COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ... This cost estimate uses a cost allocation model that ... institutional behavior. As such, cost …

6-Jan-10 COR-hearing

1

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Budget Hearing January 6, 2010

ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

6-Jan-10 COR-hearing 2

FY 2010-11 JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE HEARING AGENDA

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 1:30 pm - 5:00 pm

1:30-2:15 INTRODUCTIONS AND OPENING COMMENTS 2:15-2:45 OVERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. How many days on average are individuals in county jails to the jail backlog?

Answer: The local jails long bill appropriation in the External Capacity Subprogram provides funding for three different types of incarcerations: Jail Backlog, Community Regressions, and Parole & Technical Parole Violators. The total FY 2008-09 expenditures from the local jails appropriation was $7,595,058.44. The detail of these expenditures, by incarceration type, is displayed in the following table:

Table 1: FY 2008-09 Payments to Local Jails Expenditures

Jails By Type of Incarceration FY 2008-09 Expenditure

Daily Rate

$50.44 Jail Bed

Days Used

Average Daily

Population Median

# Of Days

DOC Jail Backlog $1,101,816.36 21,844 60 2.9

Community Regressions $1,978,509.00 39,225 107 13.0

Parole & Technical Parole Violators $4,497,129.52 89,158 244 6.0

FY 2008-09 Total Expenses $7,577,454.88 150,227 411

Year End Accrual/Reversion $17,603.56 equal to 349 1 N/A

FY 2008-09 Total $7,595,058.44 150,576 412

DOC Jail Backlog consists of offenders who are newly sentenced to the DOC and are awaiting intake into the DOC system. Community Regressions occur when a community based inmate has been found guilty of a violation and is being brought back into a higher level custody prison bed. Community Return to Custody Facility Regressions are those offenders being regressed from community pursuant to SB 03-252 (parole revocation option). Parole & Technical Parole Violators are parolees who committed a new crime while on parole and were sentenced to the Department (Parole Violator) or have violated the terms of the parole agreement (Technical Parole Violator). The DOC jail backlog is affected by the 45 per day maximum intake capacity at the Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center (DRDC) and the availability of a suitable bed for the offender. Community Regressions are held in jails following a guilty finding resulting from a due process hearing until a bed becomes available. Parole Violators are held in jail at the DOC’s expense upon sentencing for new criminal charges. Technical Parole Violators are held in jail at the DOC’s expense upon a


determination of revocation by the Parole Board. The median number of days in jail has been identified as the typical length of stay and is a statistic that is not influenced by extraordinary situations. The incarceration type indicates why the offender is being held and directly affects the length of time it takes to resolve the jail hold.

As shown in Table 1, the DOC Jail Backlog offender has a median length of stay of 2.9 days; a Community Regression offender has a median length of stay of 13.0 days; and a Parole & Technical Parole Violator’s median length of stay in jail is 6.0 days.

2. If the Department were to assign inmates to private prisons first, rather than

state prisons, how much money would you save? Why doesn’t the State use this approach when assigning inmates?

Answer: The Department uses multiple criteria to place an offender in a prison bed. Offender needs, such as medical, mental health, or programmatic needs, might exclude a particular offender from placement in a facility, state or private.

The mission of the DOC is to “protect the general public through effective management of criminal offenders in controlled environments which are efficient, safe, humane, and appropriately secure, while also providing meaningful work and self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders with community re-entry through pro-social stabilization.” In order to achieve this, the first priority is to place the offender in the best possible environment. Each offender is evaluated at the Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center in order to determine the appropriate facility and program that addresses the offender’s needs. Each offender is unique in his or her needs regarding medical treatment, mental health treatment, treatment programs, and educational and vocational programs/skills. Also unique to each offender are the custody and security requirements and management concerns to include Security Threat Groups (gangs) and separation issues (informants, co-defendants, high profile crimes, etc).

It is crucial for the Department to not place any facility, staff, offender, or the general public at risk. This is accomplished by evaluating every offender and every facility to ensure that risk is minimized.

3. Why are private prison beds so much cheaper than state prison beds? Answer: Please see answer to Question 4 below. 4. Please provide a list of what is included in a state bed cost versus a private bed

cost.


Answer: Background – Private Prison Providers. Due to sustained offender population growth and shortages in state beds, the Department of Corrections (DOC) has contracted with private prisons to house and supervise offenders since 1993. Our private prison partners have provided a valuable service to the DOC and the State of Colorado. They have invested resources to provide additional beds at times in which there has been a shortage of capital construction funds to build state-owned prison beds. Accordingly, the Department has benefited from the investment they have made. Contractually, the Department requires private prison providers to implement and operate by American Correctional Association standards and Departmental Administrative Regulations. These measures afford a similarity of basic operations between state and private prisons. Despite the similarities, there are key differences between private prisons and state-operated prisons. For example, the Department has statutory responsibilities for certain specialized prisons. The Department has responsibility for inmates with higher needs. By statute, the Department is responsible for housing inmates who are classified at higher custody levels. Because of these differences and the overarching statutory responsibilities of the DOC, it is important for there to be a balance between state and private beds. State-Operated Prison Costs. Each year, as a part of the DOC’s November budget request, the DOC reports the cost of operating each of the Department’s state-owned and operated facilities. This cost estimate uses a cost allocation model that includes facility-specific expenses plus a prorated share of costs that cannot be attributed to any one facility. These costs include costs for services provided to inmates who are housed in private prisons. The DOC’s November 2009 budget request for FY 2010-11 includes estimates of the actual costs of operating each of the state facilities in FY 2008-09. The average cost of all facilities was $88.60 per inmate per day ($32,338 per offender per year). If the costs for specialty prisons are excluded ($11.25 per inmate per day) and the costs for expenses borne exclusively by the DOC for all offenders ($10.71 per inmate per day), the average daily cost of a state-operated bed is reduced to $66.64 ($24,324 per offender per year). State vs. Private Prison Costs. In recent years, there have been ongoing questions about the costs of operating state beds in comparison to the costs of private prison beds. It is challenging to provide a clear cost analysis between private prisons and state facilities for the following reasons: (a) certain expenses for all offenders have been attributed exclusively to state facilities; (b) the Department is responsible for specialized mission-specific prisons; (c) the state supervises offenders with higher needs (e.g., those with higher medical needs, mental health needs, and sex offender treatment needs); and the state is responsible for supervising offenders in higher custody levels who have proven to be management problems because of their institutional behavior. As such, cost comparisons between state facilities and private facilities are “apples and oranges” comparison. There are clear


differences between private prisons and state prisons, which tie directly to the cost per day figures.

1. Expenses attributed to state prisons. The DOC incurs expenses for a wide range of functions that are primarily the responsibility of the Department and not the responsibility of our private prison providers. However, the DOC’s cost allocation model historically has attributed expenses for these functions (on a per offender basis) to state-operated prisons. In FY 2008-09, these expenses were approximately $56.5 million. If these expenses were to be excluded from the estimated DOC average cost, it would reduce the cost by $10.71 per inmate per day. Such expenses include the following:

a. Out-patient medical care and offenders with high-cost pharmaceuticals b. Responding to Step 3 inmate-related grievances and inmate related lawsuits c. Inmate banking d. Offender Services (time computation, inmate classification system – initial

classification and assessment, and permanent inmate records, etc.) e. Transportation of inmates f. Inmate-specific information technology systems (DCIS and PCDCIS) g. Sex offender treatment h. Intensive Pre-release Services i. Parole Board j. Initial issuance of inmate clothing k. Payments to district attorneys for prosecuting crimes in prisons l. Planning and Analysis Unit responsible for criminal justice research m. Private Prison Monitoring Unit n. Inspector General’s Office o. Dress out (gate money, transportation, and clothing for inmates who are

released) p. Therapeutic communities for offenders with severe treatment needs q. Legal services for inmate lawsuits r. Initial intake and assessment costs

2. Mission-specific Prisons. By statute, the state is responsible for certain mission

driven prisons. Because of the unique program considerations for these facilities, they are higher cost than an average prison bed. The following specialty prisons cost $163.9 million in FY 2008-09. If these expenses were to be excluded from the estimated DOC average cost, it would reduce the cost by $11.25 per inmate per day.

a. Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center. This facility is uniquely staff intensive because of the responsibilities of diagnosing, assessing, classifying, and screening the offender population upon intake (Section 17-40-101, C.R.S.). This facility cost $30.2 million to operate in FY 2008-09 ($189.02 per inmate per day for an average daily attendance of 438 offenders).

b. San Carlos Correctional Facility. This facility provides staff intensive services, in a secure/high custody environment to the Department’s most severely mentally ill and developmentally disabled offenders. This facility


cost $17.1 million to operate in FY 2008-09 ($190.14 per inmate per day for an average daily attendance of 246 offenders).

c. Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility. This facility houses an infirmary and hospice care unit and provides services to offenders with high medical and mental health needs. This facility cost $32.7 million to operate in FY 2008-09 ($97.28 per inmate per day for an average daily attendance of 921 offenders).

d. Colorado State Penitentiary. This facility provides staff intensive supervision to high-custody offenders that are housed in secure cells 23-hours per day, with double escorts when out of cells. This facility cost $31.7 million to operate in FY 2008-09 ($117.37 per inmate per day for an average daily attendance of 739 offenders).

e. Centennial Correctional Facility. This facility provides staff intensive supervision to close custody offenders in a secure environment. This facility is a step-down facility to the Colorado State Penitentiary. This facility cost $14.0 million to operate in FY 2008-09 ($123.88 per inmate per day for an average daily attendance of 310 offenders).

f. Arrowhead Correctional Center. This facility is unique because of the Therapeutic Communities that are offered at this facility. This facility cost $14.8 million to operate in FY 2008-09 ($83.11 per inmate per day for an average daily attendance of 489 offenders).

g. Boot Camp. This prison is a staff intensive prison that focuses on behavior modification (Section 17-27.7-101, C.R.S.). This facility cost $3.1 million to operate in FY 2008-09 ($108.69 per inmate per day for an average daily attendance of 79 offenders).

h. Fort Lyon Correctional Facility. This facility provides staff intensive services to older offenders with high medical and mental health needs. This facility cost $20.3 million to operate in FY 2008-09 ($114.88 per inmate per day for an average daily attendance of 485 offenders).

3. Higher Needs Offenders. The Department supervises inmates who have the highest

needs (medical, mental health, developmental disabilities, self-destructive or dangerous behavior, and sex offenders in treatment). For example, 93.6% of the offenders with high medical needs in Level III facilities (M4 or M5 code) are housed in state facilities. Of the offenders with high mental health needs (P4 or P5), 99.9% are housed in state facilities. Of the inmates who are severely developmentally disabled, 98.4% are housed in a state prison bed. All sex offender treatment is done in state prison beds.

4. High-Custody Offenders. By statute, private prisons are prohibited from housing inmates who are classified as Close Custody or Administrative Segregation (Section 17-1-104.9, C.R.S.). Since 2002, the inmate population has grown by 792 high-custody offenders (close custody or administrative segregation). However, no additional high-custody beds have been brought online since 1998. Because of the shortage of high-custody beds statewide, as of November 2009, the Department had 1,300 Close Custody offenders housed in Level III state-operated facilities.


To safely supervise offenders with these treatment needs requires higher staffing levels, additional contract services, and higher cost facilities.

5. Other Considerations. The state needs to consider a wide range of issues in comparing state versus private prisons. a. Staffing Levels. An April 2005 audit conducted by the State Auditor’s Office

found that staffing levels at privately-operated facilities were 80 percent of the staffing ratios at state-operated facilities (page 43).1 Given the high need and the high custody levels of offenders in state prisons, higher staffing levels are necessary for the security of state-operated facilities.

b. Pay Levels. The April 2005 audit also found that salaries at state-operated prisons were approximately 50 percent higher than those of private prisons. Higher salaries are helpful to recruiting highly qualified staff. Higher pay reduces turnover rates. Low turnover rates help to ensure that prison staff has the experience to respond to problems as they arise.

Ongoing Evaluation of Cost Effective Strategies. The Department continues to evaluate the most cost-effective means of supervising the offender population. To this end, the Department proposed de-commissioning two state facilities during the 2009 legislative session. Ultimately, after carefully evaluating the full range of impacts of these proposals, the Department de-commissioned the Colorado Women’s Correctional Facility (CWCF) in May 2009; this marked the first time in state history that a state-operated prison was decommissioned. The closure of the CWCF was a fiscally prudent decision given the relatively high operating expenses of that facility. The Department will continue to evaluate ways to reduce the cost of state facilities. While the state has benefited significantly from our private prison partners, it is important to recognize that the DOC is ultimately responsible for our offenders. We bear the responsibility of supervising the offenders and keeping the public safe from the offenders while they are in our legal custody. The DOC will continue to bear costs for offenders housed in private prisons which are not reflected in the private prison reimbursement rate. A mix of private prison beds and state-operated beds will allow us to cost effectively meet our public safety mission.

5. Please provide a wage and benefit pay package comparison between DOC and

private prisons.

Answer: Benefit package information for private prisons was unavailable to the Department, but more specific and detailed information may be available directly from the private prison providers.

6. What are the crime rates by state from 2002 and 2008?

1 http://www.leg.state.co.us/OSA/coauditor1.nsf/All/FC4A43C259BADC498725701B00755584/$FILE/1676%20Private%20Prisons%20Perf%20April%202005.pdf


Answer: Colorado reported crime rates per 100,000 inhabitants have dropped in all but one crime category since 2002. Aggravated assault increased 2.73% between 2002 and 2008, but all other categories dropped: violent crime (-2.6%), property crime (-28.7%), murder (-20%), rape (-7.2%), robbery (-14.23%), burglary (-18.62%), larceny theft (-27.88%), and motor vehicle theft (-46.79%). In almost every case, Colorado crime rates decreased at higher percentages than the national average decrease. National trends were similar, although not exactly the same. Aggravated assault dropped 6.63%, while robbery increased .9%. All other categories decreased: violent crime (-4.6%), property crime (-13.46%), murder (-5.6%), rape (-6.9%), burglary (-5.1%), larceny theft (-13.36%), and motor vehicle theft (-29.10%).

Table 2: Comparison for Crime Rates 2002 to 2008

Index of Crime 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008

State Population Population Violent crime

Violent crime

Property crime

Property crime

Murder and non-negligent

man- slaughter


man- slaughter

Forcible rape

Forcible rape

ALABAMA 4,486,508 4,661,900 444.2 452.8 4,020.9 4,082.9 6.8 7.6 37.1 34.7

ALASKA 643,786 686,293 563.4 651.9 3,746.3 2,932.3 5.1 4.1 79.4 64.3

ARIZONA 5,456,453 6,500,180 552.9 447.0 5,833.4 4,291.0 7.1 6.3 29.5 25.7

ARKANSAS 2,710,079 2,855,390 424.4 503.4 3,733.1 3,835.1 5.2 5.7 27.8 48.9

CALIFORNIA 35,116,033 36,756,666 593.4 503.8 3,350.3 2,940.3 6.8 5.8 29.0 24.2

COLORADO 4,506,542 4,939,456 352.4 343.1 3,995.4 2,849.0 4.0 3.2 45.8 42.5

CONNECTICUT 3,460,503 3,501,252 311.1 297.8 2,686.1 2,458.7 2.3 3.5 21.1 19.3

DELAWARE 807,385 873,092 599.0 703.4 3,340.0 3,585.3 3.2 6.5 44.3 41.9 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 570,898 591,833 1,632.9 1,437.7 6,389.4 5,104.6 46.2 31.4 45.9 31.4

