%) and DUI (95%) cases show some of the highest court appearance rates, while drug possession (<70%) and theft (76%) cases have lower appearance rates.(2)

Cash Only bonds appear to have a greater impact on both court appearance rates and pretrial detention than Cash/Surety bonds.

Bond Type/Amount and Court Appearance. Generally, cases that post Cash/Surety bonds are more likely to result in a Failure to Appear (FTA) than cases that post a Cash Only bond.(3,4)

Additionally, the relationship between Cash Only bond amount and FTA appears strong: as the bond amount increases, the rate of FTA decreases consistently (below, light blue). In contrast, FTA appears less dependent on Cash/Surety bond amounts, particularly between $0 and $9,999. Cases with Cash/Surety bonds in the $5,000-$9,999 range have only slightly lower FTA rates than those with Cash/Surety bonds between $0-$499 (below, dark blue).

Bond Type/Amount and Pretrial Detention. The ordered bond type and amount also impact the likelihood of pretrial detention.(5)

For Cash Only bonds, pretrial detention becomes increasingly likely as the bond amount increases (below, light blue). In contrast, Cash/Surety bond amounts show little effect on pretrial detention until reaching $10,000, with a pronounced jump in detention for bonds $100,000 or more (below, dark blue).

Key Finding: A $10,000 out-of-pocket “tipping point” guides our bond recommendations.

Our regular review and analyses of data have revealed several key insights that now inform our office’s bond recommendation practices:

• Most individuals ordered to a secured monetary bond (Cash Only or Cash/Surety) are released pretrial.
• Secured monetary bonds primarily delay release: as the bond amount increases, the time to release from jail increases.

• The “tipping point” for majority detention is $10,000 out-of-pocket. Most defendants ordered to Cash Only bonds of $10,000 or more, or Cash/Surety bonds of $100,000 or higher (6), are not released.

Structured Decision Making decreases disparities at initial bond setting.

In addition to prioritizing community safety, our bond policy is part of the office’s broader strategy to promote equitable outcomes for both defendants and victims.

In 2022 (below, left), our office was more likely to recommend PR bonds for white defendants (53%) than for non-white defendants (49%). This difference was only partially explained by variations in charge type and assessed risk. Judicial orders showed a similar pattern (below, right).

By 2025, our recommendations for white and non-white defendants are nearly identical (below, left). Because our requests strongly influence judicial bond orders, judicial decision making has also shifted in a more equitable direction, although the gap has not closed completely (below, right).

These results are highly encouraging, suggesting that the initial bond settings are approaching equity. However, many Cash Only bonds are later converted to Cash/Surety at subsequent hearings. Our office plans to continue analyzing the impacts of evolving bond practices on community safety, racial equity, and case outcomes.

Acknowledgment: Some of our analyses of pretrial outcomes and detention were made possible through collaboration with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and Jefferson County Justice Services. We are grateful for their partnership.

Notes

1. The data include pre-policy advisements from early 2021. Since implementation, Cash/Surety requests are typically 2-3% of recommendations and usually represent warrant cases where a Cash/Surety bond was previously set and the DDA makes a passive request of not objecting to “keeping bond as set.”
2. Justice Services analysis (John Hilgendorf). These data are only for cases where the person is released pretrial and assigned to Pretrial Services; it does not include cases where the individual is still in custody.
3. Here, FTA is measured as “at least one FTA on the case” according to our data dashboard.
4. This may be consistent with the “skin in the game” argument about secured money bonds; individuals posting cash receive their money (skin) back whereas posting a cash/surety bond requires a non-refundable deposit.
5. Here, pretrial detention is defined as three days or more in jail pretrial, according to our data dashboard.
6. Surety bonds typically require a 10% non-refundable deposit.

The First Judicial District Attorney’s Office serves both Jefferson and Gilpin Counties. Within our office, we are the prosecutors dedicated specifically to Gilpin County: Senior Deputy District Attorney Bruce Brown primarily handles felony cases, while Deputy District Attorney Robert Vanneste focuses on misdemeanors.

Jefferson County is one of the most populous counties in Colorado, with over 576,000 residents. In contrast, Gilpin is the second-smallest county in the state by size, and has a population of just under 6,000. Despite representing only about 1% of the population we serve, Gilpin County accounts for 6% of our total caseload, a disproportionately high share. So, why is that?

Gilpin County may be small, but it is unique. In addition to beautiful mountain peaks, abundant wildlife, and plentiful recreation opportunities, it is home to the Central City-Black Hawk National Historic District, which honors Gilpin’s pivotal role in the mid-19th-century gold rush and the formation of Colorado as a territory, and later, a state. Before the gold rush, the land that is now Gilpin County was home to Indigenous peoples, including the Ute, Arapaho, and Cheyenne tribes, who lived, hunted, and traveled throughout the region for generations.

