STATISTICAL
REPORT
2014
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS RICK RAEMISCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Letter from the Director
W
elcome to the Colorado Department of Corrections’ Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Statistical Report. The MISSION of the Colorado Department of Corrections is “To Protect the Citizens of Colorado by Holding
Offenders Accountable and Engaging Them in Opportunities to Make Positive Behavioral Changes and Become Law-Abiding, Productive Citizens.” Our VISION is in “Building a Safer Colorado for Today and Tomorrow.” We strive to accomplish these through our greatest resource, our staff: Correctional Professionals who honor and respect the rights of victims; who engage in safe, humane and effective correctional practices; who deliver exceptional correctional services; and who are dedicated to providing opportunities for offender success, thereby ensuring for long-term public safety. This statistical report provides an overview of the jurisdictional population of 31,490 offenders (20,715 inmates, 10,775 parolees). As you will see, the inmate population has fallen by 10% over the past four fiscal years. We are pleased to report that the Colorado Department of Corrections is leading the nation with several strategic initiatives. These include yet are not limited to: administrative segregation reforms; Residential Treatment Programs for offenders with serious mental illnesses; and on-going parole, re-entry and pre-release initiatives. Of significance, the use of administrative segregation was eliminated within the Colorado Department of Corrections in FY 2014, being replaced with newly developed Restrictive Housing policies and practices. As a result, the rate of staff assaults has decreased by nearly 25% when compared to last fiscal year. It is our hope that the information contained within this FY 2014 Statistical Report will provide both the public and private sectors an appreciation of the tremendous efforts demonstrated by our staff, who work within a framework of available resources to provide public safety while meeting and addressing the needs of our offender population.
Sincerely,
Rick Raemisch Executive Director Colorado Department of Corrections
Foreword
Foreword
T
he Colorado Department of Corrections’ (CDOC) Office of Planning and Analysis (OPA) is pleased to present its revamped Annual Statistical Report. OPA has undertaken efforts
to create a more reader-friendly and cognizant summary of the CDOC offender population. The reader will notice new graphing approaches that illustrate populations and trends in a more meaningful fashion. Many large data tables found in previous statistical reports have been moved to an electronic appendix that can be found as Microsoft Excel spreadsheet files on the CDOC website under the “Departmental Reports and Statistics” section. All of the data presented as percentages in this report are available as numbers in the appendix. All data found in this Annual Statistical Report is based on fiscal year unless otherwise noted.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents Overview 1 Introduction 1 Population Growth 1 Crime, Prison Sentence & Incarceration Rates 3 Legislative Changes 4 Population Projections 11 Prison Facilities 12 Facility Capacities 14 Annual Inmate Costs 14 Full-time Employees 16
Inmate Admissions 19 Demographic Characteristics 20 Offense Data 21 County of Commitment 23 Gender Comparison 23
Table of Contents 23 Length of Stay 23 Habitual Offender Sentences 26 Lifetime Supervision Sex Offender Sentences 27 Risk & Needs Assessments 29 Inmate Releases 30 Releases by Type 32 Time Served in Prison 34 Profile of Inmate Releases
37 Inmate Population Characteristics 37 Inmate Population 38 Custody Classification & Status 40 Most Serious Offense 42 Inmate Profile 44 Aging Trends 47 Needs Levels 49 Risk Assessment 50 Reportable Incidents 50 Assaults & Use of Force 51 Deaths in Custody 52 Escapes 54 Program Participation 57 Parole Population Characteristics 57 Parole Population
Table of Contents Parole Caseload 57 Parolee Profile 59 Needs Levels 60 Parole Supervision Outcomes 61
Recidivism Rates
65
Figures
Figures Figure 1. Average Daily Jurisdictional Population 1 Figure 2. Average Daily Jurisdictional Population Percent Change 2 Figure 3. Average Inmate Jurisdictional Population by Location 2 Figure 4. Average Inmate Jurisdictional Population 2 Figure 5. 10-Year Crime, Prison Sentence & Incarceration Rates 3 Figure 6. 2013 Incarceration Rates 4 Figure 7. DCJ & LCS Inmate Projections vs. Actual CDOC Inmate Population 12 Figure 8. DCJ & LCS Parole Projections vs. Actual CDOC Parole Population 12 Figure 9. CDOC State & Private Facilities 13 Figure 10. Employee Demographics 18 Figure 11. Correctional Officers by Rank 18 Figure 12. Employees Per Facility 18
Figures
19 Figure 13. Admissions & Releases 20 Figure 14. Admission Trends Over Time 21 Figure 15. Admission Type by Gender 22 Figure 16. Admission Type by Most Serious Offense 24 Figure 17. Percent of Court Commitments & Technical Returns by County of Conviction
25 Figure 18. Court Commitments Most Serious Offense by Gender 26 Figure 19. Habitual Offender Commitments 27 Figure 20. Court Commitments Needs Levels 28 Figure 21. Court Commitments LSI-R Risk Distribution 30 Figure 22. Inmate Release Types 30 Figure 23. Type of Parole Releases 31 Figure 24. Governing Sentence by Release Type 32 Figure 25. Release Type by Release Location
33 Figure 26. Court Commitments: Governing Sentence & Time Served in Prison 35 Figure 27. Profile of Releases 36 Figure 28. Mandatory vs. Discretionary Parole Releases 37 Figure 29. Jurisdictional Inmate Population by Location on June 30, 2014
Figures Figure 30. End of Year Classification Levels, FY 2013 & FY 2014 38 Figure 31. Status of Incarcerated Inmate Population 39 Figure 32. Administrative Segregation Population Over Time 40 Figure 33. Most Serious Offense 41
Figure 34. Percent of Inmate Population Serving Life/Lifetime Sentences 42
Figure 35. Jurisdictional Inmate Population Characteristics 43
Figure 36. Female Inmate Population Characteristics 45
Figure 37. Community-Based Inmate Population Characteristics 46
Figure 38. Aging Population Trends 47
Figure 39. Needs Levels 48
Figure 40. Mental Health Needs 49
Figure 41. LSI-R Risk Distributions by Gender 49 Figure 42. Rate of Incidents Per 10,000 Offenders 51 Figure 43. Number of Incidents 51
Figure 44. Deaths in Custody 52
Figure 45. Cause of Death 52
Figure 46. Inmate Escapes 53
Figures 55 Figure 47. Participation in Programs 55 Figure 48. Program Completions 57 Figure 49. Average Daily Parole Caseload 58 Figure 50. Parole Office Caseload on June 30, 2014 59 Figure 51. Total Parole Population on June 30, 2014 60 Figure 52. Domestic Parole Profile on June 30, 2014 61 Figure 53. Domestic Parole Gender Comparison 62 Figure 54. Domestic Parole Supervision Type Comparison 63 Figure 55. Domestic Parolee Needs Levels 63 Figure 56. Parole Supervision Outcomes 66 Figure 57. 3-Year Recidivism Rate Over Time 67 Figure 58. Recidivism Rates by Return Type 68 Figure 59. Recidivists’ Time Out of Prison Before Returning, CY 2011 Release Cohort 69 Figure 60. 3-Year Recidivism Rate by Offender Characteristics
Tables
Tables Table 1. Presumptive Sentencing Ranges & Parole Periods 6 Table 2. Habitual Sentencing Law Changes 7 Table 3. Facility Populations & Capacities 15 Table 4. Cost Per Offender by Facility 17 Table 5. Adult Admissions 20 Table 6. Estimated Average Length of Stay (Months) 25 Table 7. Habitual Offender Sentences (Years) 26 Table 8. Lifetime Supervision Sentences (Years) 26 Table 9. Inmate Release Types by Gender 31
Overview
Overview INTRODUCTION
C
FIGURE 1 Average Daily Jurisdictional Population
DOC’s statistical report provides an analysis of Colorado’s prison system.
This
overview
describes
growth
trends,
34,679
34,064
population projections, facilities, costs and
11,470
10,985
staff data. Subsequent sections focus on admis-
229
265
33,024 10,748 267
32,125
31,490
11,313
10,775
261
237
sions, releases, inmate and parolee characteristics, and recidivism rates. Both inmate and
22,980
22,814
22,009
20,551
20,478
produced for the Youthful Offender System
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
(YOS).
Parole Population
parole populations are represented in this report, though a separate annual report is
YOS Population Inmate Population
POPULATION GROWTH The average daily population (ADP) is used
Figure 2 details the one-, five- and 10-year
to measure trends in the CDOC population.
growth rates of the jurisdictional population.
Figure 1 shows the ADP of the inmate, parole
Inmate and YOS populations have seen min-
(including absconders and interstate parolees),
imal increase over the past decade; the parole
YOS and total populations over the past five
population has experienced a substantial in-
years. There was a 9.2% decrease in CDOC’s
crease over the last decade.
jurisdictional population from FYs 2010 to 2014.
Figures 3 and 4 provide the ADP breakdown for state and private prisons, community corrections, jail backlog and jail contracts. Private
1
Overview
FIGURE 2 Average Daily Jurisdictional Population Percent Change YOS
Total
20K
5 Yr Change
Offenders
13% -9%
15K
10K
5K
10 Yr Change
5 Yr Change
-2% 1 Yr Change
10 Yr Change
5 Yr Change
1 Yr Change
10 Yr Change
-9%
-6% 5 Yr Change
-5% 1 Yr Change
1 Yr Change
6%
3%
46%
Parole
1% 10 Yr Change
-11% 5 Yr Change
0% 1 Yr Change
Percent Change
Inmate
FIGURE 4 Average Inmate Jurisdictional Population
0K 2010
10 Yr Change
2012
2014
Jails/Other
Private Prisons
Community
State Prisons
Note: Other includes fugitives, revocations in jail, awaiting transfer and external placements.
FIGURE 3 Average Inmate Jurisdictional Population by Location (N = 20,478) State Prisons
13,747
Private Prisons
3,792
Community
2,282
County Jails - Backlog
244
County Jails - Contracts
1
Other
412
percentage identical to that of the previous fiscal year. The number of inmates housed in private prisons has steadily decreased since FY 2009; the number of inmates housed at state-run prisons also declined during this time period.
prisons in use during FY 2014 included Bent County Correctional Facility, Crowley County Correctional Facility, Kit Carson Correctional Center and Cheyenne Mountain Re-Entry Center. In FY 2014, 22% of the incarcerated population was housed at private prisons — a 2
Overview
CRIME, PRISON SENTENCE & INCARCERATION RATES
computed per 100,000 Colorado residents during a calendar year (CY).
Figure 5 presents sentence, incarceration and
Figure
5
provides
data
on
crime,
crime rates since 2003. Crime rates 1, which
sentence and incarceration rates for the
include offense and arrest data, are calculat-
past 10 years. The crime rate has declined a
ed per calendar year and are available on a
dramatic 31.4% since 2003, though 2012’s
one-year delay. Prior to the FY 2011 statisti-
crime rate was slightly higher than that of
cal report, incarceration rates were estimat-
2011. The sentence rate was also slight-
ed by CDOC. As of FY 2012, incarceration
ly higher in 2013 than in 2012. The incar-
rates are reported by the U.S. Bureau of Jus-
ceration rate has declined each year since
tice Statistics (BJS) each December for the
2008. Overall, the incarceration rate has
previous year; therefore, 2013 data is the
decreased 10.7% since 2003; 2013 had the
most current. Prison sentence and incarcer-
lowest recorded rate during this time frame.
ation rates 2 are used as indicators of growth in the prison population relative to growth in
FIGURE 5 10-Year Crime, Prison Sentence & Incarceration Rates
the state populace, as estimated annually by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. Prison-sentence rates are calculated as the
4,298
4,438
ratio of the number of offenders sentenced to
Crime Rate (CY)
prison (i.e., court commitments) per 100,000
2,950
Colorado residents during a fiscal year. Incarceration rates and crime rates are Incarceration Rate (CY) Sentence Rate (FY)
430
1 Annual Crime in the United States reports, 2003-2013. Washington, D.C.: FBI.
384
127 2003
2 Annual Prisoners In reports, 2003-2013. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
3
115 2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
Overview Incarceration rates for all 50 U.S. states in
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
2013 are shown in Figure 6. Colorado’s rate of
Several key pieces of legislation passed since
incarceration ranked in the middle of the
1979 have impacted the size of the CDOC
nation.
prison population. The following is a summary of the House bills (HB) and Senate bills (SB) FIGURE 6 2013 Incarceration Rates
that have had the most significant effects on felony sentencing and CDOC.