FLORIDA 16,713,149 18,328,340 770.2 688.9 4,650.4 4,140.8 5.5 6.4 40.4 32.6

GEORGIA 8,560,310 9,685,744 458.8 478.9 4,048.4 4,015.5 7.1 6.6 24.6 22.7

HAWAII 1,244,898 1,288,198 262.0 272.6 5,781.7 3,571.2 1.9 1.9 29.9 28.3

IDAHO 1,341,131 1,523,816 254.9 228.6 2,917.5 2,101.2 2.7 1.5 37.1 36.2

ILLINOIS 12,600,620 12,901,563 620.7 525.4 3,395.6 2,932.6 7.5 6.1 34.1 31.9

INDIANA 6,159,068 6,376,792 357.2 333.8 3,392.8 3,335.8 5.9 5.1 29.9 27.0

IOWA 2,936,760 3,002,555 285.6 283.8 3,162.6 2,420.9 1.5 2.5 27.1 29.6

KANSAS 2,715,884 2,802,134 376.6 410.6 3,710.3 3,377.2 2.9 4.0 38.1 42.5

KENTUCKY 4,092,891 4,269,245 279.0 296.2 2,623.6 2,583.9 4.5 4.6 26.6 33.0

LOUISIANA 4,482,646 4,410,796 662.3 656.2 4,435.7 3,823.1 13.2 11.9 34.1 27.9

MAINE 1,294,464 1,316,456 107.8 117.5 2,548.2 2,452.4 1.1 2.4 29.1 28.5

MARYLAND 5,458,137 5,633,597 769.8 628.2 3,977.6 3,517.6 9.4 8.8 25.1 20.0

MASSACHUSETTS 6,427,801 6,497,967 484.4 449.0 2,609.8 2,400.1 2.7 2.6 27.6 26.7

MICHIGAN 10,050,446 10,003,422 540.3 501.5 3,333.8 2,934.8 6.7 5.4 53.4 45.0

MINNESOTA 5,019,720 5,220,393 267.5 262.8 3,267.6 2,850.6 2.2 2.1 45.3 34.6

MISSISSIPPI 2,871,782 2,938,618 343.3 284.9 3,815.9 2,940.4 9.2 8.1 39.2 30.3

MISSOURI 5,672,579 5,911,605 538.7 504.4 4,063.8 3,663.7 5.8 7.7 25.8 27.3

MONTANA 909,453 967,440 351.5 258.1 3,161.4 2,603.0 1.8 2.4 26.1 30.4

NEBRASKA 1,729,180 1,783,432 313.9 303.7 3,942.8 2,878.6 2.8 3.8 26.8 32.7

NEVADA 2,173,491 2,600,167 637.5 724.5 3,860.0 3,447.5 8.3 6.3 42.7 42.4

NEW HAMPSHIRE 1,275,056 1,315,809 161.2 157.2 2,058.7 2,091.9 0.9 1.0 35.0 29.7

NEW JERSEY 8,590,300 8,682,661 374.5 326.5 2,649.7 2,293.4 3.9 4.3 15.7 12.9

NEW MEXICO 1,855,059 1,984,356 739.5 649.9 4,338.2 3,909.2 8.2 7.2 55.4 57.4

NEW YORK 19,157,532 19,490,297 496.0 398.1 2,307.7 1,993.5 4.7 4.3 20.3 14.4 NORTH CAROLINA 8,320,146 9,222,414 470.2 467.3 4,251.2 4,044.1 6.6 6.5 26.4 24.8

NORTH DAKOTA 634,110 641,481 78.2 166.5 2,328.0 1,894.4 0.8 0.5 25.7 36.2


Table 2: Comparison for Crime Rates 2002 to 2008

Index of Crime 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008

State Population Population Violent crime

Violent crime

Property crime

Property crime


man- slaughter


man- slaughter

Forcible rape

Forcible rape

OHIO 11,421,267 11,485,910 351.3 348.2 3,755.9 3,411.7 4.6 4.7 42.1 38.5

OKLAHOMA 3,493,714 3,642,361 503.4 526.7 4,239.8 3,442.4 4.7 5.8 45.0 40.2

OREGON 3,521,515 3,790,060 292.4 257.2 4,576.0 3,282.2 2.0 2.2 35.2 30.5

PENNSYLVANIA 12,335,091 12,448,279 401.9 410.0 2,439.1 2,410.2 5.1 5.6 30.2 27.9

PUERTO RICO 3,858,806 3,954,037 349.1 239.9 2,003.5 1,498.6 20.1 20.4 6.2 2.4

RHODE ISLAND 1,069,725 1,050,788 285.2 249.4 3,303.8 2,840.6 3.8 2.8 36.9 26.4 SOUTH CAROLINA 4,107,183 4,479,800 822.0 729.7 4,475.3 4,234.2 7.3 6.8 47.7 36.6

SOUTH DAKOTA 761,063 804,194 177.4 201.4 2,101.3 1,645.6 1.4 3.2 47.4 53.7

TENNESSEE 5,797,289 6,214,888 716.9 722.4 4,302.0 4,042.6 7.2 6.6 39.5 33.2

TEXAS 21,779,893 24,326,974 578.6 507.9 4,611.0 3,985.6 6.0 5.6 39.1 32.9

UTAH 2,316,256 2,736,424 236.9 221.8 4,215.5 3,357.4 2.0 1.4 40.7 32.6

VERMONT 616,592 621,270 106.7 135.9 2,423.3 2,538.5 2.1 2.7 20.4 20.4

VIRGINIA 7,293,542 7,769,089 291.4 255.9 2,848.9 2,518.1 5.3 4.7 25.2 22.6

WASHINGTON 6,068,996 6,549,224 345.4 331.2 4,761.4 3,758.4 3.0 2.9 45.0 40.1

WEST VIRGINIA 1,801,873 1,814,468 234.3 273.8 2,280.9 2,568.6 3.2 3.3 18.2 20.0

WISCONSIN 5,441,196 5,627,967 224.9 274.0 3,027.8 2,756.4 2.8 2.6 22.7 19.9

WYOMING 498,703 532,668 273.5 232.0 3,307.4 2,717.3 3.0 1.9 29.7 33.8 TOTAL POPULATION 292,227,504 308,013,761

Rate per 100,000 inhabitants

Table 2: Comparison for Crime Rates 2002 to 2008 Index of Crime 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008

State Robbery Robbery Aggravated

assault Aggravated

assault Burglary Burglary Larceny-

theft Larceny-

theft

Motor vehicle theft

Motor vehicle theft

ALABAMA 132.9 157.6 267.5 253.0 949.0 1,081.3 2,762.3 2,713.0 309.6 288.7

ALASKA 76.0 94.0 402.9 489.6 607.0 472.1 2,755.4 2,221.5 383.8 238.7

ARIZONA 146.6 149.2 369.8 265.9 1,082.9 868.9 3,693.6 2,849.5 1,056.9 572.6

ARKANSAS 93.1 95.8 298.2 353.1 857.1 1,180.0 2,624.6 2,427.1 251.4 228.0

CALIFORNIA 185.0 188.8 372.6 285.0 679.0 647.1 2,038.1 1,769.4 633.2 523.8

COLORADO 79.4 68.1 223.2 229.3 702.9 572.0 2,778.0 2,003.3 514.4 273.7

CONNECTICUT 117.3 111.6 170.4 163.5 493.8 428.7 1,857.9 1,774.0 334.4 256.0

DELAWARE 142.9 210.5 408.5 444.4 663.3 774.3 2,298.2 2,520.0 378.6 291.0 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 671.6 748.5 869.2 626.4 905.6 640.0 3,802.4 3,372.2 1,681.4 1,092.4

FLORIDA 194.9 197.9 529.4 452.0 1,060.5 1,028.3 3,060.3 2,766.0 529.6 346.5

GEORGIA 156.9 179.2 270.1 270.5 863.7 1,038.9 2,740.4 2,567.5 444.3 409.1

HAWAII 97.2 84.3 133.0 158.1 1,021.9 728.1 3,963.7 2,444.7 796.0 398.5

IDAHO 17.9 15.8 197.3 175.1 554.8 439.8 2,166.8 1,552.0 195.9 109.5

ILLINOIS 200.6 186.4 378.5 300.9 643.8 612.1 2,395.9 2,068.1 356.0 252.5

INDIANA 107.4 118.1 214.1 183.5 691.7 762.8 2,371.7 2,299.2 329.4 273.7

IOWA 39.8 41.6 217.2 210.1 634.8 547.9 2,329.5 1,728.8 198.3 144.3

KANSAS 79.7 60.1 255.9 304.0 724.6 699.9 2,720.2 2,413.4 265.5 263.9

KENTUCKY 74.8 93.8 173.1 164.8 680.6 675.5 1,729.2 1,728.8 213.8 179.6

LOUISIANA 158.9 135.9 456.1 480.4 1,011.7 982.1 2,973.7 2,529.4 450.3 311.6

MAINE 20.9 25.3 56.8 61.4 538.1 495.4 1,899.7 1,867.7 110.4 89.3

MARYLAND 245.8 234.4 489.5 365.1 728.5 689.6 2,625.8 2,378.3 623.3 449.7

MASSACHUSETTS 111.5 108.8 342.5 310.9 517.2 555.5 1,679.0 1,648.6 413.6 196.0

MICHIGAN 117.9 129.6 362.3 321.5 706.1 741.5 2,132.9 1,831.1 494.7 362.3

MINNESOTA 78.4 80.0 141.6 146.1 558.5 505.9 2,433.4 2,151.6 275.8 193.1

MISSISSIPPI 116.9 102.6 178.0 143.9 1,030.5 885.6 2,453.8 1,838.7 331.6 216.2


Table 2: Comparison for Crime Rates 2002 to 2008 Index of Crime 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008

