- “Every day, we see the difference it makes when people are met with support rather than punishment. Freedom should be free — and no one should sit in jail simply because they cannot afford to buy it.” – David Gaspar, Chief Executive Officer of The Bail Project
Amid increasingly heated political debate over pretrial policy, The Bail Project is releasing new findings from a dataset of more than 40,000 cases, showing that people released without cash bail returned to court 92 percent of the time. The organization said the data adds new evidence challenging claims used to justify expanding pretrial detention.
The Bail Project announced that it has now supported more than 40,000 people through bail assistance, supportive services, and pretrial pilot programs since its founding. The organization describes its mission as ending cash bail and creating a fairer and more humane pretrial system.
The group said that legally innocent people are held in jail every day solely because they cannot afford bail, often for low-level, nonviolent charges. The Bail Project provides free bail assistance, court reminders, transportation and community referrals in jurisdictions where judges have already deemed clients eligible for release. According to the organization, people who received bail assistance returned to court 92 percent of the time.
More than 6,000 people have received help through pretrial pilot programs focused on addressing practical barriers to court return. Sites in Chicago, Washtenaw County and St. Louis include community hubs such as the Tap-In Center, which assists individuals in resolving warrants and accessing services.
Since 2018, the organization reports that its work has prevented more than 1.4 million days of incarceration, saved more than $109 million in taxpayer costs and provided nearly $104 million in free bail assistance while operating in 29 jurisdictions. Nearly one-third of clients ultimately had all their cases dismissed.
“This milestone underscores both the scale of the national crisis of unaffordable bail and pretrial detention, and the transformative impact that collective care can have in confronting it,” said David Gaspar, Chief Executive Officer of The Bail Project. “Every day, we see the difference it makes when people are met with support rather than punishment. Freedom should be free — and no one should sit in jail simply because they cannot afford to buy it.”
“Our clients are our teachers,” said Robert Brown, National Director of Operations at The Bail Project. “We meet people at some of the hardest moments of their lives — scared, isolated, and unsure what comes next. When someone realizes that a stranger believes in them enough to show up, to pay their bail with no strings attached, to help them get to court or access support, something shifts. It restores dignity. It rebuilds hope. And as our 92% appearance rate shows, people rise to that trust every single day.”
The organization pairs direct services with legislative advocacy, public education and research that seeks to shift understanding of what a functioning pretrial system should look like. Its advocacy team works on reforms that remove financial conditions of release and reduce jail populations. Its research and communications staff produce analysis and public education aimed at countering punitive narratives around bail.
The Bail Project says it is supported by more than half a million donors, with an average donation under $100. Because bail is returned at the end of a case, the organization’s revolving bail fund continually recycles itself. According to the group, a single donated dollar from 2017 has already helped free 10 people in 2025.
The release of the new dataset comes as national institutions continue to scrutinize the civil rights implications of cash bail. In 2022, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a report finding that between 1970 and 2015, pretrial detention increased by 433 percent and that pretrial detainees now make up a larger proportion of the incarcerated population.
The report noted racial and gender disparities in detention and financial conditions of release, with higher rates imposed on Black and Latinx individuals, and found that more than 60 percent of defendants are detained pretrial because they cannot afford to post bail.
The Commission outlined multiple consequences of pretrial detention, including a greater likelihood of conviction, increased housing and employment instability, and an increased likelihood of future criminal conduct.
“More than half-a-million unconvicted people sit in jails across the nation awaiting trial,” said Norma V. Cantú, Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “Presumption of innocence is the bedrock of our criminal justice system, with liberty the rule and pre-trial detention intended to be a ‘carefully limited exception,’” she observed. “Under the current bail system, it has become the norm.”
As policymakers debate expanding detention, the data arrives amid ongoing criticism of cashless bail from political leaders and prosecutors.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked bail reform in campaign speeches and on social media, arguing that releasing people without cash bail leads to spikes in crime. His criticism has been part of a broader national push to roll back bail reform measures, often framing them as threats to public safety.
The Vanguard has extensively covered similar claims by Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, who has argued that zero-bail policies increase crime. Reisig has repeatedly pointed to a Yolo County study purporting to show that people released under temporary zero-bail rules during the pandemic committed new offenses at higher rates.
However, the Vanguard’s reporting found that the study relied on highly selective data and presented misleading comparisons.
The methodology included combining all re-arrests without distinguishing severity, failing to control for the unique conditions of the pandemic and using a small sample size that limited the study’s validity.
Additional reporting found that many individuals included in Reisig’s dataset had been arrested multiple times by the same small group of officers, suggesting over-policing rather than a failure of bail policy.
The Vanguard also reported that statewide data contradicted Reisig’s conclusions.
Studies from the Public Policy Institute of California and the Judicial Council of California showed little evidence that zero-bail policies caused crime increases during the pandemic. In addition, statewide re-arrest and court appearance rates remained largely consistent with pre-pandemic patterns.
Researchers and policy advocates have argued that mischaracterizations of pretrial release have been used to build political support for restricting pretrial freedom. In this context, The Bail Project’s 92 percent appearance rate and dismissal data challenge the assumptions behind these arguments and present an alternative view of pretrial policy focused on stability, support and due process rather than cash-based detention.