Louisiana Mississippi Oklahoma Alabama Texas Arizona Arkansas Georgia Florida Missouri Idaho Kentucky Indiana South Carolina Ohio Virginia Delaware Michigan Tennessee South Dakota Wyoming Pennsylvania Oregon Colorado Illinois Wisconsin West Virginia Alaska Montana North Carolina California Maryland Connecticut Kansas New Mexico Iowa New York Nebraska Hawaii Washington New Jersey Vermont Utah New Hampshire North Dakota Rhode Island Massachusetts Minnesota Maine Nevada
• HB 79-1589 changed sentences from
indeterminate to determinate terms and made parole mandatory at 50% of an offender’s sentence. • HB 81-1156 required sentences to be
above the maximum of the presumptive range for offenses defined as “crimes of violence” and crimes with aggravating circumstances. • HB 85-1320 doubled the maximum pen-
alties of the presumptive ranges for all felony classes and made parole discretionary. • SB 88-148 lowered sentencing ranges
for crimes of violence and crimes with 0
200 400 600 800 Rate per 100,000 Residents
aggravating circumstances to at least the
4
Overview midpoint of the presumptive range.
with three previous convictions, sentenc-
• SB 89-246 lowered several Class 5 fel-
onies to a newly created felony Class 6 with a presumptive range of one to two years.
es were made to be four times the maximum of the presumptive range. Under HB 92-1302, if one’s latest conviction was for a crime of violence, one would be sentenced to life (40 years to parole
• HB 90-1327 raised the amount of earned
eligibility date). This bill also eliminat-
time from five to 10 days per month for
ed earned time awards while on parole.
inmates, and allowed parolees to earn
See Table 1 for a summary of presump-
10 days per month to reduce parole time
tive ranges by felony class prior to, and
served.
subsequent to, HB 93-1302. See Table 2
• SB 90-117 raised life sentences from
parole eligibility after 40 years to life without parole for Class 1 felonies committed on or after Sept. 20, 1991.
for a summary of habitual sentencing law changes. • Special Fall Session SB 93-09 created
a new judicial sentencing provision for
• HB 93-1302 lowered the presumptive
ranges for certain nonviolent Class 3 – 6
offenders between the ages of 14 and 18 for certain crimes, and established YOS.
felonies and added a split sentence, man-
• SB 94-196 added a new habitual sentenc-
dating a period of parole for all crimes
ing provision of life (40 years to parole
following a prison sentence. Habitual
eligibility) if a new crime conviction is
offender sentencing was changed for all
for a Class 1 or 2 felony, or for a Class 3
felony offenses Classes 2 – 5. For those
felony crime of violence with two previ-
with two previous convictions, sentences
ous felony convictions within 10 years of
were mandated to be three times the max-
commission of the new crime.
imum of the presumptive range; for those 5
Overview
TABLE 1 Presumptive Sentencing Ranges & Parole Periods 1985 – 1993
Felony Class
1993 – present
Presumptive Range
Mandatory Parole Perioda
Presumptive Range
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
1
8 year
24 year
8 year
24 year
5 year
2
4 year
16 year
4 year
16 year
5 year
3 Ext
4 year
16 year
4 year
16 year
5 year
3
4 year
16 year
4 year
12 year
5 year
4 Ext
2 year
8 year
2 year
8 year
3 year
4
2 year
8 year
2 year
6 year
3 year
5 Ext
1 year
4 year
1 year
4 year
2 year
5
1 year
4 year
1 year
3 year
2 year
6 Ext
1 year
2 year
1 year
2 year
1 year
6
1 year
2 year
1 year
1.5 year
1 year
Ext = extraordinary risk crimes a The mandatory parole period for unlawful sexual behavior and incest was five years for crimes committed before Nov. 1, 1998. However, the final ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court in July 2001 determined these offenses were not subject to mandatory parole. Most sexual offenses committed on or after Nov. 1, 1998, are subject to lifetime on parole.
• HB 95-1087 reinstated the ability of cer-
sentence of at least the minimum of the
tain nonviolent parolees to accumulate
presumptive range for the level of offense
earned time while on parole.
committed and a maximum of natural life. All offenders sentenced under this
• HB 96-1005 lowered the YOS age limit
law must undergo evaluation and treat-
from 14 to 12 years and broadened the
ment to be eligible for parole. The Col-
offenses eligible for YOS sentencing.
orado State Board of Parole determines
• HB 98-1156 is the Colorado Sex Offend-
when these offenders can be supervised
er Lifetime Supervision Act of 1998.
in the community.
Under it, all offenders convicted of a fel-
• HB 98-1160 applied to Class 2, 3, 4 and
ony sex offense committed on or after
5, or second or subsequent Class 6, felo-
Nov. 1, 1998, receive an indeterminate
nies occurring on or after July 1, 1998. It 6
Overview
TABLE 2 Habitual Sentencing Law Changes
Crime of Violence OR
Previous Convictions
Class 1 or 2 Felony, or Class 3 Felony Crime of Violence OR
Two
Three
Previous Habituala
2 Previous Class 1, 2 or 3 Crimes of Violenceb
Pre HB93-1302
25-50 year
Life (40-year PED)c
—
—
Post HB93-1302
3x maximum of presumptive range of felony
4x maximum of presumptive range of felony
Life (40-year PED)
—
Post SB94-196
3x maximum of presumptive range of felony
4x maximum of presumptive range of felony
Life (40-year PED)
Life (40-year PED)
Legislation
Note: A felony constitutes any felony in this state or another state in the United Stated or any territory subject to U.S. jurisdiction, or a crime that would be a felony if committed in this state. a Any person who is convicted and sentenced for habitual (three previous convictions) and is thereafter convicted of a felony that is a crime of violence. b Any person who is convicted of a Class 1 or 2 felony, or a Class 3 felony that is a crime of violence, and previously has been convicted twice of a Class 1, 2 or 3 crime of violence, excluding first- and second-degree burglary. c PED = parole eligibility date
mandated that every offender complete a
for up to 180 days. This bill also limited
period of 12 continuous months of parole
to 180 days the time a parolee may be
supervision after incarceration.
returned to prison for a technical
• SB 03-252 removed the 12 continuous
violation
months of parole supervision after in-
• HB 04-1189 increased time served be-
carceration, allowing the Parole Board
fore parole eligibility for certain violent
to return a parolee who paroled on a
offenses. Under this bill, first-time of-
nonviolent Class 5 or 6 felony (except
fenders convicted of these violent offens-
menacing or unlawful sexual behavior)
es must serve 75% of their sentence (less
to a community corrections program or
earned time awarded). If convicted of a
pre-parole release-and-revocation center
second or subsequent violent offense,
7
Overview they must serve 75% of their sentence
been twice convicted of a felony upon
and are not eligible for earned time.
charges separately brought — charges that had arisen out of separate and dis-
• HB 06-1315 reduced sentences for juve-
tinct criminal episodes — to be eligi-
niles convicted of Class 1 felonies from
ble for probation unless his or her cur-
a term of life in prison without parole
rent conviction, or a prior conviction,
eligibility, to life with parole eligibility
was for first or second degree murder;
after 40 years.
manslaughter; first or second degree as-
• HB 09-1122 expanded YOS sentencing
sault; first or second degree kidnapping;
eligibility to include offenders who were
a sexual offense; first degree arson; first
18 or 19 years old at the time of their
or second degree burglary; robbery; ag-
offense and sentenced prior to their 21st
gravated robbery; theft from the person
birthday.
of another; a felony offense committed against a child; or any criminal attempt
• HB 09-1351 increased the amount of
or conspiracy to commit any of the afore-
earned time from 10 days to 12 days for
mentioned offenses, if convicted on or
those serving a sentence for certain Class
after the effective date of the act.
4, 5 or 6 felonies who are program-com-
• HB 10-1352 lowered the penalty for
pliant and have never been convicted of specified offenses.
unlawful use of a controlled substance; separated the crime of possession of a
• HB 09-1263 enabled those confined
controlled substance (other than mar-
pending a parole revocation hearing to
ijuana) from the crime of manufactur-
receive credit for the entire period of
ing, dispensing, selling, distributing, or
such confinement.
possessing with intent to manufacture,
• HB 10-1338 allowed a person who had
dispense, sell, or distribute a controlled 8
Overview substance, and changed the penalties for
• HB 10-1374 determined that the Colo-
such crimes; and made distributing a
rado Sex Offender Management Board
controlled substance to a minor a Class
would develop a specific sex offender re-
3 felony subject to enhanced sentencing.
lease guideline instrument for the Parole
In addition, the bill increased the amount
Board to use when determining whether to
of a Schedule I or II controlled substance
release a sex offender on parole or
necessary to designate a special offend-
revoke his or her parole status. This bill
er and lowered the penalty for fraud and
also required CDOC to work with the
deceit in connection with controlled sub-
Parole Board to develop guidelines for the
stances from a Class 5 to a Class 6 felo-
Parole Board to use in determining when
ny.
to release a parolee or revoke his or her
• HB 10-1360 made offenders with Class
4 felonies eligible for the Community Return to Custody Program and limited the amount of time a technical parole violator can return to prison to 90 or 180 days based on an offender’s risk level.
parole. It also removed the statutory provision that required a parole officer (PO) to arrest a parolee as a parole violator if the parolee is located in a place without lawful consent. This bill redefined the criteria set forth in HB 09-1351 and made certain inmates serving sentences for lower-class,
• HB 10-1373 reduced the penalty for
nonviolent felonies eligible for more
escape from a Class 4 felony to a Class 5
earned time awards per month than other
felony and abolished the mandate that a
offenders.
sentence be served consecutively to any other sentence if the escape was from a direct sentence to a community corrections facility or intensive-supervised parole.
• HB 10-1413 changed the minimum age of
the defendant to be tried as an adult from 14 to 16 years of age, except in the case of first-degree murder, second-degree murder
9
Overview or certain sex offenses. This bill allowed
• HB 12-1223 allowed offenders sentenced
Class 2 felonies (excluding sex offenses) to
and paroled for a felony offense commit-
be sentenced to YOS except in the case of
ted after July 1, 1993, to receive earned
a second or subsequent sentence to CDOC
time while re-incarcerated after a parole
or YOS.
revocation. It also allowed inmates who successfully complete a milestone or phase
• SB 11-176 allowed inmates housed in
of an educational, vocational, therapeutic,
administrative segregation the opportunity
or re-entry program, and/or who demon-
to accrue earned time to be deducted from
strate exceptional conduct that promotes
their sentences.
the safety of correctional staff, volunteers,
• SB 11-241 expanded the eligibility of in-
contractors, or other persons, to be award-
mates who meet criteria for special-needs
ed as many as 60 days of earned time per
parole
accomplishment, up to 120 days per incar-
and
created
presumptions
in
favor of parole for nonviolent inmates with
ceration.
immigration detainers.
• HB 12-1271 limited the offenses for
• HB 11-1064 built upon HB 10-1352 by
which a juvenile may be subject to direct
creating a pilot program of presumption in
file to Class 1 felonies, Class 2 felonies,
favor of granting parole to an inmate who
crime-of-violence felonies or sex offenses
is parole-eligible and serving a sentence
if the juvenile has a previous felony ad-
for a drug-use or drug-possession crime
judication or violent sex offenses. It also
that was committed prior to Aug. 11, 2011.
limited instances in which juveniles were
The inmate must meet other criteria relat-
subject to certain previous district court
ed to previous criminal and institutional
proceedings. The act also limited direct file
behavior to be eligible for the presumption.
to juveniles 16 and older.
10
Overview • SB 13-216 reinstated certain provisions of
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
HB 09-1122 that were repealed on Oct. 1,
Two sets of population projections are pre-
2012, relating to the sentencing of young
pared by outside agencies for budgeting and
adult offenders to YOS. Provisions of this
planning purposes. The Division of Criminal
bill allowed certain young adult offend-
Justice (DCJ), within the Colorado Depart-
ers to be sentenced to YOS if they were
ment of Public Safety, and Legislative Council
18 or 19 years old at the time a crime was
Staff (LCS) are statutorily mandated to devel-
committed and under 21 years old at the
op forecasts for the adult and juvenile popula-
time of sentencing. SB 13-250 created a
tions within the criminal justice system. DCJ
new sentencing grid for drug crimes. This
updates its projections every six months to re-
bill primarily decreased the seriousness
flect the most recent sentencing revisions and
of drug crimes and reduced penalties for
trends; LCS completes its projections once per
those crimes.
year.
• HB 13-1160 modified theft-conviction
penalties, basing them on the value of the goods or property stolen.
Figure 7 compares the actual population of CDOC to the last four years of inmate population projections developed by DCJ and LCS. The most recent inmate population projections
• HB 14-1260 required mandatory mini-
were released in December 2014. The graph
mum sentences for certain sexual offens-
illustrates wide variations in year-to-year pro-
es involving a child.
jections.
• HB 14-1266 modified value-based of-
fenses, basing them on the value of the loss.
Parole population projections are similarly compared in Figure 8. Both inmate and parole population projections are affected by a number of factors, including the number and sentence length of new commitments, Parole Board discretion to release inmates, rates of
11
Overview
FIGURE 8 DCJ & LCS Parole Projections vs. Actual CDOC Parole Population
FIGURE 7 DCJ & LCS Inmate Projections vs. Actual CDOC Inmate Population
10K
24K
9K
DCJ
DCJ
22K
20K
8K
7K
24K
6K 10K
22K
9K
LCS
LCS
18K
20K
8K
7K 18K 2012
2013
CDOC Population: Actual
2014
2015
Projection Year: 2011 2012
2016
6K
2017
2012 CDOC Population:
Actual
2013 2014
revocation for parolees, and new legislation.
