Caven’s report exposes how failed policies fueled Colorado crime and created a safety crisis

By C. J. Garbo | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice

Elizabeth Caven’s Crisis of Safety report merits serious attention. It is grounded in empirical data and addresses one of the most urgent public policy failures facing Colorado: the collapse of public‑safety outcomes amid rising crime, diminished law‑enforcement presence, and liberal reform policies that weaken accountability. According to Advance Colorado’s public‑safety section, the state is “in the midst of a crime tsunami,” with property theft and violent crime at 25‑year highs.

1. Data‑Driven Approach

The report builds on strong factual foundations: credible crime‑rate increases (for both property and violent crime), sharp rises in auto theft, and clear indicators of diminished police per capita. For example, the Common Sense Institute finds Colorado’s public‑safety competitiveness index declined from 24th to 31st among states from 2011 to 2023, with violent crime up 52.7 % in that period.

By anchoring its analysis in such quantitative trends the report avoids ideological posturing and presents a sober diagnosis.

2. Accountability Focus

The authors correctly highlight structural weaknesses: early release policies, insufficient sentencing of violent offenders, diminished law‑enforcement resources, and judicial practices (such as cashless or minimal‑bond release of dangerous criminals) that undermine community safety. These are not partisan exaggerations but documented failures that merit reform.

3. Clear Recommendations

Importantly, the report does not stop at diagnosis. It proposes concrete reforms – such as requiring violent offenders to serve 85 % of sentences (Truth‑in‑Sentencing), strengthening penalties for repeat offenders, ensuring law‑enforcement retention and training, and closing loopholes in pretrial release policies. Such policy clarity marks the report as actionable and pragmatic.

4. Alignment with Conservative Principles

From a conservative perspective, the report resonates deeply because it affirms the fundamental role of government: protecting life, liberty, and property. It challenges left‑wing narratives that tend to privilege ideologies of reform over outcomes, that treat crime as symptom rather than cause, and that view the criminal‑justice system as primarily adversarial to offenders rather than protective of victims. In doing so, it recovers the conservative emphasis on personal responsibility, strong institutions, and measurable public‑goods outcomes.

Additional Insights to Strengthen the Author’s Case

A. The Displacement of Victims

One dimension deserving more emphasis is the human cost: when crime surges and safety erodes, the migration of productive citizens, businesses, and entrepreneurs accelerates. Colorado can no longer afford to import only its challenges – brain‑drain of safe‑seeking families and capital flight from communities torn by violence are self‑reinforcing. The positive relationship between public‑safety metrics and economic growth is well‑documented. Halting the slide is not just moral but economic.

B. Reforming Incentive Structures

While the report advocates longer sentences for violent criminals, it should also push for reforming incentive structures in local governments. For example, police‑department budgets should be decoupled from “community satisfaction” metrics that deprioritize arrests or investigations. Similarly, prosecutorial offices should be held accountable for clearance rates in serious crimes rather than just case loads. This aligns with a conservative reform philosophy: aligning incentives with the purpose of institutions.

C. Reasserting the Moral Frame

Beyond statistics and sentencing, the report could more deeply integrate a moral‑cultural analysis. Safety is not solely a technical issue – it is a reflection of social norms. When communities tolerate lawlessness, discount victimhood, or view law‑enforcement as purely adversarial, institutions collapse. Conservatives supporting the report’s recommendations should also press for stronger civic renewal: neighborhood associations, parental leadership in schools, mentoring programs, and faith‑based engagement that reinforces pro‑social behavior.

D. Preventative Investment, Not Just Reactive

While prolonging sentences of violent offenders is essential, true competitiveness in public safety requires investment in crime prevention and rehabilitation. Redirecting funds toward outpatient drug‑treatment programs for fentanyl, mentoring at‑risk youth, vocational training for former offenders, and community‑policing models yields long‑term savings and improved outcomes. The report’s recommendations could be strengthened by a holistic approach: enforcement plus prevention.

E. Highlighting the Feedback Loop

The report should emphasize the feedback loop between crime, governance, and civic trust. High crime reduces public trust in institutions. Reduced trust leads to lower cooperation and less community reporting. That in turn fosters further crime. Breaking this loop is essential. The report advances this implicitly; a more explicit articulation would mobilize broader coalitions (including business leaders, civic organizations, and faith communities) to restore confidence, not merely reform policy.

Conclusion

In sum, Caven’s Crisis of Safety report is a well‑constructed, evidence‑based, and principled document. It diagnoses one of Colorado’s most urgent policy crises, offers actionable reforms grounded in conservative philosophy, and aligns institutional integrity with public‑goods outcomes. From a scholarly conservative standpoint, it deserves full support.

Yet the battle does not end with acceptance of its findings. The real task lies in mobilizing reform – to ensure that Colorado’s leadership moves from symbolic commitments to tangible, measurable change. Communities, lawmakers, police agencies, and citizens must together embrace the reforms – and also invest in culture, prevention, and civic renewal.

If Colorado fails to heed this warning, then the downward trends captured in the report will become the lived reality of more neighborhoods and towns. The time for cautious study has passed. Now is the time for bold action.

C. J. Garbo is a law enforcement veteran and seasoned political strategist with over 15 years of experience in public safety, policy analysis, and campaign leadership. He has served on multiple local and regional government commissions, and brings a rigorous understanding of criminal justice, governance, and community impact to his writing. Garbo’s work emphasizes data-driven reasoning, accountability in public institutions, and the preservation of constitutional freedoms. His insight into law enforcement systems and political processes makes him a trusted voice in matters of public policy and safety.

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.