The organization said it will continue scaling a national model centered on dignity and support while advancing reforms aimed at ending cash bail entirely.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“The Bail Project is releasing new findings from a dataset of more than 40,000 cases, showing that people released without cash bail returned to court 92 percent of the time.”
And of those 92%, 90% showed up in court for the first crime BECAUSE they were arrested again for something else – and then weren’t released at all.
Just sarcasm, but I don’t believe any figures coming out of the “Bail Project” should be accepted without objective analysis.
In any case, what does the Bail Project report regarding the percentage that show up when cash bail IS used?
And by the way, what happens to that money at each step of the process (including for those who never show up, and aren’t captured by “Dog, the bounty hunter”?) Never have seen that show, but I’m not sure who I’d be rooting for if I did see it.
Might be interesting if you looked at the data rather than blindly casting doubt
As an investigative journalist with a deep interest in this subject, perhaps analyzing the data is something that you’d be interested in doing in an objective manner. Obviously, the two key words (as always) are “analysis” and “objective” – not just “looking” at the data. In other words, it takes some real effort – more than just parroting what some advocacy group you already support claims to be the case.
As for me, I’d rather watch an episode of Dog, the Bounty Hunter (and I don’t want to do that, either).
Anyone can offer skepticism in the internet age. Offering insight that’s rare. When Reisig put out his foe-bail study, a graduate student combed through it to actually analyze and find the flaws in it. It was really bad.
BTW, I know you don’t care, but I’m not an investigative journalist. I am mainly an editor and supervisor of around 50 to 100 people and write 1 to 2 daily pieces depending on a variety of factors. The Vanguard has the capacity to do about five truly investigative pieces are year – plus we may get a few extras from folks aligned with us. We have one that we’ve been working on for the last few months.
It takes some writing talent to “offer skepticism”. For example, the sarcastic comment I put forth could actually be true (got arrested again for something else, which means they aren’t “voluntarily” showing up).
Would have to look at all kinds of factors, including (but obviously not limited to) the type of alleged crimes that were committed within that “92%” (e.g., was it a subset of crimes eligible for no-cash bail), how/where the sample was gathered, analyzed, etc.
And then a direct comparison (using the same factors) in regard to cash bail.
As for Reisig’s study, I didn’t look at that one either.
But you didn’t answer my actual question, regarding what happens to bail money at each step (including for no-shows). I realize I can research that on my own, but it might be of general interest to your readers. (As would an objective analysis of ANY figures/statistics put forth – regardless of whether or not you support an underlying advocacy. If you started doing this, you’d increase the credibility of the Vanguard itself.)
It’s just as “easy” to parrot another organization’s study, as it is to offer skepticism. Neither of these take all that much effort.
What do you mean by the question “what happens to bail money at each step” – that question doesn’t make sense to me. Generally speaking people who bail out, put down 10 percent, go to a bail bondsman who puts down the remainder and that ten percent is gone (the bondsman recoups his portion). It’s also a one-time cost. The bigger issue is the determination of whether someone should be held in custody, released on OR, or held on bail and then how much that bail is and whether can be afforded. It gets complicated from there, but generally speaking there are no steps, bail is determined at arraignment. Occasionally a judge could reconsider one way or the other depending on changed circumstances. So what exactly is your question?
Thanks. My main question is, does the court keep the money, when the defendant doesn’t show up?
And if so, does the bail company then lose out? If so, enter “Dog” I guess. Or Clint Eastwood from 60 years ago.
What normally is that the judge will forfeit the bail and remand the person to custody or reinstate the bail following a missed appearance. The bail doesn’t really become some sort of fund for the court.generally.
I guess the point of my question is that retaining the bail money is a form of “compensation” to the taxpayer-funded court system, resulting from a defendant’s continuing actions. We’re all paying for the legal system – including totally-innocent people like Mr. Fred Rogers (RIP).
Of course, if defendants are found guilty, there’s no compensation (reimbursement) to the legal/court/correction systems whatsoever.
Those who commit crimes create a lot of additional costs (beyond the damage they inflict upon direct victims).
Generally bail is not retained by the government, it’s merely a means to ensure appearances.
Well, we just noted that the court system keeps bail money when defendants don’t show up. And presumably, “Dog” (or the company hiring him?) loses out.
Who/what ultimately gets that money, when the defendant never shows up? Does the court system simply sit on that money, in case the defendant is ultimately caught? Is it forfeited permanently, at some point?
Again, there is no final “don’t show up.” Usually someone misses an appearance, a bench warrant issued, the person shows up, the warrant is recalled, and they reinstate bail and set the next appearance.
There are almost certainly incidences when a defendant never shows up (is never caught, flees the country, dies, etc.). Probably a small minority.
Seems odd if a court “reinstates bail” (which is never kept by the court system?) for someone who skipped out the first time. Hopefully, the court system is getting SOMETHING out of these ne’r-do-wells in regard to their ongoing cost.
As you said, that’s not the normal situation. Normally what you have are being that are homeless and quasi-homeless, they are hard to reach, they don’t have reliable transportation, and they tend to miss hearings but not skip town.