State Robbery Robbery Aggravated

assault Aggravated

assault Burglary Burglary Larceny-

theft Larceny-

theft

Motor vehicle theft

Motor vehicle theft

MISSOURI 123.8 125.0 383.2 344.4 753.1 774.5 2,819.2 2,537.9 491.5 351.3

MONTANA 31.1 17.8 292.6 207.6 361.6 344.4 2,603.7 2,095.9 196.1 162.6

NEBRASKA 78.6 72.8 205.7 194.3 597.3 492.0 2,974.8 2,151.8 370.6 234.8

NEVADA 235.5 248.9 351.0 426.9 871.9 929.0 2,183.5 1,906.8 804.5 611.6

NEW HAMPSHIRE 32.4 31.8 92.9 94.7 379.4 325.7 1,526.8 1,660.8 152.5 105.4

NEW JERSEY 161.9 146.3 193.0 163.0 511.0 465.3 1,722.7 1,595.7 416.0 232.4

NEW MEXICO 118.9 109.5 557.1 475.9 1,058.4 1,094.2 2,878.9 2,411.6 400.9 403.4

NEW YORK 191.3 163.0 279.7 216.4 400.4 337.3 1,660.1 1,527.3 247.2 128.9 NORTH CAROLINA 146.7 155.4 290.5 280.6 1,196.3 1,210.1 2,756.0 2,544.0 298.9 290.0

NORTH DAKOTA 9.1 11.2 42.6 118.6 353.7 328.3 1,813.7 1,428.6 160.5 137.5

OHIO 156.5 163.0 148.2 142.1 868.2 892.8 2,513.3 2,270.5 374.5 248.4

OKLAHOMA 84.9 101.1 368.8 379.5 1,006.7 963.1 2,867.6 2,180.5 365.6 298.7

OREGON 77.9 69.7 177.4 154.8 729.7 550.9 3,377.1 2,432.3 469.2 299.0

PENNSYLVANIA 139.1 151.6 227.5 224.8 450.8 470.9 1,722.2 1,758.8 266.0 180.5

PUERTO RICO 232.7 138.3 90.1 78.8 641.1 484.0 1,027.3 837.4 335.2 177.1

RHODE ISLAND 85.6 83.7 158.8 136.7 599.7 547.2 2,248.3 1,988.9 455.8 304.5 SOUTH CAROLINA 140.6 147.3 626.5 539.1 1,065.1 1,026.1 2,999.5 2,814.1 410.7 394.0

SOUTH DAKOTA 15.4 14.9 113.1 129.6 398.7 302.2 1,595.0 1,244.0 107.6 99.5

TENNESSEE 162.4 173.8 507.8 508.9 1,056.5 1,046.0 2,787.7 2,687.3 457.8 309.3

TEXAS 172.5 155.2 361.0 314.1 976.1 946.0 3,163.4 2,688.8 471.4 350.8

UTAH 49.2 51.9 145.0 135.8 653.0 536.5 3,229.1 2,557.9 333.4 262.9

VERMONT 12.5 14.3 71.7 98.3 565.9 557.2 1,732.8 1,887.1 124.7 94.2

VIRGINIA 95.4 95.7 165.5 132.8 435.4 411.8 2,160.1 1,935.6 253.3 170.7

WASHINGTON 95.5 96.9 201.8 191.2 905.4 801.3 3,188.8 2,524.6 667.2 432.6

WEST VIRGINIA 36.5 49.0 176.4 201.5 537.1 609.9 1,527.5 1,782.2 216.3 176.6

WISCONSIN 86.6 91.1 112.7 160.4 513.2 488.3 2,267.2 2,063.4 247.3 204.7 WYOMING 18.6 16.1 222.2 180.2 490.9 410.0 2,667.5 2,173.4 149.0 133.9

Rate per 100,000 inhabitants

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html

7. What should the natural level of inmates in the jail backlog be?

Answer: Offenders that are sentenced to the DOC are held in the local jails until scheduled for intake through the Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center (DRDC) for evaluation and placement into an appropriate bed. DRDC has a maximum intake capacity of 45 offenders per day; therefore, if a particular day has a higher volume than 45 offenders awaiting intake, a jail backlog will occur. The natural level of jail backlog offenders should be generally less than 100 (2-3 days of DRDC intake capacity). On average, how many days does an inmate spend in the jail backlog? Answer: As shown in Table 1, a DOC Jail Backlog offender had a median length of stay of 2.9 days during FY 2008-09.


For what reason does the backlog exist? Is the backlog a problem? Answer: The Department has experienced ample prison bed availability for the past two years and has not had significant jail backlog during that time. Jail backlog occurs when offenders awaiting intake exceed the DRDC daily intake capacity of 45. Counties provide transportation of offenders to DRDC which can occasionally add a day or two to the scheduling timeframe.

The backlog also exists for two other reasons: 1) to track the change of jurisdiction. Putting an offender on the backlog, a.) identifies the offender as being sentenced and the necessary documentation has been received in order to give the offender a Department of Corrections number and admit him into the system and b.) Identifies which county jail the offenders resides in order to have them brought in, and 2) track and prioritize intake based upon sentencing date, when beds are in short supply.

The length of time to transfer the custody of offenders to the DOC has greatly improved in the last two years since the electronic mittimus (court document with sentencing information) was introduced in November, 2007, hence contributing to the reduction of the jail backlog. This streamlined process reduced days and sometimes weeks from the length of time it took to complete and receive all necessary documents by the previous manual methods. In FY 2008-09, the jail backlog had an Average Daily Population (ADP) of 60 offenders (see Table 1). As recently as FY 2004-05 and FY 2005-06, the daily jail backlog often exceeded 500 due to the unavailability of prison beds. During this time period, the DOC jail backlog was problematic to county jails that were also experiencing a shortage of bed space. In FY 2007-08, private prison facilities added over 1,400 beds. Because prison beds are currently available, the jail backlog is not a problem. The Department strives to move offenders sentenced to the DOC into the system quickly and prioritizes offenders waiting intake.

8. Is there capacity in private prison facilities?

Answer: The Department is working closely with private prison partners as populations fluctuate, and allow the private prisons to manage the beds for their operation. For example, Colorado moved state offenders out of Huerfano County Correctional Facility in April, 2009 so the private prison could house Arizona offenders; Hudson Correctional Facility opened its doors in November, 2009, housing Alaska offenders.

Table 3 below shows the total number of vacant General Population beds (segregation beds subtracted) available in the private prisons in the state on June 30th of each of the last six years:


Table 3: Private Prison Beds 6/2004 6/2005 6/2006 6/2007 6/2008 6/2009 01/04/2010

Capacity 3,455 4,064 4,842 4,858 6,448 6,551 7,796

Segregation Beds 188 352 308 257 312 312 432

General Population Beds 3,267 3,712 4,534 4,601 6,136 6,239 7,364

Colorado Occupancy 2,903 3,165 4,299 4,470 5,224 5,305 4,801

Other States' Occupancy 348 62 1 0 0 752 1,857

Total Vacant GP Beds 16 485 234 131 912 182 706*

% GP Vacant 0.49% 13.07% 5.16% 2.85% 14.86% 2.92% 9.59% * The 01/04/2010 706 vacant GP bed amount includes 76 beds at Huerfano and 19 beds at Hudson that are vacant but not available to Colorado for use since the facility is occupied by another State.

Many variables influence the capacity and availability of the private prison beds in the state and are outlined in the Facts and Assumptions below. The June 30, 2009 vacancy level of 123 General Population (GP) private prison beds is particularly noteworthy as Huerfano County Correctional Facility was occupied with Arizona offenders. The 2009 data does not reflect the 752 GP beds at this facility that would otherwise be available for use by the Colorado Department of Corrections. Current 2010 data does not reflect the 752 GP beds at HCCF or the 1,188 GP beds at Hudson.

Facts and Assumptions of Table 3 data: -Private prison segregation beds are not reflected in facility bed availability since severe management problem offenders are moved into state beds. -During FY 2004-05, the Department housed 121 administrative segregation offenders in Tallahatchie, MS. -In December 2006, the Department contracted with a private prison facility in North Fork, OK to house 480 offenders. All offenders were returned to Colorado prisons by June, 2008. -In April 2009, Huerfano County Correctional Facility (HCCF) accepted Arizona offenders, thereby removing the 774 total bed (752 GP) capacity of the facility from CDOC use. As of 12/28/09, there are 676 Arizona offenders occupying this facility. -In November 2009, Cornell Company, Inc. opened the 1,300 bed Hudson Correctional Facility (HCF). As of 01/04/2010, 831 Alaska offenders occupy the facility. The 1,188 bed GP bed availability of this new facility is included in Table 5.

-Private prison bed additions and expansions occurred:

•••• FY 2004-05 Brush opened and eventually added 270 female beds.

•••• FY 2006-07 Cheyenne Mountain Reentry Center opened and eventually added 751 male beds.

•••• FY 2007-08 Bent County and Kit Carson added 742 beds each. How many days out of the year do they not have capacity? The Department uses multiple criteria to place offenders in both state and private prison facilities. The Department strives for an optimum vacancy level of approximately 2% of the General Population beds across all facilities to allow for


safe offender movement; therefore, facilities are almost never filled to 100% capacity on any day throughout the year, especially if segregation beds are included in capacity levels. For this reason, it can be assumed that there are no days when private or state prisons do not have capacity.