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Projection Year:
2011
2013
2012
2014
Figure 9 are defined in Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 17-1-104.3 as follows:
PRISON FACILITIES Figure 9 illustrates the locations and security levels of the 24 prisons throughout the state of Colorado. Twenty are owned and operated by the state of Colorado, and four are private-contract facilities. The security levels identified in
Level I facilities shall have designated boundaries but need not have perimeter fencing. Inmates classified as Minimum may be incarcerated in Level I facilities. However, generally, inmates of higher classifications shall not be incarcerated at Level I facilities. 12
Overview
FIGURE 9 CDOC State & Private Facilities
Level II facilities shall have designated
razor wire, and detection devices. The
boundaries with single- or double-perimeter
perimeter of Level III facilities shall be con-
fencing. The perimeter of Level II facilities
tinuously patrolled. Appropriately designated
shall be patrolled periodically. Inmates clas-
Close-classified inmates, Medium-classified
sified as Minimum Restrictive and Minimum
inmates and inmates of lower classification
may be incarcerated in Level II facilities.
levels may be incarcerated at Level III facil-
However, generally, inmates of higher classi-
ities. However, generally, inmates of higher
fications shall not be incarcerated in Level II
classifications shall not be incarcerated at Lev-
facilities.
el III facilities.
Level III facilities generally shall have towers, a wall or double-perimeter fencing with 13
Overview Level IV facilities shall generally have
Design capacity: The number of housing
towers, a wall or double-perimeter fencing
spaces for which a facility is constructed, or
with razor wire, and detection devices. The
for which a facility is modified by remodeling,
perimeter of Level IV facilities shall be con-
redesign, or expansion.
tinuously patrolled. Close-classified inmates and inmates of lower classification levels may be incarcerated at Level IV facilities. Howev-
Expanded capacity: The number of housing spaces above the facility design capacity. Operational capacity: Design capacity
er, generally, inmates of higher classifications shall not be incarcerated in Level IV facilities on a long-term basis. Level V facilities comprise the highest security level and are capable of incarcerat-
plus expanded capacity. Management control, special use, segregation and reception beds are included in the design capacity for all facilities.
ing all classification levels. The facilities shall
State facility capacities and on-grounds
have double-perimeter fencing with razor wire,
population on June 30, 2014, are shown
and detection devices or equivalent security
in Table 3. The percent of capacity used,
architecture. These facilities generally shall
calculated as the on-grounds population
use towers or stun-lethal fencing as well as
divided by the design capacity, is also list-
controlled sally ports. The perimeter of Level
ed. Therefore, percentages greater than 100%
V facilities shall be continuously patrolled.
indicate prison housing in excess of the design capacity of the facility. Capacities of
FACILITY CAPACITIES
contract beds and community placements are
Capacity refers to the number of state pris-
not provided because these can vary according
on beds available to house inmates. Three
to need and contract terms.
capacity terms are used by CDOC to describe prison bed space. 14
Overview TABLE 3 Facility Populations & Capacities CAPACITIES
State Facilities
Year Open
On-Grounds Population
Design
Expanded
% Design Capacity
Operational
Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility
1987
991
1,007
0
1,007
98%
Arrowhead Correctional Center
1989
518
484
36
520
100%
Buena Vista Correctional Center
1892
1,206
1,107
77
1,184
102%
Centennial Correctional Facility
1980
294
294
26
320
92%
Colorado Correctional Center
1969
146
150
0
150
97%
Colorado State Penitentiary
1993
691
756
0
756
91%
Colorado Territorial Correctional Facilitya
1871
871
694
235
929
94%
Delta Correctional Center
1964
431
480
0
480
90%
Denver Reception & Diagnostic Centera
1991
536
496
76
572
94%
Denver Women’s Correctional Facility
1998
955
900
76
976
98%
Four Mile Correctional Center
1983
516
484
37
521
99%
Fremont Correctional Facility
1957
1,637
1,448
172
1,620
101%
La Vista Correctional Facility
1994
539
519
55
574
94%
Limon Correctional Facility
1991
926
500
430
930
100%
Rifle Correctional Center
1979
190
192
0
192
99%
San Carlos Correctional Facility
1995
226
250
5
255
89%
Skyline Correctional Facility
1957
247
249
3
252
98%
Southern Transportation Unit
2002
23
30
0
30
77%
Sterling Correctional Facility
1998
2,455
2,455
43
2,488
99%
Trinidad Correctional Facility
2001
490
404
96
500
98%
a Infirmary beds at Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility and Denver Reception & Diagnostic Center are not included.
15
Overview
ANNUAL INMATE COSTS
YOS costs are higher than that of adult facil-
The annual cost per inmate by facility is
ities due to the intensive education and treat-
shown in Table 4. Costs generally increase
ment services provided to YOS inmates.
with the security level of the facility, although variations occur by facility due to different
FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES
construction, inmate needs and services avail-
There were 6,000 full-time CDOC employ-
able at each prison. The average annual cost per
ees at the end of FY 2014. The demographic
adult inmate increased slightly, from $34,956
was primarily composed of Caucasian males
in FY 2013 to $35,895 in FY 2014. The FY
ages 40 and over (see Figure 10). The eth-
2014 private prison per diem was $57.37, and
nic composition of CDOC staff is similar to
the local jail daily per diem was $55.19.
that of Colorado citizens (73% of CDOC
Table 4 also presents cost data for commu-
staffers identify as Caucasian, whereas 81%
nity programs and YOS. Costs to supervise
of Colorado citizens identify as Caucasian3).
community-based inmates are substantial-
Correctional officers (CO) comprise 56% of
ly lower than prison costs because their res-
CDOC staff.
idential stay is funded by the Division of
Figure 11 breaks down the rank of the CO
Criminal Justice. However, community parole
series. The majority of COs are at the lowest
officers (CPO) are nonetheless responsible
level of rank (I); very few are at the highest
for the supervision of these transitional in-
level (V).
carcerated offenders. CPOs provide case-
Figure 12 shows the number of employees
management services and release planning
by location. During the course of the year,
in order to transition community inmates to the
782 employees left employment, resulting in a
Intensive Supervision Program (ISP), parole or
turnover rate of 13%.
discharge of sentence. They also coordinate with local law enforcement departments on matters of public safety.
3 2010 Population by Race and Hispanic Origin Colorado - All Ages and 18 years and over. https://dola.colorado.gov/ dlg/demog/2010data/race%20and%20hispanic%20origin%20 state_2000%202010.pdf
16
Overview TABLE 4 Cost Per Offender by Facilitya Facility
Annual Cost
Daily Cost
Facility
Annual Cost
Daily Cost
Colorado Correctional Center
$26,437
$72.43
$64,386
$176.40
Delta Correctional Center
Centennial Correctional Facility
$35,124
$96.23
$48,487
$132.84
Rifle Correctional Center
Colorado State Penitentiary
$30,072
$82.39
$65,007
$178.10
Skyline Correctional Center
Denver Reception & Diagnostic Center
$23,973
$65.68
Denver Women’s Correctional Facility
$41,303
$113.16
Level I Security Average
$29,798
$81.64
San Carlos Correctional Facility
$79,515
$217.85
Southern Transport Unit
$39,037
$106.95
Arrowhead Correctional Center
$32,226
$88.29
$30,456
$83.44
Four Mile Correctional Center
Sterling Correctional Facility
$25,382
$69.54
$52,599
$144.11
Trinidad Correctional Center
Level V Security Average
$30,934
$84.75
Level II Security Average
$29,423
$80.61
Average Cost Grand Total
$35,895
$98.34
Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility
$30,415
$83.33
External Capacity
$20,939
$57.37
Buena Vista Correctional Facility
$30,207
$82.76
Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility
$41,818
$114.57
Fremont Correctional Facility
$28,240
$77.37
La Vista Correctional Facility
$40,333
$110.50
Level III Security Average
$32,683
$89.54
Limon Correctional Facility
$32,142
$88.06
Level IV Security Average
$32,142
$88.06
Community & Parole Supervision Community Corrections
$4,617
$12.65
$19,750
$54.11
Parole
$4,544
$12.45
Parole ISP
$9,574
$26.23
YOS Pueblo Facility
$76,584
$209.82
YOS Aftercare
$38,913
$106.61
YOS Backlog
$54,254
$148.64
Community Corrections ISP
Youthful Offender System
Note: May not total due to rounding error. a Colorado Department of Corrections Finance and General Administration
17
Overview
FIGURE 12 Employees per Facility (N = 6,000)
FIGURE 10 Employee Demographics
303
Arkansas Valley CF
Gender Female
345
Buena Vista CC
36%
Male
231
Centennial CF
64%
Colorado CC
37 378
Colo State Pen
Age Range 21-29
12%
30-39
29%
50-59
Canon Minimum Centers
350 125 707
Denver Complex
27%
60 +
338
Delta CC
22%
40-49
Colo Territorial CF
427
Fremont CF
11%
201
La Vista CF
307
Limon CF
Ethnicity
Rifle CC 73%
Caucasian
African American
210
San Carlos CF
19%
Hispanic/Latino
48 759
Sterling CF
5%
Trinidad CF
Native American 1%
Youthful Offender System
Two or More Races 1%
Central Impact Employees
Asian 1%
Correctional Industries
Pacific Islander 0%
Parole Offices
148 180 392 164 350
Note: The Central Impact Employees category includes Central Office, Business Office, Training, Warehouse, Transportation, Investigations, CWCF and Canteen.
FIGURE 11 Correctional Officers (CO) by Rank (N = 3,342) CO I
65%
CO II
21%
CO III CO IV
10% 3%
CO V 1%
18
Inmate Admissions
Inmate Admissions A
dmissions to the CDOC adult prisFIGURE 13 Admissions and Releases
on system increased in FY 2014 by
6.3%. This is the second year of increase after a steady four-year decline (see Figure 13). Additionally, for the first time in four years, admissions have surpassed releases. Releases
Admissions 10,269 9,912
8,165 Releases
7,504
showed a 5.7% decrease from FY 2013. Table 5 shows counts by admission type and gender for FY 2014. Compared to FY 2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
female admissions increased 13.4%. Court
2004
2013, male admissions increased 5.3%, while
commitments include individuals receiving new incarceration sentences; technical returns
and dual commitments.
include offenders previously incarcerated in
Figure 14 shows 10-year trends of admis-
Colorado who released to parole, probation,
sions by type. Court commitments decreased
or a court-ordered discharge and subsequent-
from FYs 2008 through 2012, while technical
ly returned without a new felony conviction.
returns only decreased from FY 2010 through
Technical returns may have new misdemeanor
FY 2012. Both court commitments and tech-
convictions, traffic convictions or violations of
nical returns contributed to the overall in-
conditions specified in the parole agreement.
crease in admissions in FYs 2013 and 2014.
Other admissions consist of transfers under
Court commitments increased by 2.9%, and
interstate compact agreements, bond returns,
technical returns by 11.4%, from FYs 2013 to
returns under the consecutive sentence audit
2014.
19
Inmate Admissions
TABLE 5 Adult Admissions MALE
FEMALE
TOTAL
Court Commitments/New Conviction
6,172
3
11
12
0
12
4
0
4
5,335
837
6,172
Probation YOS Failure Subtotal
4,068
Technical returns 2,342
Technical Returns CourtOrdered Discharge Probation Subtotal
3,559
461
4,026
24
2
26
2004
Parole Return
20
2
22
3,603
465
4,068
Bond Return/Audit Return/State Hospital
TOTAL ADMISSIONS
29
once using his or her first admission for the fiscal year. The descriptive analysis includes
Other Interstate Compact
Other admits
15
2013
8
2012
911
2011
96
2010
815
CourtOrdered Return
2009
Parole Return
Court commitments
5,808
2008
5,234
2007
738
2006
4,496
2005
New Commitments
2014
ADMISSION TYPE
FIGURE 14 Admission Trends Over Time
23
1
24
5
0
5
8,966
1,303
10,269
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Demographic characteristics of offenders incarcerated as court commitments and technical returns were examined. In FY 2014, 567 offenders had multiple admissions. In order to illustrate the characteristics of offenders admitted, each offender was included only
6,063 court commitments and 3,624 technical returns. The demographic characteristics of FY 2014 inmate admissions are provided in Figure
15.
Gender
was
similar
across
admission types. No commitments were under the age of 19. Certain youthful offenders receiving an adult prison sentence may be eligible for YOS, a sentencing alternative created in 1993; this population is reported elsewhere. Among 2014 commitments, 6% were 50 or older.
20
Inmate Admissions
OFFENSE DATA
FIGURE 15 Admission Type by Gender
To
11% 89%
inmates’
factors including sentence length, felony class, enhancements
Age Group 1%
20-24 25-29
20%
30-34
20%
first admission for the year was used. Felony-
20%
class distributions of both court commit-
13% 19%
ments
24% 50-59
9%
mon,
2% 2%
Class
0% 0%
technical
returns
show
that
followed 3
by
Class
5
and
then
offenses
(see
Figure
16).
Figure 16 also presents the crime type of the most serious offense, again by admis-
Ethnicity/Race 49%
Caucasian
sion type and violence category. Offenses are
43% 32%
Hispanic/ Latino
categorized
31% 15%
African American
and
Class 4 felonies were the most com-
12% 60-69
lifetime
individuals were only included once; their
13%
40-49
habitual,
tiple admissions were removed so that
20%
35-39
(e.g.,
supervision) and crime type. Again, mul-
17% 8%
Asian American
of
serious offense is determined by a number of
86%
Male
Native American
seriousness
serious offense conviction is used. Most
14%
Female
70+
the
sentences, the felony class of the most
Gender
18-19
assess
as
violent
or
nonviolent,
using a broad definition describing the general
21% 3%
nature
4%
of
the
offense
rather
than
the
statutory definition found in C.R.S. 18-1.3-
1% 1%
406.