Today, Black Hawk and Central City, along with Cripple Creek in Teller County, are the three historic mountain towns where Colorado voters approved limited-stakes gambling in 1990, with casinos opening in 1991. Since then, subsequent ballot measures and legislation have expanded gaming by removing bet limits, adding new types of games, and allowing 24-hour casino operations. Black Hawk and Central City dominate Colorado’s gaming market, generating approximately 85% of statewide casino revenue among the three towns

Crime Trends Unique to Vice Tourism

On a typical day, more than 20,000 people visit Gilpin County. Unlike other high-country tourist destinations such as Summit, Eagle, and Pitkin Counties, where visitors primarily come for outdoor recreation, Gilpin County experiences a unique form of “vice tourism” centered around gaming. Combined with a small resident population, this steady influx of visitors drawn to gaming contributes to disproportionately high crime and case rates in the County. The majority (70%) of cases we file in Gilpin County are gaming-related, which means the crime occurred in a casino, after leaving a casino, or is otherwise related to gaming activity.

The case types that are most likely to be gaming-related are drug and property cases, which include charges like theft, forgery, and fraud. Approximately 80% of these are gaming-related.

For certain categories of property cases, the connection is even stronger: about 90% of theft charges, 89% of identity theft charges, and 88% of forgery charges are gaming-related, highlighting the central role gaming plays in driving these offenses.

Approximately one quarter of gaming-related theft cases are felony level, where the theft is typically more than $2,000.

Disproportionately High Crime and Case Rates

Criminal justice indicators are usually compared across different places as rates, which are crimes or cases per 100,000 population. In 2024, our deputy district attorneys handled 20,422 cases for Jefferson County and 997 for Gilpin County. When adjusted for county populations, Jefferson County had a criminal case rate of 3,537 per 100,000 residents, while Gilpin’s case rate was 16,841 - illustrating the outsized contribution that Gilpin County makes to our office’s caseload.

Again, some specific case rates really stand out. DUI case rates in Gilpin County are the highest in the state, and property crime (charges like theft, trespass, and criminal mischief) case rates are more than five times those in Jefferson County, likely reflecting the combined influence of gaming, alcohol use, and drug consumption.

Although not every reported crime results in a filed criminal case, these elevated case rates are the result of some of the highest crime rates in Colorado. In addition to the highest DUI case rate, Gilpin reported the second-highest property crime rate in the state. The high property crime rate is primarily driven by larceny theft (3,547 per 100,000 population). Larceny theft is an FBI-defined category that includes thefts from persons, motor vehicles, buildings, and coin-operated devices or machines. The offense counts are reported by local law enforcement agencies to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). The visualization below illustrates Gilpin’s larceny theft rates compared to those of Jefferson County and the statewide average.

Prosecuting a Tourist-Driven Caseload

Another result of gaming tourism is that overwhelmingly, individuals charged with a crime in Gilpin County are visitors from outside the area. While about half of Jefferson County defendants reside outside of Jefferson County, 90% of our Gilpin County cases involve a defendant who does not live in Gilpin County.

Transportation to Gilpin County Courts is challenging and can be burdensome for victims, witnesses, and defendants alike. Casino shuttles run between metro Denver and Gilpin County, but the courthouse is still a three-mile uphill walk from the bus stop. Although Gilpin County judges have allowed more virtual appearances and greater scheduling flexibility, transportation challenges likely still contribute to Gilpin’s higher failure to appear (FTA) rate - 12.6% compared to 8.1% in Jefferson County over the past 18 months. The text reminder program also appears to have less impact on Gilpin cases. These factors may help explain why Gilpin cases are overrepresented in active warrants: they make up 8% of warrants despite accounting for only 6% of our overall caseload.

A recent felony case illustrates the challenges of our Gilpin caseload. A couple from the Denver area drove to a casino where they spent the evening consuming alcohol and gambling. Early the next morning, an argument escalated, and the defendant physically assaulted his wife, causing serious bodily injury. As she fled, he reportedly threatened to kill her. He was later arrested by a Black Hawk Police officer after returning to the casino.

To ensure victims in Gilpin County receive the necessary support, our office has a dedicated Victim/Witness Specialist, Linda Smith, assigned to all Gilpin felony cases. Linda plays a critical role in guiding victims through the criminal justice process, providing trauma-informed emotional support, connecting them with vital services, and serving as a steady point of contact throughout each stage of the case. Many Gilpin victims, like in this case, live outside the area, making it more difficult to meet with them in person and provide the same level of support offered to victims in Jefferson County. Victims are also less likely to attend court hearings in person. Virtual technology helps bridge this gap, but can hinder the relationship-building and trust that often come from face-to-face interactions.

These are just some of the challenges resulting from the intersection of alcohol, gambling, and domestic violence that we often encounter in Gilpin County, and the resulting complexities of prosecuting these cases and effectively serving the victims.

Gaming Impact Grants

The Gilpin County Board of County Commissioners and County Accountant secured Limited Gaming Impact Grant funding through the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to support victims and ensure accountability for offenders. This grant program reflects the legislature’s acknowledgement of the financial and social impacts gaming imposes on local communities. While the funding helps mitigate the disproportionate burden placed on our office by gaming-related prosecutions, it covers less than half of the actual cost of handling these cases.

Summary

From the gold rush of 1859 to today, Gilpin County has remained Colorado’s destination for those in search of riches. With legalized gambling as its central economic engine, Gilpin sees a steady influx of visitors engaging in high-risk environments that involve cash, alcohol, and sometimes drugs. Data shows these environments create conditions ripe for crimes like theft, forgery, identity fraud, DUIs, drugs, and domestic violence. Even though Gilpin’s population is small, the volume and nature of its tourism-driven crime create a disproportionately large impact on our caseload and the criminal justice system in the First Judicial District.