9. Is there any triage on how inmates flow into the prison system from the jail

backlog?

Answer: Yes, there is a triage process to determine movement from jail backlog.

If so, in what way? Or, is it first in first out? Answer: Scheduling offender intake involves several criteria. Priority is given to Denver and Jefferson counties as they have a court order that requires DOC to receive offenders within a 72 hour period. Offender needs, such as those with medical issues, serious mental health needs, severe management issues, or offenders with a death sentence are prioritized and followed by the first in/first out concept as much as practical. Transportation logistics also are considered for intake whereas several offenders from one location may be scheduled for intake on the same day, or one county may provide courtesy transportation for another county en route to DRDC.

10. Per a U.S. Census report, Colorado is number 1 in corrections spending per capita. How does that relate to the State being number 19 in incarceration rate?

Answer: The Department prepared an analysis of nationwide Corrections spending utilizing data from the U. S Census Bureau, finding that Colorado ranks 8 in Corrections spending per capita. Research does not find evidence to confirm a number one ranking. It must be noted that US Census data totals include probation and community corrections diversion bed costs, which in Colorado are budgeted in the Judicial Branch and the Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, respectively. Capital Construction costs for CSP II in 2008 are also included in these figures.

Table 4: Per Capita Corrections Spending in 2008 Rank State State Government

Corrections Expense:** 2008 (A) (in thousands)

Estimate of the Population for States July 1, 2008 (B)

Per Capita Spending

1 Alaska 243,961 688,125 $354.53

2 Delaware 280,710 876,211 $320.37

3 Wyoming 164,617 532,981 $308.86

4 Maryland 1,366,211 5,658,655 $241.44

5 California 8,829,940 36,580,371 $241.38

6 Connecticut 723,346 3,502,932 $206.50

7 Massachusettes 1,332,960 6,543,595 $203.70

8 Colorado 996,266 4,935,213 $201.87

9 Virginia 1,547,571 7,795,424 $198.52

10 Vermont 120,328 621,049 $193.75





Per Capita Spending

11 Wisconsin 1,084,127 5,627,610 $192.64

12 Oregon 720,504 3,782,991 $190.46

13 New Mexico 376,627 1,986,763 $189.57

14 Rhode Island 199,394 1,053,502 $189.27

15 Michigan 1,863,464 10,002,486 $186.30

16 Washington 1,205,895 6,566,073 $183.66

17 Montana 168,127 968,035 $173.68

18 Louisiana 773,076 4,451,513 $173.67

19 New Jersey 1,496,976 8,663,398 $172.79

20 Hawaii 219,070 1,287,481 $170.15

21 Oklahoma 616,933 3,644,025 $169.30

22 Georgia 1,571,961 9,697,838 $162.09

23 New York 3,135,187 19,467,789 $161.04

24 Idaho 244,504 1,527,506 $160.07

25 Arizona 1,023,693 6,499,377 $157.51

26 Florida 2,770,179 18,423,878 $150.36

27 Texas 3,565,217 24,304,290 $146.69

28 Ohio 1,668,729 11,528,072 $144.75

29 North Carolina 1,324,484 9,247,134 $143.23

30 Nevada 367,241 2,615,772 $140.39

31 Pennsylvania 1,744,264 12,566,368 $138.80

32 South Dakota 110,268 804,532 $137.06

33 West Virginia 241,996 1,814,873 $133.34

34 Kansas 361,648 2,797,375 $129.28

35 Missouri 754,740 5,956,335 $126.71

36 Arkansas 361,537 2,867,764 $126.07

37 Mississippi 369,248 2,940,212 $125.59

38 Tennessee 768,711 6,240,456 $123.18

39 Nebraska 219,278 1,781,949 $123.06

40 Kentucky 527,311 4,287,931 $122.98

41 Utah 332,828 2,727,343 $122.03

42 South Carolina 514,479 4,503,280 $114.25

43 Alabama 525,281 4,677,464 $112.30

44 Maine 141,982 1,319,691 $107.59

45 Indiana 676,633 6,388,309 $105.92

46 Minnesota 536,760 5,230,567 $102.62

47 Iowa 291,406 2,993,987 $97.33

48 Illinois 1,244,230 12,842,954 $96.88

49 North Dakota 61,368 641,421 $95.68

50 New Hampshire 112,265 1,321,872 $84.93 (A) Source: 2008 Annual Survey of State government Finances. Data was extracted from the U.S. Census Bureau "2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances". The data in this table are based on information from public records and contain no confidential data. Although the data in this table come from a census of governmental units and are not subject to sampling error, the census results do contain

nonsampling error. Additional information on nonsampling error, response rates, and definitions may be found at http://www2.census.gov/govs/state/08_methodology.pdf. (B) Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009





Per Capita Spending

(NST-EST 2009-01) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division Release Date: December 2009 ** Corrections expenses include: Prisons operations, Parole, Parole Board, Probation, Capital Construction, Community Corrections, residential half way houses, prison industries, federal subsidies or assistance. In Colorado, Probation and Community Corrections diversion beds are in the Judicial Branch and the Division of Criminal Justice budgets. Capital Construction expenses for 2008 also include construction of CSP II prison facility which will not be expended past 2010. In 2008 those expenses were $28,650,644.

Accordingly, in a March 2009 report from The PEW Center of the States, titled “One in 31”, Colorado ranks 18 in the increase in Adult Incarceration Rates from 1982-2007. During this time period Colorado has had an overall growth in incarceration of 307%. In the past 25 years, there have been many bills passed to enhance public safety. The collective impact of this legislation has contributed to the increase in the incarceration rate.

Table 5: Adult Incarceration Rates (Probation, Jail, and Prison) 2007 1982

Rank 1 in X Percent of

Adults 1 in X

Percent of Adults

Growth in Incarceration Rate,

1982-2007

District of Columbia 1 50 2.00% 74 1.35% 48%

Louisiana 2 55 1.81% 205 0.49% 272%

Mississippi 3 69 1.44% 247 0.41% 256%

Georgia 4 70 1.42% 169 0.59% 141%

Texas 5 71 1.41% 215 0.47% 203%

Alabama 6 75 1.33% 208 0.48% 176%

Oklahoma 7 76 1.32% 275 0.36% 263%

Florida 8 82 1.22% 186 0.54% 127%

South Carolina 9 83 1.21% 190 0.53% 131%

Arizona 10 83 1.21% 226 0.44% 173%

Delaware 11 88 1.14% 209 0.48% 139%

Alaska 12 88 1.14% 224 0.45% 154%

Virginia 13 89 1.13% 270 0.37% 205%

Nevada 14 89 1.13% 171 0.58% 93%

New Mexico 15 90 1.11% 298 0.34% 232%

Kentucky 16 92 1.08% 391 0.26% 324%

Wyoming 17 94 1.06% 330 0.30% 252%

Colorado 18 97 1.03% 394 0.25% 307%

Missouri 19 97 1.03% 308 0.32% 217%

Tennessee 20 98 1.02% 272 0.37% 176%

Idaho 21 100 1.00% 415 0.24% 314%

Arkansas 22 102 0.98% 309 0.32% 204%

California 23 102 0.98% 243 0.41% 137%

Maryland 24 103 0.97% 191 0.52% 86%

South Dakota 25 104 0.96% 401 0.25% 285%

Michigan 26 105 0.95% 283 0.35% 169%

Hawaii 27 108 0.92% 448 0.22% 314%

Wisconsin 28 109 0.92% 437 0.23% 300%


Table 5: Adult Incarceration Rates (Probation, Jail, and Prison) 2007 1982

Rank 1 in X Percent of

Adults 1 in X

Percent of Adults

Growth in Incarceration Rate,

1982-2007

North Carolina 29 110 0.91% 211 0.47% 93%

Indiana 30 111 0.90% 327 0.31% 195%

Pennsylvania 31 111 0.90% 420 0.24% 280%

Ohio 32 115 0.87% 314 0.32% 173%

Montana 33 118 0.85% 457 0.22% 287%

Kansas 34 120 0.84% 386 0.26% 223%

Connecticut 35 121 0.82% 446 0.22% 267%

Oregon 36 132 0.76% 303 0.33% 130%

Illinois 37 133 0.75% 348 0.29% 162%

Utah 38 136 0.74% 486 0.21% 258%

New Jersey 39 140 0.72% 408 0.24% 192%

West Virginia 40 140 0.71% 564 0.18% 303%

Nebraska 41 143 0.70% 424 0.24% 197%

New York 42 148 0.68% 294 0.34% 99%

Iowa 43 154 0.65% 533 0.19% 247%

Washington 44 155 0.64% 312 0.32% 101%

North Dakota 45 179 0.56% 817 0.12% 357%

Rhode Island 46 187 0.53% 662 0.15% 254%

Massachusetts 47 190 0.53% 572 0.17% 200%

New Hampshire 48 204 0.49% 740 0.14% 264%

Vermont 49 204 0.49% 587 0.17% 188%

Minnesota 50 211 0.47% 726 0.14% 243%

Maine 51 226 0.44% 488 0.20% 116% Calculations based on data from the U.S. Census State Population Estimates, the Bureau of Justice Statistics Correctional Surveys, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons and the Pew Public Safety Performance Project. Source: One in 31 The Long Reach of American Corrections. The PEW Center on the States, March 2009

Several factors can cause a fluctuation in both the per capita rate or in the incarceration rate. If expenses stay static and the population increases, the per capita rate will go down, and conversely if the population decreases, the per capita rate will go up. If Colorado were to decrease the number of incarcerations, the expense of incarcerations would decrease, thus the cost per capita would go down.