Court Commitments
Roughly one-third of admissions are for
Technical Returns
violent 21
crimes
and
two-thirds
are
for
Inmate Admissions
FIGURE 16 Admission Type by Most Serious Offense Felony Class Court Commitments
Technical Returns
1 1% 2
2%
3
1%
2% 16%
4
15%
36%
5
42%
28%
38%
28%
14%
28%
11%
Habitual 1% Lifetime Sex
0%
15%
6
Total
0%
13%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
Drug Felony Class 3 0%
0%
Drug Felony Class 4 1%
0%
Drug Felony Class 1 0%
0%
Crime Type Court Commitments Violent
3.2%
Sexual Assault
3.4%
Kidnapping
Nonviolent
10.5%
7.4%
4.6%
Child Abuse Robbery
Total
9.4%
8.6%
Menacing
Aggravated Robbery
Technical Returns
11.2%
Assault
8.1%
2.9%
4.0%
4.3%
3.6%
3.4%
2.9%
3.4%
3.6%
1.1%
3.2%
0.7%
0.9%
2nd Degree Murder
1.4%
0.4%
1.0%
1st Degree Murder
1.0%
0.2%
0.7%
Manslaughter
0.6%
0.2%
0.5%
Homicide
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
Arson
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
21.9%
Controlled Substances
22.0%
10.6%
Burglary
7.7%
Escape
11.2%
13.5%
4.4%
MV Theft
21.9%
12.3%
9.8%
4.3%
4.3%
Identity Theft
4.4%
3.6%
4.1%
Public Peace
4.0%
3.6%
3.9%
Forgery Fraud/Embezzlement
3.3%
2.9%
1.3%
0.8% 1.4%
3.1% 1.1%
Marijuana
0.7%
1.0%
Contraband
0.9%
0.7%
0.8%
Perjury
0.8%
0.7%
0.8%
0.8%
0.4%
0.6%
Other Drug Offenses
0.3%
0.5%
0.4%
Miscellaneous
0.3%
0.5%
0.4%
Organized Crime
22
Inmate Admissions nonviolent, although technical returns are
of actual time that new admissions are expect-
more likely to have nonviolent offenses than
ed to serve in prison. These calculations are
are court commitments. (This is because
made using sentence length and time served
violent offenders have longer prison sentenc-
for inmates released during the same year.
es and parole less frequently than nonviolent
Table 6 presents anticipated lengths of stay
offenders).
based on felony class (F1 – F6) and crime type (extraordinary risk of harm, sex, drug, and
COUNTY OF COMMITMENT
other).
Figure 17 displays the percentage of court commitments and technical returns from each county in the state. Denver County continues to represent the largest portion of admissions, followed by other counties along the Front Range such as El Paso, Jefferson, Adams and Arapahoe.
HABITUAL OFFENDER SENTENCES Figure 19 summarizes court commitments with habitual convictions. Fifty offenders were sentenced under habitual offender provisions for their most serious offense in FY 2014, only one of which was sentenced under pre-HB 93-1302 law. It should be noted that
GENDER COMPARISON Figure 18 shows the gender split for each crime category.
some offenders who received habitual sentences are not reported here if their most serious offense was not the crime(s) carrying the habitual sentence, although sentence
LENGTH OF STAY The average length of stay of new court commitments and parole returns with a new crime is estimated by the Division of Criminal Justice in the annual Correctional Population Forecast. Average lengths of stay are estimates 23
enhancements correspond to most serious offenses in the majority of cases. Offenders sentenced under pre-HB 93-1302 receive a life sentence with parole eligibility after 40 years or a 25- to 50-year sentence. Those sentenced
Inmate Admissions
FIGURE 17 Percent of Court Commitments & Technical Returns by County of Conviction Maps
Percent of Court Commitments
Primary First
Map TV
-1 0
Percent of Technical Returns
24
Inmate Admissions TABLE 6 Estimated Average Length of Stay (Months)
FIGURE 18 Court Commitments Most Serious Offense by Gender
Violent
Manslaughter
72%
28%
New Commitments Male
Parole Returns
Female
Male
Female
Arson
83%
17%
F1
480.0
480.0
—
—
2nd Degree Murder
85%
15%
F2 Ext
233.5
237.2
138.5
25.5
Child Abuse
87%
Robbery
88%
1st Degree Murder
88%
Aggravated Robbery
90%
Assault
91%
Menacing
92%
Homicide
94%
Weapons
96%
Kidnapping
98%
Sexual Assault - Child
98%
Sexual Assault
99%
9%
F2 Sex
—
—
—
—
F2 Drug
—
—
70.5
—
F2 Other
98.7
106.9
47.7
—
F3 Ext
87.0
59.1
79.1
57.5
F3 Sex
101.0
84.8
103.0
—
59.7
47.8
39.0
34.8
F3 Drug F3 Other
69.3
—
60.3
31.2
F4 Ext
50.1
39.2
40.7
29.2
F4 Drug
30.2
28.8
28.8
19.7
F4 Other
40.0
34.0
33.9
36.3
F5 Ext
28.5
20.1
29.4
17.4
Miscellaneous
64%
36%
Other Drug Offenses
63%
38%
F5 Sex
33.7
31.6
26.1
—
34%
F5 Drug
20.0
27.1
35.3
29.5
Identity Theft
Nonviolent
Felony Class/ Type
66%
Fraud/Embezzlement
72%
28%
F5 Other
24.2
22.8
23.7
19.0
Forgery
74%
26%
F6 Ext
16.3
12.1
24.4
—
Escape
77%
23%
F6 Sex
11.6
11.7
14.8
—
Organized Crime
77%
23%
F6 Drug
10.8
10.8
19.8
25.6
Contraband
79%
21%
Theft
79%
21%
F6 Other
11.8
12.2
13.7
10.8
Controlled Substances
85%
MV Theft
85%
Perjury
87%
Public Peace
87%
Marijuana
92%
Burglary
92%
Trespassing/Mischief
93%
Traffic
93% Males
15%
Habitual
204.5
297.6
139.7
33.0
Lifetime
262.2
311.6
67.5
—
TOTAL
52.1
37.9
43.5
29.3
post-HB 93-1302 receive a sentence at three times the maximum of the presumptive range for two previous convictions and four times
Females
the maximum for three previous convictions. Table 7 shows the average, minimum and maximum sentences for those with two or three previous convictions. 25
Inmate Admissions
LIFETIME SUPERVISION SEX OFFENDERS
FIGURE 19 Habitual Offender Commitments (N = 50) 2 Previous Convictions
offense felonies to be sentenced to prison for 1
1
Aggravated Robbery Assault
4 1
Child Abuse Forgery
average minimum sentences for offenders
5
3 2
2
Identity Theft
sentenced to prison under the lifetime sex
2
Kidnapping
offender supervision provision in FY 2014;
3
Marijuana
1
Menacing
1
MV Theft
1
1
all were males except one. The data shown in
1
Perjury
Table 8 may not represent all commitments
2 1
Robbery
sentenced under these provisions, as this
2
2 1
Traffic Trespassing/Mischief
of life. Table 8 details the felony class and
1
2
Controlled Substances
Theft
a set minimum term and a maximum term
4 1
Burglary
Public Peace
offenders convicted of Class 2, 3 or 4 sex-
3 Previous Convictions
2
1st Degree Murder 2nd Degree Murder
Legislation enacted in 1998 requires most
analysis uses only the most serious crime.
1
Post HB 93-1302
In some cases the most serious crime is a
1
1
non-sexual offense, and the lesser qualifying
Pre HB 93-1302
sex offense carries the lifetime supervision sentence.
TABLE 7 Habitual Offender Sentences (Years) 2 Previous Convictions Average
3 Previous Convictions 29
49
Minimum
3
1
Maximum
96
292
TABLE 8 Lifetime Supervision Sentences (Years) Avg. Minimum Sentence
# Offenders Felony Class 2
5
49
Felony Class 3
69
22
Felony Class 4
74
6
148
15
TOTAL
26
Inmate Admissions
RISK & NEEDS ASSESSMENTS FIGURE 20 Court Commitments Needs Levels
Initial needs levels are assessed during the diagnostic process for court commitments and are used for identifying inmates for placement in services. These needs levels are assessed through a combination of methods, including observation, interview, self-report, standardized testing and review of criminal justice records. Each needs level is rated on a scale of one through five, with higher scores
Medical 27%
Male
73% 72%
Female
moderate-to-severe
needs
(levels 3 through 5) in each area to those with none-to-low needs (levels 1 and 2). Generally, inmates with moderate to severe needs are targeted for services in that area. The highest needs areas overall are substance abuse followed by vocational and mental health. Compared to males, females have much higher medical, mental health, substance abuse and
28%
32%
Total
68%
Mental Health 33%
Male
67% 70%
Female
30%
38%
Total
62%
Substance Abuse 83%
Male
17%
90% 84%
Total
Figure 20 compares the ratio of court comwith
None - Low
Female
indicating greater needs.
mitments
Mod - Severe
16%
Sex Offender Male
17%
83% 96%
Female Total 16%
84%
Developmental Disability Male
95%
Female
97%
Total
95%
Vocational Male Female Total
42%
58%
47% 43%
53% 57%
Academic Male Female Total
28% 33% 28%
72% 67% 72%
vocational needs, but lower sex offender treatment needs. Lastly, Figure 21 shows risk distributions of male and female court commitments, as assessed
using
the
LSI-R
(Level
of 27
Supervision Inventory — Revised). The average range is 30 – 34 for males and 35 – 39 for females.
Inmate Admissions
FIGURE 21 Court Commitments LSI-R Risk Distribution
Male
22%
27% 21%
12% 0% 0% 2%
9%
6%
1% 0% 35%
Female
26% 14%
12% 5% 6%
1% 0%
27% Total
21%
23%
11%
50-54
45-49
35-39
30-34
25-29
1% 0% 20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
0% 0% 2%
9%
6%
40-44
0% 1%
LSI-R Scores
28
Inmate Releases
Inmate Releases
T
his
releases
to offenders convicted of sex offenses between
from inmate status, which may include
July 1, 1993, and June 30, 2002. The Colorado
releases from prison, community corrections
State Supreme Court (People v. Martin, Case
or jail settings. These releases may differ from
99SC602) and the Colorado Court of Appeals
those reported by the Parole Board, which
(People v. Cooper, Case 98CA1614) ruled that
are
are
these sex offenders were subject to a period
granted and may not occur in the same fiscal
of discretionary parole that could not be longer
year as the actual release.
than the remainder of the imposed maximum
a
section
reflection
reflects
of
actual
when
releases
There are three main release categories. Parole
releases
include
inmates
who
sentence of incarceration. These cases became final in July 2001.
are granted discretionary parole by the
As a result, sex offenders convicted of
Parole Board, inmates who serve their max-
offenses between 1993 and 2002 are no longer
imum sentence and release on their manda-
subject to the mandatory parole provisions.
tory release date, and inmates who re-parole
This ruling has resulted in 1,351 sex offend-
after having their parole revoked. Certain
ers discharging their prison sentences without
felony Class 4, 5 and 6 offenders who do not
further supervision since FY 2002. An ap-
receive discretionary parole may release 30 –
pellate court decision in People v. Falls
60 days before their mandatory release date
(Case 00CA2169) ruled that habitual of-
if eligible per the provisions of HB 09–1351.
fenders
Sentence discharges include Martin/Cooper
July 1, 1993, and June 30, 2003, fell into
discharges, and discharges to pending charges
the same category as Martin/Cooper and
or detainers. Martin/Cooper discharges apply
were not required to serve a mandatory
29
with
dates
of
offense
between
Inmate Releases period of parole. Other releases include release
release during the weekend. Releases on the
to probation, court-ordered discharge and
mandatory release date or mandatory re-parole
deceased.
date falling on a weekend day or observed federal holiday were released a few days earlier,
RELEASES BY TYPE
resulting in offenders being reported as dis-
Inmate releases have increased seven of the
cretionary parole instead of mandatory parole
past 10 years, with the exception years being
or re-parole. Since December 2008, weekend
FYs 2011, 2013 and 2014 (see Figure 13 in the
releases (mandatory and re-parole) have been
Inmate Admissions section). An examination
coded separately from discretionary parole
of release types shows that decreased inmate
releases.
release rates correspond with fewer releases to
Figure 23 shows the breakdown of parole
parole (see Figure 22). CDOC implemented
releases by fiscal year since the releases have
procedural changes in December 2005. These
been coded correctly (re-paroles are included
changes affected inmates scheduled for parole
with mandatory parole). The increase in FY 2012 coincides with a substantial increase in
FIGURE 22 Inmate Release Types FIGURE 23 Type of Parole Releases
9,334 8,240 2,096
Parole
3,607
3,806
3,220
Discretionary Paroles
6,413
Sentence Discharge
5,140
5,020
Mandatory Paroles
1,510
1,415
Other Releases
284 2010
5,584
2011
2012
2013
162
2011
2014
30
2012
2013
2014
Inmate Releases discretionary and mandatory parole releases.
