Bail Reform Rhetoric: All Talk and No Data
We have all heard the sad stories about poor people being locked up in jail all because they can't afford a bail bond.
We have all heard the sad stories about poor people being locked up in jail all because they can't afford a bail bond. We have heard the stories about the research that shows that you can just release people from jail with no accountability and your communities will be safer. We have all heard that alternatives to secured bail are more fair and more equitable. With all that being said, what we haven't seen through all the stories and the promises is the data that supports them...or what we like to call...the truth.
In a recent article in the California Post, the author, Ari Hoffman, talks about bail reform around the country. The piece argues that progressive criminal-justice reforms in blue states and cities, especially reduced cash bail, limited pretrial detention, diversion programs, and alternatives to incarceration have created a “revolving door” for repeat offenders. Police arrest people, prosecutors sometimes charge them, and then reform policies quickly return them to the streets.
The author discusses one of these reform programs, Seattle’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program, launched in 2011. LEAD diverts low-level offenders from jail and prosecution into case management and social services, with the stated goal of cutting recidivism. Early claims were dramatic: participants were said to be 58% less likely to be arrested, felony charges dropped 39%, and participants were far more likely to find employment and permanent housing.
Hoffman says that when he met LEAD architect Lisa Daugaard in 2019, her team offered anecdotes but no hard data. A recent analysis by Eric Zimmerman of the Washington Policy Center now examines the numbers and finds little or no clear reduction in arrests compared with a control group. Employment outcomes were poor (about 91% of participants remained unemployed), and housing success was very limited. These results compare unfavorably with broader post-incarceration employment data.
Despite the weak evidence, LEAD received major praise (including a MacArthur Fellowship for Daugaard) and spread rapidly. A Santa Fe pilot even showed higher average arrests among participants. The Obama administration, New York (including statewide legislation under Gov. Cuomo), California, New Jersey, Congress, and dozens of other jurisdictions adopted or funded versions of the model, often citing the original 58% recidivism-reduction claim. Hoffman links this philosophy to New York’s 2019 bail reforms.
Hoffman contends that jurisdictions should stop funding these programs on the basis of unverified or overstated claims. He calls for independent audits and transparent data on arrests, employment, housing, and other outcomes before expanding such “soft-on-crime” approaches further.