2:45-2:50 QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO DECISION ITEMS Base Reduction Item #2: Academic and Vocational Instructors 11. Could money in Governor’s Energy Office for weatherization be used for state

prison facilities? Could the money be used to train inmates in weatherization techniques?

Answer: The Department thanks the Joint Budget Committee for the information. DOC has contacted the Governor’s Energy Office and is working with staff to review the options of the weatherization program.

2:50- 2:55 OVERVIEW OF NUMBERS PAGES


12. Why does the Department need 2.2 FTE in perpetuity for the accelerated

transition pilot program?

Answer: The requested 2.2 FTE are needed in order to accommodate the projected increase to the Parole and Parole ISP caseload as additional offenders are transitioned from prison to parole.

2:55-3:05 POPULATION PROJECTIONS 13. Do the prison population projections include the level of unemployment or

general economic conditions in projecting the prison population growth?

Answer: The Department provides raw data to Division of Criminal Justice and Legislative Council Service (LCS) staff who then independently develop prison population projections. The Legislative Council Service (LCS) prison population report states that economic variables were included in the December 2009 prison population projections. The prison population projections published by LCS describe how economic factors, including unemployment, affect the prison population. However, the report does not detail how these factors were taken into account in projecting future populations.

Why in a bad economy is the inmate population going down rather than up?

Answer: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data shows that both violent and property crimes decreased in the first six months of 2009 compared to the first six months of 2008. Reasons include:

• The illegal drug market did not expand during this recession, as it has during previous recessions. (Rosenfeld, 20092).

• More effective policing tactics, such as hot spots enforcement, accountability systems such as New York City Police Department’s CompStat program (comparable to Six Sigma programs), and the use of real time crime information have helped to reduce crime (Rosenfeld, 2009)

• During a recession, many people move in with relatives and stay home more, both of which have a calming effect and reduce the likelihood that they will commit a crime (Sullivan, 20093)

• Stimulus spending programs, such as extended unemployment benefits and food stamps have prevented people from resorting to crime out of hunger and desperation (Barrett, 20094)

2 Rosenfeld, R. (2009, December 22). Why Hasn’t the Recession Caused National Crime Rates to Rise? Crime and

Justice News. Retrieved from http://thecrimereport.org/2009/12/22/why-hasnt-the-recession-caused-crime-to-drop/

3 Sullivan, L. (2009, November 20). Experts: Bad Economies Don’t Cause Crime Waves. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97234406 4 Barrett, D. (2009, December 21). Crime Drops Despite Recession. Discovery News. Retrieved from

http://news.discovery.com/human/crime-rate-recession-economy.html


• The increase in unemployed people at home deters burglars from breaking and entering (Barrett, 2009)

• Car thefts have decreased due to improved security technology such as car recovery devices that use GPS, electronic locks, and ignition systems (Barrett, 2009)

• The U.S. population is aging, and older people in general are less likely to commit crimes (Barrett, 2009)

• Not all crime is decreasing during this recession. Types of crimes that are increasing include domestic violence, alcohol-related crime, white-collar crime, identity theft, mortgage fraud, and senior abuse. (Sullivan, 2009)

Table 6: The following chart from the April 15, 2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal illustrates the correlation between unemployment and crime rates.

Source: Wall Street Journal, The Snap Judgment on Crime and Unemployment, April 15, 2009

14. Is there a lag in crime rates in relation to greater unemployment and poor

economic conditions?

Answer: The Department has gathered additional information from independent sources that may answer the JBC question. The December 18, 2009, Focus Colorado: Economic and Revenue Forecast, prepared by the Legislative Council Staff (LCS) states that “There is a lag time of one or more years for poor economic conditions to translate into increased crime, criminal filings, convictions, and ultimately, prison admissions” (pg. 56).

There is usually a lag between changes in the economy and crime rates, according

to Steven Messner, a sociology professor at the State University of New York at Albany (Baker, 20095). Poor economic conditions can lead to crime for several reasons. First, education and other services for youth are often cut in a poor

5 Baker, A. (2009, November 30). In this recession, bad times do not bring more crime (if they ever did). New York

Times. Retrieved from: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=AONE&userGroupName=colosprings


economy, which can lead to crime. Second, people are more likely to steal copper and appliances from abandoned or foreclosed homes. Third, law enforcement agencies may cut staff in a poor economy. Fourth, the stress of unemployment may cause some to turn to illegal drugs and alcohol, which in turn can lead to crime (Sealey, 20096). However, there is no evidence that our current recession has led to increased overall crime rates (Rosenfeld, 2009).

Is there a lag between crimes rates and the prison population? Answer: The LCS forecast assumes that after the initial prison population drop,

admissions will increase during the later years of the forecast period as the Colorado economy, especially employment, is projected to be slow to recover (pg. 56). The relationship between crime rate and prison population is complex. Increased crime results in increased prison admissions (Listokin, 20097). However, the more offenders who are behind bars, the lower the crime rate. In addition, the prison population is affected by releases as well as admissions. Determining the relationship between the present crime rate and a future prison population is even more complex because different offenses result in different sentence lengths. Despite this complexity, there is evidence of a lag between crime rates and prison population. According to a survey by the National Center for State Courts, the median time from arrest to disposition was 125 days (Ostrom, 19998). Current Colorado data states that on average it takes 197.0 days from criminal filing to sentencing. Also, given that offenders are not always arrested immediately after they commit a crime, the lag time between committing a crime and entering prison can be even greater.

15. Is the reduction in the inmate population related to a drop in crime rate or a

change in sentencing practices?

Answer: The Department has gathered additional information from independent sources that may answer the JBC question. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) publication Prisoners in 20089, the change in the United States prison population from 2007 to 2008 was at its slowest rate of growth (0.8%) since 2000 (Sabol, West, & Cooper, 2008). The

6 Sealey, G. Will Recession Make Cities Dangerous Again? ABC News. Retrieved from:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92121&page=1 7 Listokin, Y. (2003). Does More Crime Mean More Prisoners? An Instrumental Variables Approach. Journal of Law and

Economics, 46. 181-206. 8 Ostrom, B. &, Kauder, N. B., (1999). Examining the Work of State Courts, 1998: A National Perspective from the Court

Statistics Project. 9 Sabol, W. J., West, H. C., & Cooper, M. (2009). Prisoners in 2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Retrieved

from: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf.


report attributes the reduced growth in state and federal prisons to declining admissions and increasing releases. Colorado is showing the same trends as the rest of the United States. The annual growth rate in Colorado prison admission growth rate has steadily declined over the past five years, reported as 16% in fiscal year (FY) 2005, 8% in FY 2006, 5% in FY 2007, 4% in FY 2008, and 0% in FY 200910. During the same period, prison releases increased at an annual compounded growth rate of 6% from 8,249 in FY 2005 to 10,803 in FY 2009. DOC does not have data to report whether the Judicial Branch has made changes in its sentencing practices. A comparison of the Colorado crime rate and incarceration rate11 over a 17 year period indicates that the incarceration rate has continued to rise despite an overall decline in the crime rate. Are the projections differentiating between the type of crimes that are contributing to the drop in population? Answer: The prison population projections do not address how different crime types might contribute to the decline in the prison population.

16. Is the drop in female inmate population the result of fewer drug convictions?

Answer: There does not appear to be a correlation between the drop in female population and fewer drug convictions, as the percentage of female admissions has remained steady throughout the last five years as is reflected in the following table. The table indicates the new court commitments of female admissions for drug charges over the last six years and the corresponding percentage.

Table 7: New Court Commitments

Female Admissions

Fiscal Year 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Drug Charges 207 236 255 264 293 296

Total New Commitments 661 761 949 976 1050 962

Drug Charge Percentage of Total New Court Commitments 31.32% 31.01% 26.90% 27.00% 27.90% 30.80% Source: Statistical Reports for Fiscal Year 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 prepared by the Office of Planning and Analysis, Department of Corrections.