Approximately 12 – 15% of annual releases
The decrease in parole releases in FY 2014 is
are sentence discharges. However, as illustrat-
attributable to fewer mandatory and discretion-
ed in Figure 24, the majority of inmates that
ary parole releases. Table 9 provides details
released were governed by current law (1993
of releases by gender for FY 2014.
– present), which requires a period of parole supervision. Only 9% of offenders who discharge their sentence were not required to
TABLE 9 Inmate Release Types by Gender RELEASE TYPE
MALE
FEMALE
serve a period of parole. The other 91% had previously released to parole and subsequent-
TOTAL
ly had their parole revoked. These individuals
Parole Discretionary
2,251
407
2,658
Mandatory
1,986
207
2,193
Mandatory Reparole
2,025
294
2,319
HB 1351 Mandatory
630
135
765
6,892
1,043
7,935
1,204
144
1,348
10
1
11
130
23
153
Subtotal
discharged from inmate status as they reached the end of their sentence before they could re-parole. Figure 25 illustrates the rate of
Sentence Discharge Discharge Martin/Cooper Discharges Discharge to Pending Charges Discharge to Detainer
Subtotal
67
0
67
1,411
168
1,579
Probation
48
10
58
Court-Ordered Discharge
28
2
30
Deceased
50
0
50
Colorado State Hospital Transfer
4
0
4
Appeal Bond
2
0
2
132
12
142
8,435
1,223
9,656
TOTAL RELEASES
Parole
Pre-1979
0%
1979-1985
0%
1985-1993
1%
1993-present Sentence Other (Includes Interstate) Discharge 1985-1993
Other
Subtotal
FIGURE 24 Governing Law by Release Type
99% 1% 2%
1993-present Other
97%
Pre-1979
3%
1985-1993
3%
1993-present
31
Total
Other (Includes Interstate) Pre-1979 1979-1985 1985-1993 1993-present
94% 0% 0% 0% 1%
99%
Inmate Releases releases
by
es
not
are
type
and
Approximately
26%
either
returned
to
prison
parole or discharged their sentence from a
often
release
return-to-custody facility. Inmates sentenced
from a transport hub. The majority of in-
in Colorado who are under the supervision
mates release from state prisons to parole.
of other jurisdictions are reported in “Other.”
Approximately 17% successfully transition
Other jurisdictions may include the Colorado
from prison to parole via community correc-
Mental Health Institute at Pueblo (CMHIP),
tions and/or ISP inmate status. More inmates
other state facilities, dual commitments to
released from private prisons in FY 2014
interstate compact and Colorado, and the fed-
than in previous years. This is attributable
eral system.
because
by
Releas-
specific
facilities
shown
location.
inmates
to a large number (483) of releases directly from Cheyenne Mountain Reentry Center.
TIME SERVED IN PRISON Time served in prison relative to governing sentence was analyzed for prison releases.
FIGURE 25 Release Type by Release Location
Parole
State Prisons
Sentence Discharge
60%
Private Prisons
13%
Community Corrections
11%
ISP Inmate
6%
Return to Custody Facility
8%
Other
62% 3%
ISP Inmate
1%
Return to Custody Facility Other
Other
Community Corrections
revoked due to a new conviction, the govern-
18% 4% 74% 13% 6%
ISP Inmate
3%
Other
4%
revoked for technical violations, the parole period continues to govern. If an offender is
State Prisons Private Prisons
the latest mandatory release date. Once an
parole period governs; if the offender is
14%
Community Corrections
sentence or consecutive scheme resulting in
inmate paroles, the statutorily mandated
2%
State Prisons Private Prisons
The governing sentence is determined by the
ing sentence can be either the new conviction or the existing parole period. The sentence resulting in the latest mandatory release or statutory discharge date will govern. If the new 32
Inmate Releases conviction is ordered to run consecutive to the
waiting for prison bed space after sentencing
existing parole sentence, both sentences will
is included as time served in prison.
be part of the governing scheme. The broad
A narrow definition was used to best
presumptive sentencing ranges, combined
represent the amount of time that newly sen-
with enhanced sentencing and concurrent
tenced inmates might spend in prison. Only
versus consecutive sentencing provisions,
court commitments who released to parole or
create vast disparities within each crime
discharged their sentence were included in
category and felony class. Time served in
the comparison (see Figure 26). Govern-
prison does not include time previously
ing sentences and imprisonment time clearly
served in prison, time credits awarded for
increase with felony class. Habitual offenders
probation or diversionary programs, jail
and lifetime supervision sex offenders also
credits, and pre-sentence confinement awards.
serve lengthy sentences. Habitual offenders
However, time spent in county jail (backlog)
serve about the same amount of time as Class
FIGURE 26 Court Commitments: Governing Sentence & Time Served in Prison (N = 4,976) Avg Governing Sentence (months) Life
24
Drug Felony 2 Drug Felony 3
Avg Time Served (months)
12
9.0
Drug Felony 4
94
4.0 Life
Felony Class 1 Felony Class 2
145.1
68
Felony Class 4 Felony Class 6
68.4
43
31.6
24
16.0
13
8.3 Life
Habitual-Life Habitual-Other
401.6
117
Felony Class 3 Felony Class 5
9.5
363.0
102
152.7 Life
Lifetime Sex
33
101.6
Inmate Releases 2 felons; lifetime sex offenders serve slightly
on discretionary parole and those who release
more than Class 3 felons. It should be noted
on mandatory parole (see Figure 28). In this
that many offenders in the lower felony class
comparison, only the first release was counted,
ranges (i.e., Class 5 and 6) may have first been
and only releases to discretionary parole and
sentenced to probation or diversion but re-sen-
mandatory (including HB 1351) parole were
tenced to serve a term of imprisonment due to
included. Re-paroles are not included in the
technical violations or new crimes.
mandatory parole releases. The final sample included 2,645 discretionary parole releases
PROFILE OF INMATE RELEASES Demographic
and
sentencing
data
and 2,941 mandatory parole releases.
were
Offenders who released on discretionary pa-
examined for the FY 2014 release cohort
role during FY 2014 were more likely to be
(see Figure 27). Certain offenders may re-
female, Asian American or Caucasian, older,
lease more than once during a given year
and have no gang affiliation. Offenders with
(particularly those who violate the conditions
more serious felonies were more likely to re-
of their parole). In order to best represent the
ceive discretionary parole, but for many (those
characteristics of the people who release from
convicted of Class 1 felonies and lifetime sex
inmate status, each offender was included in
offenders), release can only be granted by the
the release profile once. Consequently, the
Parole Board. The LSI-R risk distributions
profile cohort included 8,435 males and 1,223
show a “stair-stepping” of risk levels, where-
females, for a total of 9,658 offenders. An ex-
by inmates with increased risk are less likely
ploration of the profile data by gender revealed
to be granted discretionary parole.
few differences, so the data is not shown here (please see appendix file). Likewise, the profile data is not shown by release type because there are no meaningful differences. There are some differences between inmates who release 34
Inmate Releases
FIGURE 27 Profile of Releases (N = 9,020) Gender
Felony Class Male
87%
Female
Felony Class 1 0% Felony Class 2
13%
2%
Felony Class 3
Ethnicity
16%
Felony Class 4
Caucasian
26%
Felony Class 6
31%
African American Native American
Felony Class 5
47%
Hispanic/Latino
38% 13%
Drug Felony 2 0%
18%
Drug Felony 3 0%
3%
Asian American 1%
Average Age Male
37.3
Female
36.2
Drug Felony 4
2%
Lifetime Sex
2%
Habitual-Other
1%
Habitual-Life 0% Other 0%
Age Groups 18-19 20-29
29%
30-39
35%
40-49
22%
50-59 60-69
Admission Type Court Commits
63%
Parole Returns
36%
Other 1%
11%
LSI-R Risk Distributions
2%
70+
0-4 0% 5-9
Gang Affiliation No Yes
76% 24%
1%
10-14
3%
15-19
7%
20-24
13%
25-29
20%
35-39
21%
40-44 45-49
9% 1%
50-54 0%
35
Inmate Releases
FIGURE 28 Mandatory vs. Discretionary Parole Releases (N = 5,586) Mandatory
Felony Class
Discretionary
Overall
53%
100%
Felony Class 1
Mandatory vs. Discretionary Parole
89%
Felony Class 2
47%
Felony Class 3
24%
Gender 54%
Male Female
45%
49% 57%
Hispanic/Latino
53%
African American Asian American
46%
100% 99% 40%
60%
Drug Felony 3 17%
47%
64%
Native American
100%
Habitual-Life Other
43%
25%
Drug Felony 2 Lifetime Sex
51%
31%
75%
Felony Class 6
55%
51%
69%
Felony Class 5
46%
Ethnicity Caucasian
76%
49%
Felony Class 4
83% 84%
Drug Felony 4
36%
Habitual-Other 19%
54%
Age Groups
16% 81%
LSI-R Risk Distributions
18-19
58%
42%
0-4
29%
71%
20-29
59%
41%
5-9
29%
71%
48%
10-14
28%
72%
51%
15-19
52%
20-24
52%
30-39
49%
40-49
48%
50-59
41%
60-69
58%
70+
25-29
59%
30-34
42%
35-39
Gang Affiliation No Yes
51% 59%
40-44
49%
45-49
41%
36
33%
67%
43%
57%
49%
51%
59% 63% 67% 83%
41% 37% 33% 17%
Inmate Population Characteristics
Inmate Population Characteristics INMATE POPULATION
T
of certain eligible parole violators, jail back-
his section explores and summarizes the
log also includes those awaiting placement in a
adult jurisdictional inmate population
community return to custody facility. The four
(excluding 217 fugitives). Figure 29 shows
private prisons used in FY 2014 only house
the number of inmates by their location on the
male inmates. Denver Women’s Correction-
last day of the fiscal year. The majority (68%)
al Facility and La Vista Correctional Facili-
were in state prisons, with 21% housed in pri-
ty were the sole prisons for female inmates,
vate prisons or jail backlog and approximately
although females may be placed in the infir-
11% in the community. Jail backlog includes
mary at the Denver Reception and Diagnostic
inmates awaiting placement in CDOC as a
Center and Colorado Territorial Correction-
court commitment, a parole return for either a
al Facility. A small population of males was
new crime or technical violation, or a regres-
housed separately from the females at La Vista
sion from a community placement. In the case
Correctional Facility during FY 2014.
FIGURE 29 Jurisdictional Inmate Population by Location on June 30, 2014 (N = 20,305) Total Population State Private Other
By Gender 90% 100%
14,033 3,745
83%
2,527 Males
37
Females
10% 17%
Inmate Population Characteristics
CUSTODY CLASSIFICATION & STATUS
items and scoring on the male initial and
All inmates are assessed upon intake into
segregation moved from a custody level to a
CDOC and reassessed at intervals during
status; “Protective Custody” and “Residen-
their incarceration. These assessments are
tial Treatment Program” (RTP) were add-
done in order to determine the most appro-
ed as statuses for prison-based inmates; and
priate housing placement. There are separate
community inmates were no longer classified
instruments for males and females for both
using the inmate classification instrument.
reclassification instruments; administrative
Figure 30 provides a comparison of
the initial and reclassification assessments. In February
a
inmates’ custody levels at the end of FY 2013
revised male classification system began,
and end of FY 2014. There was no change to
with
in
the female classification instruments, so the
July 2013. Changes were made to the
small amount of variation in their custody
full
2013,
implementation
implementation
of
achieved
FIGURE 30 End of Year Classification Levels, FY 2013 & FY 2014 Breakdown by Gender:
2013 - 2014 Change:
2013 Female
Minimum Min-Restrictive Medium Close Male
Minimum
Total
Min-Restrictive
-4%
21%
4%
12%
9%
-3%
9% 24%
0% 22%
-2%
50% 16%
52% 15%
11%
3% -1%
11% 25%
Medium Close
3%
36%
17% 15%
Medium Minimum
2014
31% 40%
Min-Restrictive Close
2014
28%
0% 24%
47% 16%
-2% 50%
15%
3% -1%
38
Inmate Population Characteristics levels is likely due to fluctuations in the
non-punitive housing option for inmates who
population characteristics.
would be at substantial risk of harm if placed
There were three status types added during
in a general population setting. RTP was also
FY 2013. These status types were added to
added to designate inmates with mental illness
distinguish certain inmates from general pop-
or intellectual disabilities who are participating
ulation inmates. Administrative Segregation
in specialized programs designed to promote
was designed for inmates who have demon-
pro-social behavior. Figure 31 shows that the
strated through their behavior that they pose
vast majority of incarcerated inmates are in the
a risk to the safety and security of a general
general population (94%), and approximately
population prison; it was the most restric-
6% have one of the status designations.
tive housing option in CDOC. Protective
Since FY 2012, there has been a concerted
Custody was added in 2013 to provide a
effort to reduce the number of inmates housed
FIGURE 31 Status of Incarcerated Inmate Population (N = 18,749) 94.1% 17,642
General Population RTP Administrative Segregation Management Control Transition Protective Custody
2.5% 477 1.2% 217 0.8% 157 0.7% 129 0.7% 127 0K
5K
39
10K
15K
Inmate Population Characteristics in Administrative Segregation. Figure 32
MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE
shows the changes over time in the population
Figure 33 contains the most serious offense
that have occurred as a result of these efforts.
distribution for the adult inmate population
This population peaked in September 2011
on June 30, 2014. More than half (56%) were
with 1,505 inmates (7.4%) in Administrative
incarcerated for a violent offense. In contrast
Segregation. This number dropped to 215 at the
to the inmate population, only 39% of court
end of FY 2014, or 2.1%. As of July 1, 2014,
commitments had a violent offense. This dis-
all Administrative Segregation inmates were
crepancy exists between the inmate population
officially transitioned to Restrictive Housing.
and new admissions because violent offenders with longer sentences remain in the prison system longer.