Is the female inmate population still largely the result of drug sentences?

10 Barr, B. (2009, October). Admissions and Release Trends. Colorado Department of Corrections. Retrieved from:

https://exdoc.state.co.us/secure/combo2.0.0/userfiles/folder_16/Obul1006.pdf. 11 Source: Division of Criminal Justice crime statistics. Retrieved from: http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/stats1.htm.


Answer: Yes, non-violent drug offenses have consistently been the highest new court commitment over the last five years and total female population. The table indicates the total female population over the last five years and indicates that drug offense female offenders are the highest population.

Table 8: Female Offender Population

Offense Distribution

Fiscal Year 2002-03 2003-04 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Violent

Assault 5.0% 4.7% 4.6% 4.9% 6%

Child Abuse 4.1% 4.2% 4.1% 3.4% 5%

1st Degree Murder 3.1% 2.9% 2.5% 2.3% 3%

2nd Degree Murder 2.8% 2.8% 2.1% 2.1% 2%

All others 12.1% 11.8% 11.0% 12.7% 9%

Total Violent 27.1% 26.4% 24.3% 23.8% 25%

Non-Violent

Drug Charges 31.8% 32.6% 27.6% 27.5% 30%

Theft 15.5% 16.2% 16.9% 17.1% 21%

Escape 11.1% 10.4% 14.3% 15.3% 8%

Forgery 4.0% 3.3% 5.2% 4.4% 4%

M.V. Theft 1.5% 1.8% 2.8% 2.9% 4%

All others 9.0% 9.3% 8.9% 9.0% 8%

Total Non-Violent 72.9% 73.6% 75.7% 76.2% 75%

Total Population 1,593 1,726 2,189 2,308 2,266 Note: Data is not available for FY 2004-05 Source: Statistical Reports for Fiscal Year 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 by the Office of Planning and Analysis, Department of Corrections.

Can the Department define where the drop is occurring? Answer: Table 9 reflects the female new court commitments over the last six years. New court commitments decreased 8.3% in FY 2007-08.


Female Admissions

Fiscal Year 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Violent

Assault 29 18 29 21 40 45

Child Abuse 9 9 13 13 15 23

1st Degree Murder 0 1 2 3 0 5

2nd Degree Murder 1 5 1 4 4 4

All others 63 74 82 88 96 78

Total Violent 102 107 127 129 155 155

Non-Violent

Drug Charges 207 236 255 264 293 296



Female Admissions

Fiscal Year 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Theft 93 110 138 148 162 180

Escape 44 63 137 119 116 79

Forgery 41 44 78 74 73 61

M.V. Theft 10 18 24 33 28 54

All others 164 183 190 209 223 137

Total Non-Violent 559 654 822 847 895 807

Total Population 661 761 949 976 1050 962 Source: Statistical Reports for Fiscal Year 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 by the Office of Planning and Analysis, Department of Corrections.

The drop in the female population is due to more females being released than are being admitted into the department over the last 6 years.

Table 10: Female Releases

Fiscal Year 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Releases 662 746 847 944 1,179 1,425 Source: Statistical Reports for Fiscal Year 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 by the Office of Planning and Analysis, Department of Corrections.

Has the proportion of drug offenders decreased as well? Answer: No, please see Table 9 for new court commitments for female admissions. The proportion of female drug offenders to total court commitments has remained consistent throughout the last six years.

3:05-3:20 BREAK 17. Within the total parole population, how many discretionary parolees are there

versus mandatory parolees?

Answer: As of June 30, 2009, 54% of the total parole population was discretionary and 46% were mandatory. Please note the Department implemented procedural changes in December 2005 affecting offenders scheduled for parole release during the weekend. Releases on the mandatory release date or mandatory reparole date falling on a weekend day are released a few days earlier, resulting in offenders being reported as discretionary parole instead of the mandatory parole or reparole categories. It is estimated that approximately 50% of the discretionary releases are actually mandatory weekend releases. Beginning December 2008, weekend releases (mandatory and reparole) began to be reported separately from discretionary parole releases. The percentages provided in this answer reflect these releases as mandatory.


18. Have any of the individuals released on the accelerated transition program recidivated?

Answer: As of November 30, 2009, of the 214 offenders released from prison to parole under the Accelerated Transition Pilot Program, 5 (or 2.3%) have returned to inmate status. During the same time period, 1,795 offenders were released outside the ATPP program; 36 (or 2.0%) have returned to prison from these regular releases.

19. Please provide the recidivism rates for all facilities, including the recidivism

rates for state prisons versus private prisons.

Answer: The Department of Corrections does not compute recidivism rates by facility or by state versus private prisons, because offenders frequently move between facilities. Facility placements take into account an offender’s custody level and custody issues as well as treatment, medical, and rehabilitation needs. In addition, facility placements are based on the security level of the facility and bed space availability. These factors are continually monitored, resulting in regular transfer of offenders between facilities. Additionally, it should be noted that a large percentage of prison releases are coordinated at several facilities (e.g., Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility, Colorado Correctional Center), and thus the releasing facility is often not the location where the offender served the bulk of his or her incarceration. Therefore, it would be impossible to measure recidivism rates at the facility level.

3:45-4:15 CSP II AND DRDC 20. Should the Department be staffing CSP II?

Answer: In the short term, due to continued State budgetary constraints, minimal staffing at CSP II for FY 2010-11 is requested. The requested staffing will provide limited essential security and maintenance for CSP II to protect the State’s $166.5 million capital investment. These staff are necessary due to the connectivity with Centennial Correctional Facility (CCF) operations once construction is complete in June, 2010. The Department has a need for specialized technical trades technicians, skilled trade technicians, and custody and control staff to operate the new systems that are under warranty and to provide essential security to the expanded complex. Boiler and chiller systems will be fully utilized once construction is complete as the new system will replace the existing boiler and chiller at CCF, and the two facilities will be operated by one heating and HVAC system. Custody and control personnel will staff the CSP II control center and vehicle sally port, which are required for access and movement through both facilities. The control center is also the main hub for monitoring offender movement via cameras and door controls, centralizing operations for CCF and CSP II, and monitoring fire and fence detection alarms. In the long term, the Department absolutely needs to fully staff and operate CSP II. Opening CSP II will allow the Department the ability to ease offender management


issues at other state facilities by moving higher risk offenders (close and ad seg) out of general population in those facilities and into a more secure environment for both the offenders and staff safety. Will not opening CSP II result in an increase in assaults on staff? Answer: That is possible. In calendar year 2007, there were 259 assaults on staff. In calendar year 2008, there were 300, a 15.8% increase. The offenders perpetuating these incidents pose a risk to staff and each other. Having offenders in the right bed is extremely important in managing risk. Not having enough administrative segregation beds available can create a more dangerous situation at facilities; assaults on staff are projected to continue to rise as higher percentages of volatile offenders are housed in state facilities while lower custody offenders are in the private prisons. Does the department need more high security facilities? If so, how many? When will this facility be needed? Answer: Yes, the Department needs the high security beds from CSP II as soon as possible. These beds have been needed since 2003, when the Department sought funding through HB 03-1296 to build this facility. The need has not diminished, and in fact has gotten worse since the original proposal. Currently, the Department has 105 inmates waiting for administrative segregation beds and over 1,300 close custody inmates housed in lower custody facilities. The Department must house these offenders throughout other state facilities, thus creating additional management problems. Each facility has a limited number of high custody cells used for short term placement to remove offenders from population for code of penal discipline violations. When these beds are used for high custody inmates waiting for a permanent bed, this creates significant problems for facilities. With the opening of CSP II, the Department would be able to house the highest risk offenders in the new beds. The Department would be in a position to solve many management issues by having specialized beds available for use.

21. Do we really need CSP II since the inmate population is getting smaller?

Answer: Yes. Even with current projections forecasting a reduction in the overall population, the high custody male population has grown by 738 offenders since December 2002. The only high custody expansion is CSP II.

Table 11: High Custody Level Comparison 2009 to 2002 (Male) Level Nov 2009 Dec 2002 Difference

Ad Seg 1,094 956 138

Close 3,165 2,565 600

Total 4,259 3,521 738


Department facilities presently house offenders of a higher custody level than the facilities were designed to manage. Until CSP II is fully staffed and operational, the Department has no choice but to manage high custody offenders in Level III and IV facilities. As of November 30, 2009, the Department had over 1,300 close custody inmates in medium custody beds.