FIGURE 32 Administrative Segregation Population Over Time FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
Females
1,505
1,500
FY 2014 Males
1,000
500 215
40
Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun
Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun
Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun
Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun
0
Inmate Population Characteristics
FIGURE 33 Most Serious Offense (N = 20,300)
Violent
Total Assault
2,307
Sexual Assault - Child
1,665
1st Degree Murder
1,289
Aggravated Robbery
1,091
Females
7%
4%
5%
4%
6%
3%
0%
0% 7%
Child Abuse
964
2nd Degree Murder
923
Sexual Assault
823
Menacing
633
Kidnapping
536
Robbery
508
3%
3%
Manslaughter
161
3%
2%
Weapons
124
Homicide
81
Arson Total
Non_Violent
Males
66
12%
6%
5% 0%
0%
1%
3%
1%
1%
0%
4%
1%
9%
0%
1%
11,171
Controlled Substances
2,527
Burglary
1,683
Theft
1,107
Escape
1,046
57% 9%
34% 5%
0%
1% 12%
18% 11%
5%
Trespassing/Mischief
488
1%
MV Theft
471
0%
Identity Theft
457
2%
Public Peace
371
0%
0%
Forgery
213
0%
1%
Organized Crime
186
Traffic
141
1%
2%
Perjury
97
0%
0%
Fraud/Embezzlement
96
0%
0%
Contraband
86
Marijuana
71
Misc
62
Other Drug Offenses
27
Total
3% 1% 8%
2%
3%
2%
1%
5%
11%
1%
0%
2%
2%
9,129
43%
66%
Note: Data excludes 217 fugitives and five dual-commitment cases from Colorado Mental Health Institute (Pueblo) with no crimes. Violent offenses are broadly defined by the general nature of the crime and do not conform to the statutory definition in CRS 18-1.3-406.
41
Inmate Population Characteristics From 2009 to 2013, numerous legislative
inset graph shows that much of the increase
bills were passed in an effort to reduce the
is due to offenders sentenced under lifetime
inmate population (see Overview section).
supervision. However, inmates serving life
These bills targeted less serious offenders for
without parole sentences nearly doubled over
alternatives to incarceration, shorter sentenc-
the past decade; over this same time period,
es, increased earned time, and increased pref-
the total inmate population decreased less than
erence for discretionary parole. As a result,
1%.
the inmate population has shifted to one with more serious offenders serving longer sentenc-
INMATE PROFILE
es. Figure 34 shows a 10-year history of the
The profile of the total inmate jurisdictional
total inmate population and the percent serv-
population on June 30, 2014, is summarized
ing life or lifetime sentences. As can be seen,
in Figure 35. The total inmate jurisdictional
even during periods of population decline,
population includes inmates in jail, pris-
life/lifetime inmates continued to account for
on and the community but does not include
a greater percentage of the population. The
fugitives. Inmates were predominantly male, minority and ages 20 – 49. The majority were new court commitments sentenced from urban
FIGURE 34 Percent of Inmate Population Serving Life/Lifetime Sentences 23,186 13% 20,704
areas. Thirteen percent were serving sentences
12%
with a maximum term of life; 3% will never
20,522 10%
15K 8% 8% 6%
10K
10 Year Difference in # of Life Sentences Life Without Parole
298
4%
Life - Parole Eligible -85
5K
Lifetime Supervision Other
941
Lifer % of Inmate Population
Total Inmate Population
20K
14%
2%
-7
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
0% 2005
0K
Note: Other includes pre-1979 and one-day-to-life sentences.
become parole eligible. Only 44% were past their parole eligibility date (PED). This rate is much lower than that seen in past years (49% in FY 2012 and 51% in FY 2011). The maximum governing sentence of the inmate jurisdictional population was quite long on average: 174 months or 14.5 years. In contrast, inmates 42
Inmate Population Characteristics
FIGURE 35 Jurisdictional Inmate Population Characteristics (N = 20,305) Gender
Offense Severity
Males
91%
Females
Felony Class 1
Caucasian Hispanic/Latino
Felony Class 4
32% 19%
Felony Class 5
3%
14%
Felony Class 6
4%
Drug Felony 3 0%
Age Groups
Drug Felony 4 0%
18-19 0% 20-29
Offense Type
25%
30-39
Drug Offense
34%
40-49 4% 1%
County of Commitment
11%
Sexual Assault - Child
8%
Burglary
8%
Theft
8%
Robbery
7% 5%
Escape
19%
El Paso
12%
Assault
14%
Denver
13%
Homicide
22%
50-59 70+
36%
Drug Felony 2 0%
Asian American 1%
60-69
32%
Drug Felony 1 0%
46%
African American
10%
Felony Class 3
Ethnicity
Native American
4%
Felony Class 2
9%
Sexual Assault
16%
Arapahoe
10%
Habitual
Jefferson
10%
Kidnapping
10%
4% 3% 2%
Forgery
1%
5%
Traffic
1%
Pueblo
5%
Others
Mesa
5%
Adams Weld
Larimer
Death 0%
3%
Douglas Fremont
Life Sentences
4%
Boulder
Life - Parole Eligible 2%
2%
Life Without Parole
1%
Other
Lifetime Supervision
9%
Parole Return/TV Other
2%
86%
Past PED
10% 13%
8% Sentence
75%
Parole Return/NC
3%
Non - Life Sentence
Admission Type New Ct. Commit
18%
Avg Months Served
44% 51.2 173.6
Avg Governing Sent Gang Affiliation Yes None
43
26% 74%
Inmate Population Characteristics had served a total of 51.2 months. For the
inmate jurisdictional population in some
majority of inmates, PED is calculated as 50%
expected ways. Because of the community
of the maximum governing sentence length
return-to-custody option available to felony
minus pre-sentence confinement awarded by
Class 4 – 6 parole violators, there were more
the court. Mandatory release date (MRD) is
offenders serving their parole sentence in the
calculated as 100% of the maximum govern-
community, and these offenders had lower fel-
ing sentence length minus pre-sentence con-
ony classes. Similarly, there were few com-
finement awarded by the court. Various types
munity inmates serving life/lifetime sentenc-
of earned time awards can be applied to both
es; a higher percentage of these inmates were
dates to reduce the amount of time spent incar-
past their PED due to community eligibility
cerated.
requirements. The community corrections
Figure 36 provides similar information for
population was comprised of a higher percent-
female inmates only. Females differed from
age of female, Caucasian and aged 30 – 49
males across several categories. Female in-
inmates than was the jurisdictional population.
mates were less likely to be minorities and more likely to be middle-aged than males. Fe-
AGING TRENDS
males have a higher sentencing rate from El
Inmates over 50 years of age are the fast-
Paso county than males, but lower sentencing
est-growing segment of the prison population.
rate from Denver County. Female’s offenses
Between 1995 and 2010, the number of state
were different than male’s: They were more
and federal prisoners age 55 or older nearly
likely than males to have a drug, theft or es-
quadrupled, increasing at almost seven times
cape conviction as their most serious offense;
the rate of the general prison population.1
they had shorter sentences; and they were less
In CDOC between 1993 and 2014, the num-
likely to have a life/lifetime sentence.
ber of inmates aged 50 and over increased
The profile of community inmates is shown in Figure 37. They differed from the total
1 Human Rights Watch. (201). Old behind bars: The aging prison population in the United States.
44
Inmate Population Characteristics
FIGURE 36 Female Inmate Population Characteristics (N = 1,866) Ethnicity
Offense Severity
Caucasian
53%
Hispanic/Latino
Felony Class 5
26%
30-39
15%
Felony Class 6
39%
40-49
43%
Drug Felony 2 0%
20-29
5%
Drug Felony 3 0%
22%
Drug Felony 4 1%
10%
Offense Type
2%
70+ 0%
Drug Offense
Denver El Paso
12%
Weld
5% 4%
Boulder
2%
Douglas
2%
Sexual Assault - Child
1%
Kidnapping
1%
Habitual
1%
Sexual Assault 0% Others
Non - Life Sentence
Admission Type New Ct. Commit Parole Return/NC
12%
97%
Lifetime Supervision 1%
74% 12%
25%
Life Sentences
7%
Parole Return/TV
3%
Traffic 0%
1%
Other
4%
Forgery
7%
Larimer
5%
Burglary
7%
Mesa
7%
Robbery
10%
Pueblo
9%
Assault
11%
Adams
10%
Homicide
18%
Jefferson
13%
Escape
14%
Arapahoe
18%
Theft
County of Commitment
Fremont
26%
Felony Class 4
5% Age Groups
60-69
8%
Felony Class 3
14%
50-59
2%
Felony Class 2
28%
African American Other
Felony Class 1
Life Without Parole 2% Life - Parole Eligible 1%
Other 2%
Sentence Past PED Avg Months Served
46% 28.4
Avg Governing Sent
105.6
Gang Affiliation Yes None
45
11% 89%
Inmate Population Characteristics
FIGURE 37 Community-Based Inmate Population Characteristics (N = 2,313) Gender
Offense Severity
Males
85%
Females
Felony Class 1 1% Felony Class 2
15% Ethnicity
Caucasian Hispanic/Latino
27%
Offense Type
20-29
Drug Offense
25%
30-39
60-69
70+ 0% County of Commitment Denver El Paso
18%
Arapahoe
10%
Jefferson
11% 9%
Mesa
Fremont
Kidnapping
1%
Habitual
1%
Sexual Assault
1%
Sexual Assault - Child
1%
99%
Sentence 9%
Past PED Avg Months Served
Admission Type New Ct. Commit
67%
Parole Return/TV
21%
Life - Parole Eligible 1%
1%
Other
Other
2%
Lifetime Supervision 0%
2%
100% 37.4
Avg Governing Sent
20%
Parole Return/NC
2%
Traffic
Life Sentences
3%
Douglas
6% 6%
Non - Life Sentence
6%
Boulder
Robbery Homicide
Others
4%
Larimer
7%
Forgery 16%
6%
8%
Escape
2%
6%
9%
Assault
13%
Weld
14%
Burglary
22%
Pueblo
20%
Theft
38%
Adams
7%
Drug Felony 4 0%
Age Groups
50-59
22%
Felony Class 6
4%
40-49
43%
Felony Class 5
18%
Other
23%
Felony Class 4
51%
African American
4%
Felony Class 3
84.57 Gang Affiliation
12%
Yes
2%
None
46
21% 79%
Inmate Population Characteristics from 464 to 3,691 (an increase of 695%).
FIGURE 38 Aging Population Trends
In comparison, the total population only experienced a 132% increase (from 8,754 to
50+
15K
Inmates over 50 were 5% of the inmate population in 1993
Inmates over 50 were 18% of the inmate population in 2014
10K
resenting a larger percentage of the U.S. popu-
2013
2015
2011
2009
challeng-
2007
of
2003
myriad
2001
a
1999
comes
1997
ulation
0K 1995
sentencing laws.3 With this aging inmate pop-
5K
1993
lation2, increased life expectancy and tougher
2005
bination of factors: aging Baby Boomers rep-
Inmate Population
20,305) during the same time (see Figure 38). These statistics can be attributed to a com-
Under 50
20K
es for the criminal justice system, including higher medical costs; the need for
NEEDS LEVELS
special housing, accommodations and pro-
Needs levels were examined for the juris-
gramming; and a higher risk of victimiza-
dictional inmate population (see Figure 39),
tion. Prison policies and sentencing practices
dichotomized as moderate-to-severe needs
must
(Levels 3-5) and none-to-low needs (Levels
be
reconsidered
as
they
relate
to elderly inmates.4
1-2). Needs levels are examined by gender due to the large number of differences between men and women. Similar to admissions, females have higher needs levels than males across all areas. Female sex offenders are an exception;
2 Administration on Aging. (2011). A profile of older Americans: 2011.
their needs are lower. Females with develop-
3 Anno, B.J., Graham, C., Lawrence, J.E., & Shansky, R. (2004). Correctional health care: Addressing the needs of elderly, chronically ill, and terminally ill inmates. (NIC No. 018735). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 4 Aday, R. H. Aging prisoners: Crisis in American corrections. Westplort, CT: Praeger.
47
mental disabilities are also an exception; their needs are equal. Differences are greater in the areas of medical and mental health needs.
Inmate Population Characteristics The percent of inmates scoring in each needs
FIGURE 39 Needs Levels Mod - Severe
level was different from those of the prison admission cohort, although most of the differ-
None - Low
ences were slight. However, the jurisdictional
Medical Males
29%
71% 72%
Females Total
33%
Males
32%
28%
treatment needs than new admissions. Among
67%
the inmate population, 49% of inmates (versus
Mental Health 68% 71%
Females Total
29%
35%
65%
74%
26%
81%
Females
19%
75%
Total
25%
Sex Offender Males
29%
The most significant trend in this area is the
Developmental Disability
growing population of inmates with mental
Females
96%
Total
95%
illness. A disproportionately large number of individuals with mental illness exist within the
Vocational 49%
Males
51%
Females
52%
48%
Total
49%
51%
20% 25% 20%
criminal justice system compared to the U.S. population. National prevalence rates suggest that incidences of mental illness (e.g., schizo-
Academic
Total
sions, a difference attributable to inmates at-
73%
27%
95%
Males
academic needs compared to 28% of admis-
93%
Males
Females
the inmate population had moderate-to-severe
taining their GED while incarcerated.
71%
Females Total
43% of admissions) had moderate-to-severe vocational needs. On the other hand, 20% of
Substance Abuse Males
inmate population has lower sex offender
80% 75% 80%
phrenia, major affective disorders) among inmates are approximately two to three times higher than incidences of mental illness in the U.S. population.5 5 Teplin, L.A. (1990). The prevalence of severe mental disorder among male urban jail detainees: Comparison with the
48
Inmate Population Characteristics Figure 40 shows the trends of inmates with FIGURE 41 LSI-R Risk Distributions by Gender
mental health needs (Levels 3 – 5) over time. Females have consistently displayed higher mental health needs than males. However, the
19%
Males
mental health needs of both males and females
24%
22%
12%
have increased steadily over time. 0% 1%
3%
10%
6%
2%
0%
30%
RISK ASSESSMENT of recidivism. Figure 41 provides the LSI-R
Females
The LSI-R is used to assess offenders’ risk
21% 16%
1%
score distributions for male, female and total
3%
6%
13%
9% 1%
24% 23% 18%
Total
12%
0% 50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
2% 20-24
3%
11%
6% 15-19
FIGURE 40 Mental Health Needs
5-9
1-4
0% 1%
10-14
Epidemiological Catchment Area Program. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 663-669. Retrieved from http://ajph.aphapublications.org
LSI-R Total Score
72%
inmate populations. Overall, CDOC inmates
62%
score in the higher ranges of the LSI-R scale.
Female
Female inmates tend to have somewhat highTotal
er risk levels than male inmates. Although this
35% 32%
28% 25%
seems counterintuitive, it is likely because the LSI-R assesses a broad range of criminogen-
Male
ic needs. Females have different pathways to 2010
2011
2012
2013
crime, including domestic or sexual abuse,
2014
49
Inmate Population Characteristics mental illness, substance abuse, economic
has been used since to report incidents depart-
hardships, and overwhelming parental respon-
ment wide. Assaults against inmates and staff
sibilities.
include any physical force, hazardous substance (i.e., feces, urine, chemicals) or item
REPORTABLE INCIDENTS
applied against a person intentionally, regard-
Reportable incidents summarized in this
less of whether or not injury occurs. Beginning
report include inmate assaults on staff, inmate
in July 2013, assaults against staff are tracked
assaults on inmates, fighting, uses of force,
by the type of assault (e.g., with serious injury,
inmate deaths and escapes. CDOC also tracks
without serious injury, hazardous liquid and
sexual assaults in compliance with the Prison
spitting). The use-of-force category includes
Rape Elimination Act (PREA). Signed into
incidents involving the use of soft and hard
federal law in 2003, PREA addresses inci-
empty-hand control, soft and hard intermediate
dents of prison sexual abuse through a zero-
control, forced cell entry, cell extraction with
tolerance policy. CDOC PREA incidents are
oleoresin capsicum (OC), restraint chair, four-
investigated by its Inspector General’s Office
or five-point restraints, warning shot, or lethal
to determine whether there is a factual basis
force. Figure 42 shows a five-year history of
to the report, and whether reports meet PREA
assaults and use-of-force incidents in state
criteria. CDOC is mandated to report this data
and private prisons. Assaults and fighting are
yearly to the BJS. PREA data can be found on
counted by each incident and not by the num-
CDOC’s website under “Departmental Reports
ber of inmates involved. Use of force counts
and Statistics.”
the number of offenders involved in each incident. There was a small increase in the rate
ASSAULTS & USE OF FORCE
of assaults against inmates as well as fights in
Prison-based incidents are tracked electron-
FY 2014. However, the rate of assaults against
ically via the Reportable Incident System,
staff decreased nearly 25%. Use of force
which became operational on Jan. 1, 2008, and
incidents 50
also
increased
slightly.
Inmate Population Characteristics
FIGURE 43 Number of Incidents
FIGURE 42 Rate of Incidents per 10,000 Offenders 700
686
651
Assaults
500
346
343
277
300 200
Assault staff-haz liquid
37
Assault staff-spitting
32
Assault staff-with serious injury
9 110
Assault staff-without serious injury
208 139
100
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
0
Fighting
Inmate Assault on Inmate
Use of Force
485
Soft empty hand control
493 32 480
Soft intermediate control
195
Inmate Assault on Staff
Inmate assault on inmate Hard empty hand control
Use of Force
Rate per 10,000 Inmates
600
400
607
Fighting
13
Hard intermediate control
83
Cell extraction (OC used)
41
Restraint Chair Four or five point restraints
20
Warning shot
2
Forced cell entry
39
Lethal force
0
Figure 43 provides the number of incidents
DEATHS IN CUSTODY
during FY 2014 broken down by type. The
CDOC participates annually in the BJS’
total assaults shown for FY 2014 do not reflect
Deaths
81 incidental contacts or 74 attempted
(DCRP), which collects national, state and
assaults due to the fact that no injury occurred
incident-level data on persons who died
to staff. The total uses-of-force shown for
while in the physical custody of 50 state
FY 2014 do not reflect 92 emergent need
departments of corrections, the federal sys-
entry or 46 four- or five-point restraint
tem and approximately 3,000 local adult jail
incidents as no force was used on an inmate
jurisdictions.
during these types of incidents.
characteristics as well as the circumstances
in
Custody
DCRP
Reporting
records
Program
decedent
surrounding the death, information on whether an autopsy was conducted, and information 51
Inmate Population Characteristics on whether the decedent had a pre-existing
of illness or natural causes, the average age
medical condition for which he/she received
was 31 years.
prior medical treatment in cases of deaths due
ESCAPES
to illness. Deaths in custody, as defined by DCRP, apply
to
offenders
confined
whether
housed
in
CDOC
Escape is defined by CDOC as leaving the last barrier of a secured facility, the imaginary
our
barrier of an unsecured facility (camp), or a
jurisdiction or that of another state; private
work crew or escorted trip outside a facility
facilities; special facilities (medical/treat-
without permission. A court conviction for
ment/release centers, halfway houses, police/
escape, a code of penal discipline conviction
court lockups and work farms); and offenders
for escape or an unauthorized absence for 24
facilities,
under
in transit under our jurisdiction. They do not include deaths by execution, deaths of inmates
FIGURE 44 Deaths in Custody
in local jails, deaths in a state-operated facility in another state, deaths of those on ISP inmate
FY 2010
status or deaths of those under probation or
FY 2012
parole supervision.
FY 2014
42
5
36
3 3
43
FY 2013
1
35
DOC Custody (Prison)
During FY 2014, there were 36 deaths in
6
47
FY 2011
Community Corrections
custody, one of which occurred in community corrections (see Figure 44). Cause of FIGURE 45 Cause of Death
death is determined by a coroner or medical examiner external to CDOC. Most in-
DOC Custody (Prison)
mates who died (80%) died of an illness or
28
Illness/Natural Cause 6
Suicide
natural cause (see Figure 45). None of the deaths were female. The average age at time of
Community Corrections
death was 64 years; excluding those who died 52
Homicide
1
Accidental
1
Inmate Population Characteristics hours or more constitutes an escape from a
• FY 2010: Four Mile Correctional Cen-
community corrections center or ISP place-
ter and San Carlos Correctional Facility
ment. Escapes primarily occur from communi-
(while out to court; one at each facility)
ty and ISP placements. Figure 46 provides a five-year history of escapes from secure facilities (state and private prisons on- or off-grounds), community corrections centers, intensive supervision program (ISP) inmate status and community return-to-custody facilities. There have been six escapes from secure facilities over the past
• FY 2011: Sterling Correctional Facility (one) • FY 2012: Delta Correctional Center (one) • FY 2013: Colorado Correctional Center (while on work detail) (one) • FY 2014: Skyline Correctional Center
five years:
(one)
FIGURE 46 Inmate Escapes Secure Facilities
Community Corrections Centers
2010
2
2011
1
2012
1
2013
1
2014
1 316
2010
332
2011 312
2012
308
2013
310
2014 Intensive Supervision (ISP) Inmates
22
2010
32
2011
28
2012
25
2013 2014 Community Return to Custody
2010
14 72 89
2011 2012 2013 2014
81 106 129
53
Inmate Population Characteristics Escapes from community corrections centers
and private prisons as determined by earned
are the most common, followed by escapes
time awarded.
from community return-to-custody facilities. The number of escapes from return-to-custody facilities has increased over time; the number of escapes from community corrections has remained stable; and the number of ISP inmate escapes has decreased.
PROGRAM PARTICIPATION To improve their chances of success upon re-entry, inmates have the opportunity to participate in educational, behavioral health and pre-release programs during their incarceration. Figure 47 shows the participation levels by month for FY 2014 for funded programs. Participation in voluntary programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous, 7 Habits on the Inside or Thinking for a Change are not shown. In August 2012, CDOC implemented achievement earned time awards per HB 12-1223 for program completions or milestone achievements. This has enabled more accurate reporting of program completions. Figure 48 shows completions by program area across all state 54
emic
munity
Inmate Population Characteristics
FIGURE 47 Participation in Programs Academic & Vocational Programs
Sex Offender Treatment
Academic
1,653 1,201
Vocational
307
1,607 1,250 258
Phase 2
Phase 2 Phase 1
126
86 Phase 1 Jul-13
Sep-13
Nov-13
Jan-14
Mar-14
May-14
Jul-13
Substance Abuse Treatment
Sep-13
Nov-13
Jan-14
Mar-14
May-14
Mental Health Treatment & Pre-Release Program 685 851
652 Therapeutic Community
686
Mental Health
Mental Health 287
288
Pre-Release Program
372
283
Outpatient Pre-Release Program Jul-13
Sep-13
Nov-13
Jan-14
Mar-14
May-14
Jul-13
FIGURE 48 Program Competions 964
Academic
2,113
Vocational 838
Subs. Abuse Outpatient 456
Subs. Abuse TC SOTMP Phase 1 SOTMP Phase 2
38 108 1,130
Mental Health Prerelease
914
55
Sep-13
Nov-13
Jan-14
Mar-14
May-14
56
Parole Population Characteristics
Parole Population Characteristics PAROLE POPULATION
C
PAROLE CASELOAD
olorado has a blended parole system.
The average daily parole caseload is shown
The Parole Board has the authority
in Figure 49. Using a daily average more
to grant parole to inmates who reach parole
accurately reflects the workload maintained
eligibility but have not completed their full
throughout the year. The average daily
sentence. However, all offenders sentenced
parole caseload declined steadily from FY
for a crime committed after 1993 must serve
2010 through FY 2012 before increasing
a period of parole (unless sentenced to life
in FY 2013, then decreasing yet again in
or death). Those who release before serving
FY 2014. (In FY 2014, there was a 2.7%
the full term receive discretionary parole, and those who serve the maximum term re-
FIGURE 49 Average Daily Parole Caseload
lease on mandatory parole. Upon release, both discretionary
and
mandatory
parolees
complete their prison sentence and begin
11,467 721
10,985
10,748
707
673
2,007
1,960
8,657
8,271
2010
2011
2,089
serving their parole sentence. If parole is
11,313 759
10,775 676
2,007
1,785
8,115
8,547
8,314
2012
2013
2014
revoked, they continue to serve their parole sentence and may discharge the sentence from prison or re-parole.
Absconder
57
Out of State
Domestic
Parole Population Characteristics decrease in domestic parolees and an 11%
in Grand Junction. This can be attributed to
decrease in offenders serving their parole out
the overall higher populations and access
of state.) Figure 50 displays the number of
to necessary programs found in these areas.
parolees by parole office. The highest concen-
Twenty-two percent of all parolees are assigned
tration was found along the Front Range and
to the Lincoln office; Westminster holds the
FIGURE 50 Parole Office Caseload on June 30, 2014
Note: Sherman Parole Office and Interstate Compact do not have unique territory and are therefore not included.
58
Parole Population Characteristics second highest percentage of parolees (17%).
offenders paroled to a felony detainer, offenders deported by U.S. Immigrations and Cus-
PAROLEE PROFILE
toms Enforcement, and offenders supervised
Figure 51 breaks out the parole population by
on parole in other states. Parolees in county jail
supervision type. Over half of the population
are most likely awaiting a revocation hearing
is active on regular parole supervision. ISP
by the Parole Board due to a technical parole
parolees are assigned to the Intensive Super-
violation or a pending criminal conviction.
vision Program (ISP), which was launched in
Absconders are parolees who fail to report
1991 to provide additional supervision and
to their CPO or change their residence with-
program participation for high-risk parolees.
out their PO’s knowledge and consent; their
Out-of-state, county jail, absconders and pa-
whereabouts and activities are unknown. The
rolees in other locations account for 34% of the
parolees in other locations category primarily
population. The out-of-state category includes
encompass those who, as a condition of their parole, are in residential programs such as community corrections or inpatient substance
FIGURE 51 Total Parole Population as of June 30, 2014 (N = 10,432)
Out of state total 1,808 17%
abuse program. The demographic characteristics of parolees
Other Location 303 3%
displayed in Figure 52 are relatively similar to those of the jurisdictional inmate population profile, although there is a larger number of female offenders on parole (14%) than in pris-
ISP Parole 1,065 10%
on (9%). The majority of parolees had been sentenced for nonviolent crimes, whereas the
County Jail 959 9% Absconder 508 5%
Regular Parole 5,789 55%
majority of inmates had been sentenced for violent offenses. Parolees can be generally described as male; of minority descent; in the 59
Parole Population Characteristics
FIGURE 52 Domestic Parole Profile on June 30, 2014 (N = 8,325) Gender
Release Type Males
86%
Females
14%
Ethnicity Caucasian
49%
Hispanic/Latino
Asian American
15%
Nonviolent
66%
Violent
18%
34%
3%
Gang Affiliation
1%
Yes No
Age 20-29
21% 79%
21%
30-39
34%
40-49
LSI Risk Category Low Risk
25%
50-59
13%
Medium Risk
15%
60-69 70+
53% 32%
Violent Offenders
30%
African American Native American
Discretionary Mandatory Mandatory Reparole
High Risk
4%
51% 36%
1%
Note: Parolees from other states supervised in Colorado are not included due to missing data on most categories.
age range of 20-49; having a discretionary
mandatory parole date or were re-paroled.
release type; nonviolent; not affiliated with
Consistent with the program’s purpose, parol-
gangs; and having a medium-to-high LSI
ees on ISP are more likely violent, affiliated
risk level. Females on parole represent 14%
with gangs and have higher LSI-R risk levels.
of the total domestic parole population (see Figure 53). Compared to males, they tend
NEEDS LEVELS
to be younger, nonviolent, have fewer gang
Parolees’ needs levels are shown in Figure 55.
affiliations, have lower risk levels, and are
When comparing needs levels of parolees to
on regular parole supervision and received
needs levels of the inmate population (shown
discretionary parole.
in Figure 39), parolees have lower needs levels
Figure 54 shows that ISP parolees tend to
in all categories except for substance abuse.
be younger and were either released on their
Similar to the inmate population, female 60
Parole Population Characteristics
FIGURE 53 Domestic Parole Gender Comparison (N = 8,325)
Gender
Supervision Type 86%
Overall
14%
Regular Parole ISP Parole
Ethnicity 85%
Caucasian
88%
Hispanic/Latino
15% 12%
African American
88%
12%
Native American
86%
14%
Asian American
78%
22%
Discretionary Mandatory Mandatory Reparole
Age 20-29
87%
13%
30-39
86%
14%
40-49
83%
17%
84% 89% 87%
16% 11% 13%
83%
17%
92%
8%
93% 84%
7% 16%
83%
17%
Gang Affiliation
50-59
89%
11%
60-69
91%
9% 2%
Yes No LSI-R Risk Category Low Risk
Males
6%
Violent Offenders Violent
98%
15%
94%
Release Type
Nonviolent
70+
85%
Females
parolees have higher needs than males in all categories except for sex offender and gangs;and having a medium-to-high LSI risk level. Females on parole represent 14% of the total domestic parole population (see Figure 53). Compared to males, they tend to be younger, nonviolent, have fewer gang affiliations, have lower risk levels, and are on regular parole supervision and received discretionary parole.
61
Medium Risk
87%
13%
High Risk
87%
13%
PAROLE SUPERVISION OUTCOMES Forty percent of parolees leaving parole supervision during FY 2014 completed their parole sentence (see Figure 56). A small percentage (5%) received an early parole discharge. Parolees who have been under supervision for at least six months, served at least half of their parole sentence, and are compliant with the conditions of parole may be
Parole Population Characteristics
FIGURE 54 Domestic Parole Supervision Type Comparison (N =8,325) ISP vs. Regular Parole
Release Type
Overall
82%
18%
Males
82%
18%
Discretionary Mandatory Mandatory Reparole
Gender 93%
Females
7%
Nonviolent Violent
Caucasian
85%
15%
84%
16%
African American
82%
18%
76%
Native American
Yes No
9%
Age 20-29
81%
30-39
83%
17%
Medium Risk
40-49
85%
15%
High Risk
50-59
87%
13%
90% 86%
70+
19%
Low Risk
Parole Isp
rests with the Parole Board to grant early discharges from parole. Female offenders and
to
76% 86%
24% 14%
releases receive
an
95% 89% 73%
were
more
early
parole
discharge. Discretionary parole releases were also more likely to complete their sentence than be revoked for a technical violation or new crime.
62
Regular Parole
5% 11% 27%
10% 14%
eligible for early discharge; final authority
likely
12% 23%
LSI-R Risk Category
60-69
discretionary
88% 77%
Gang Affiliation
24%
91%
Asian American
11% 19% 29%
Violent Offenders
Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino
89% 81% 71%
ISP Parole
Parole Population Characteristics
FIGURE 55 Domestic Parolee Needs Levels (N = 8,325)
FIGURE 56 Parole Supervision Outcomes
Medical
Overall 22%
Males
Successful completion
78% 52%
Females 26%
Total
Early parole discharge
48%
Other
76% 62%
Females
3%
38%
29%
71%
By Gender
Substance Abuse Males
79%
21%
Females
81%
19%
Total
79%
21%
Successful completion
87%
13%
Early parole discharge
83%
17%
89%
Techical return Return with new crime
89%
11%
Grand Total
88%
12%
Sex Offender
Males
Males 16%
By Release Type
85%
Total 15%
Successful completion
Developmental Disability 96%
Females
96%
Total
96%
Techical return
84%
21%
79%
Total 17% Mod - Severe
Return with new crime
38%
62%
Grand Total
39%
61%
es to probation.
57%
Academic Males 16%
66%
Mandatory
supervised out of state, and court-ordered discharges or releas-
50%
43%
Total
34%
Note: Other includes interstate transfers, new conviction while
58%
50%
Females
27%
73%
Discretionary
Vocational 42%
58%
42%
Early parole discharge
Males
Males
Females
84% 96%
Females
Females
10%
Return with new crime
24%
Total
43%
Techical return
74%
Mental Health Males
40% 5%
83% None - Low
63
Parole Population Characteristics
64
Recidivism Rates
Recidivism Rates
C
DOC defines recidivism as a return to
vism has not changed). The current method-
prison or inmate status in Colorado with-
ology is based on the Association of State
in three years of release, for either new crim-
Correctional Administrators (ASCA) perfor-
inal activity or a technical violation of parole,
mance-based measurement system, which has
probation or non-departmental community
highly specific measures and counting rules
placement. This definition is common across
for calculating recidivism rates. The following
state corrections departments, but the method-
summarizes this methodology:
ology for computing recidivism is often not reported. After a review of other correctional recidivism rate calculation methods and national standards, Colorado developed new methodology in 2008 (though our definition of recidi-
• Recidivism: Defined as return to inmate status and calculated using three measures: new convictions, technical violations and overall recidivism (new con-
Time at Risk
{if released to parole, may discharge parole before three years but are still followed}
Three Years
Release Date Releases include: • discretionary paroles • mandatory paroles • re-paroles • sentence discharges
Recidivism Return to inmate status for: • technical violation • new crime
Releases do not include: • releases to community corrections • multiple releases in the same year •
Returns do not include: • community corrections regressions
releases to a detainer
65
Recidivism Rates victions plus technical violations) at one
tinue reporting recidivism on a cal-
year post-release intervals.
endar-year basis to be consistent with ASCA standards and other national pris-
• Cohort: Includes the number of in-
on surveys.
mates released, not the number of times inmates release. Even if an inmate re-
The
leased multiple times within a year, that
(including returns for new crimes and tech-
individual was counted only once per
nical violations) is 46.1% for the calendar
release cohort. Therefore, an inmate can
year 2011 release cohort (see Figure 57). The
fail only once within any given cohort.
recidivism rate decreased 11% from 2007
• Release types: Includes only inmates
who released to the community, including releases to parole, completion of sentence, court-ordered discharge or
overall
three-year
recidivism
rate
to 2011. The majority of returns are for technical violations. To better explore recidivism rates by return type, Figure 58 displays cumulative
released to probation. To be counted, inmates must release from their inmate
FIGURE 57 3-Year Recidivism Rate Over Time
status. Inmates who died while incarcerated, escaped, or had their sentence
60%
vacated or inactivated were not included
50%
Percent of Cohort Returned
51.8%
in the recidivism cohort. Additionally, offenders who released to a detainer or charges were excluded.
New Crime Return
40% 30%
Technical Violation Return
20%
• Calendar year (CY): Although the
10%
CDOC statistical report is based on
0% 2007
fiscal year data, it was decided to con-
46.1%
2008
2009 Release Cohort
66
2010
2011
Recidivism Rates
FIGURE 58 Recidivism Rates by Return Type Technical Violation Return
3 years
32.2%
2 years 32.7% 27.3%
30% 32.2%
1 year
23.6% 20%
17.3% 13.9%
14.9%
10%
11.2%
2012
2011
2010
2009
6.6% 2008
2007
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
9.0%
2013
Percent of Cohort Returned
34.5%
New Crime Return Years at Risk
Release Cohort
return-to-prison rates across seven release
rates, the overall recidivism rate varies less.
cohorts, at one-year intervals up to three years
Figure 59 analyzes the 2011 release cohort,
post-release. Technical violations consistently
detailing the amount of time it took a recid-
constitute the largest proportion of returns to
ivist to return back to inmate status. As time
prison over time. Although recidivism rates
passed, the number of offenders who returned
have remained on a slow-but-steady decline,
to prison decreased. The majority of offenders
it is important to note the relationship between
who failed did so within the first year, particu-
new crime and technical violation returns.
larly within two to eight months post-release,
As technical returns increased among 2009
demonstrating that this is the highest risk
releases, new crime returns decreased. While
period.
there may be more variations from year to year
Recidivism rates vary by offender charac-
in the new crime and technical violation return
teristics (see Figure 60). Recidivism rates are
67
Recidivism Rates higher for males than females and are higher
on a technical violation. As stated before,
for younger offenders than older ones. Certain
technical violations constitute the largest
minority groups are more likely to fail (Native
portion of returns, thus offenders who
Americans and African Americans) than other
discharge their sentences have the lowest
minority groups (Hispanics/Latinos and Asian
return rate. Discretionary parole is granted
Americans).
by the Parole Board to offenders who are the
Criminal history is a strong predictor of
most prepared to re-enter society, and their
post-release success. The number of prior in-
recidivism rate is the next lowest. Offenders
carcerations and type of release are among
who do not release until their mandatory parole
the strongest recidivism predictors. Offend-
date or who re-parole after a failure have the
ers who discharge their sentence receive no
highest return rates. Felony class alone does
post-release supervision and cannot return
not have a clear relationship with outcomes,
FIGURE 59 Recidivists' Time Out of Prison Before Returning, CY 2011 Release Cohort
250 53% did not return within 3 years
200 150 100 50 0
16% returned within 6 months
14% returned between 6 months and 1 year
5% returned between 2 and 3 years 12% returned between 1 and 2 years
<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Number of Recidivated Offenders
300
# Months Post-Release
68
Recidivism Rates
FIGURE 60 3-Year Recidivism Rate by Offender Characteristics Gender
Prior Incarcerations 46.8%
Male
None
41.3%
Female
One
51.2%
Two
52.3%
Three or More
55.8%
46.1%
Total
Ethnicity
43.7%
Felony Class 58.7%
Native American
Class 2
45.8%
Caucasian
Class 3
41.4%
Hispanic/Latino Asian American
Class 1 11.1%
54.1%
African American
Class 4
36.1%
Class 5
Age Group 53.9%
20 - 29 yrs old 30 - 39 yrs old
43.9%
40 - 49 yrs old
44.1%
60 - 69 yrs old
38.6% 49.4% 49.3%
Class 6
39.1%
Discretionary Parole
36.8%
Release Type 63.0%
Under 20 yrs old
50 - 59 yrs old
29.8%
Mandatory Parole
54.0% 58.8%
Mandatory Reparole Sentence Discharge 20.0%
35.9%
Court Release
41.5%
28.5%
70+ yrs old 9.5%
Needs Level (3-5)
Gang Affiliation 53.4%
Mental Health Substance Abuse Sex Offender
Yes No
48.1%
55.3% 43.8%
50.9%
LSI-R Risk Category Low Risk 21.0% Medium Risk High Risk
38.3% 50.3%
but gang membership has one of the strongest
increase an offender’s likelihood of recidi-
relationships with recidivism.
vism. Risk, as measured by the LSI-R, is also
Certain needs areas — including mental health, sex offender and substance abuse — 69
a strong indicator of recidivism.
Recidivism Rates
70
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF PLANNING & ANALYSIS 2862 South Circle Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80906 www.colorado.gov/cdoc