Table 12: High Custody in Medium Beds Facility Close Custody

AVCF 446

BVCF 371

CTCF 257

FCF 198

FLCF 30

Total 1,302

The Department’s many challenges include managing a growing security threat group (STG) or gang population. Affiliation with a gang may lead to individual disruptive behavior, but also leads to more disruptive incidents between STG groups. In the last 9 years, the gang population within prison has increased 88%. In 2000, the Department identified and tracked the gang activity of 5,056 offenders. As of November 30, 2009, the Department has identified 9,532 gang members and affiliates.

• Calendar year 2008 ended with 475 offender-on-offender assaults – an increase of 114 incidents, or 31.6 %, from calendar year 2007.

• Staff had to utilize the Use of Force continuum over 1,000 times, a 13.5% increase from last calendar year

• In the last fiscal year, facilities locked down 176 times. This is a 16% increase (28 lockdowns) above the previous year.

A fundamental tool in managing the most disruptive offender is the high custody bed. The High Security Management system is more than just the right bed; it is the right bed that allows DOC to deliver the right resources. Violent offenders can progress through the levels and re-integrate to the general prison population. Could the Department use a private prison as a step-up or step-down instead of using CSP II? Answer: Current statutory requirements only allow the Department to house medium and below custody offenders in private facilities. The private facilities were designed to hold medium custody offenders with a small number of short term segregation cells. Significant modifications would have to be completed in order to


hold long term high custody offenders. The private prison facilities have provided a good service to the State for the medium and below custody level. The Department would recommend this relationship continue at the current custody level.

22. Could the State contract with other states or government entities to hold their

high security inmates at CSP II? Could CSP II act as a regional prison for multiple states?

Answer: The Department needs these beds for Colorado offender management, due to a spike in assaults, spike in suicides, and violent behavior. The Department feels it is premature to offer these expensive beds to other jurisdictions.

23. Could CSP II be a step down facility for San Carlos? Why or why not?

Answer: The Department would not recommend using CSP II as a step down for San Carlos Correctional Facility. The Department has multiple needs for mental illness beds, but also has unique needs for high custody beds.

Would it be cheaper to operate CSP II and discontinue the use of some portion

of the private prisons? Why or why not?

Answer: CSP II addresses the need for additional high custody beds. The Department would be in a position to solve many management issues by having specialized beds available for use. No, it would not be cheaper to operate CSP II and discontinue use of some portion of private prisons. CSP II will be a high cost facility by design due to the risk of managing high security offenders. To safely manage violent, dangerous offenders and high management problems, high staffing patterns are required to address these high custody offenders.

4:15-4:30 OPTIONS FOR REDUCING CASELOAD 24. What is the number of first time drug offenders who are incarcerated in DOC?

What percentage of the prison population is this?

Answer: There are no offenders incarcerated in DOC for the first time for drug offenses. There are numerous sentencing alternatives that exist for judges to use for drug convictions other than prison sentences: community corrections, work release programs, or probation, among a few. Most offenders have already failed many of these alternative programs, and have multiple law enforcement contacts before coming to DOC.

4:30-5:00 PAROLE BOARD 25. Does the Parole Board revoke technical parole violators to community

corrections rather than to prison?


Answer: The Parole Board can only revoke offenders to community corrections (CRS 18-1.3-301 (3)) with the approval of the local Community Corrections Board.

The Parole Board per CRS 17-2-103 does not automatically revoke technical parole violators (TPV) to community corrections rather than back to prison. The Parole Board reviews each individual circumstance, such as class of the felony, whether there is history of violence, menacing, or as a sexual predator. Other factors reviewed are whether the parolee has a new crime and/or has the risk of flight. If the Parole Board deems that public safety could be an issue, the TPV will be sent to a secure environment: pre-release facility, county jail, or prison. Currently, the Department contracts with three county jails (Washington, Park, and Fremont) to specifically house TPV offenders. Otherwise, the offender will be revoked to a bed maintained through Parole contracts with various private entities referred to a Community Return to Custody Facility (CRCF).

What percentage of technical parole violators are revoked to community corrections versus prison? Answer: Very few parolees are revoked and placed in community corrections, because local boards have the right to reject or accept the parolee.

26. Why does the parole board send technical parole violations revocations back to prison?

Answer: The Parole Board reviews a Technical Parole Violator’s non-compliance issues and, based on the risk to public safety to the citizens, can revoke a parolee back to prison or devise a plan to continue parole supervision, using the community return to custody (SB 03-252) option or other community-based supervision strategies. How much does this cost? Answer: Based on the FY 2008-09 average cost to house an offender of $19,232, a 180 day incarceration would be $9,616.

27. How many of the offenders who are beyond their parole eligibility date have

been to a hearing before the Parole Board and have been denied parole versus the number that choose to wait until their mandatory release date and not to go before the Parole Board?

Answer: As of June 30, 2009, 11,257 offenders were past their parole eligibility date, and 561 (4.98%) of those offenders have had their parole hearing waived. 3, 944 of the 11,257 offenders were parole violators who had previously been released but were returned to inmate status following a technical violation or new crime. The remaining 7,313 offenders (65%) past their parole eligibility date were new court commitments who had not yet paroled. Most offenders have multiple hearings while they work their way to release. Of the 7,313 offenders, 4,822 or 65.9% have been deferred (denied) parole.


28. Does the Parole Board use a step up system to put violators back in prison?

Answer: The Parole Board doesn’t have a formal step up system. Based on each individual circumstance, the Parole Board can exercise options to revoke to Community Return to Custody Facility, a pre-release facility, community corrections, county jails, or a state facility. In the community, there are a range of surveillance, treatments, and supervised strategies to safely manage the parolee.

What percentage go directly back to prison?

Answer: In FY 2008-09, the Parole Board conducted 6,035 revocation hearings in which a decision to revoke or continue on parole was made. Of these, 81% resulted in a revocation decision and 19% were continued on parole.

ADDENDUM: OTHER QUESTIONS FOR WHICH SOLELY WRITTEN RESPONSES ARE

REQUESTED

29. What is the status of Nestle leasing DOC land? How much money would the Department receive under the lease?

Answer:

•••• There will be no lease nor easement agreement with Nestle.

•••• The Department anticipates that there will be two (2) licenses, which will identify privileges granted to Nestle, subject to Chaffee County approval, allowing them to place a pipeline and related appurtenances under the existing county road and, possibly, parallel to the railroad Right of Way (ROW) as it crosses the southwest side of the ranch property.

•••• The first license has a nominal annual fee of $300 to cover the administrative costs (this license grants Nestle the ability to use some of the subgrade in the existing county surface ROW). It was determined that there was no value lost in granting this license.

•••• The second license will be granted, if necessary (Nestle needs to demonstrate that the railroad will not grant them use of their ROW), again subject to Chaffee County approval. Payments for the license will be at market rate - subject to an appraisal. The amount is unknown at this time.

30. What fiscal impact, if any, will the reduction of probation staff in Judicial have

on the Department?

Answer: Judicial is proposing the reduction of 70 probation officers in FY 10-11. During the FY 03-04 reductions, approximately 100 probation officers were reduced. In FY 04, the increase in Adult Intensive Supervision Probation (AISP) ratios (increased due to the reduction of staff) resulted in a 10% reduction in successful terminations. This scenario, with Intensive Supervision Programs (ISP) handling approximately 1,500 high risk offenders, means that an additional 150 offenders failed probation and were sent to the Department. The cost of


supervising an adult on probation is $1,630 per year vs. the cost of an offender sentenced to DOC at $19,232 per year. For 150 offenders, the annual difference in cost would have been $2,640,300 ($19,232 - $1,630 x 150 = $2,640,300). In FY 2005-06, FY 2006-07, and FY 2007-08, the numbers of Adult Probation Technical Violations with placement in DOC has reduced from 22.8% to 16.6%. The probation officer recommends to the court at a pre-sentence hearing between ISP, Probation, Jail, or DOC. The Department is not able to determine the fiscal impact with the reduction of probation officers as it depends upon many factors, but clearly it is more cost effective to manage the offender on probation rather than sentence to DOC.

31. What is the Department policy on state employees using state vehicles to

commute to and from work?

Answer: It is the policy of DOC, under the direction and guidance of State Fleet Management, Division of Central Services, to manage a vehicle fleet consistent with the public safety mission of the agency. The DOC allocates vehicles based on an annual workload analysis. Vehicles are maintained and operated consistent with state law and the fiscal rules governing state-owned vehicles. The Department policy on commuting follows the rules as set forth by State Fleet Management, Division of Central Services. The rules are described below.

• To authorize requested commuting, the executive director must determine that it is required for the convenience of the State and, if applicable, that the vehicle to be used is a qualified non-personal use vehicle. The executive director shall also determine when an employee starts and ends the authorized use.

• An authorization shall be made on the basis of the individual employee, the work function, the type and configuration of the vehicle, and the type of commuting requested, and not with respect to a specific motor vehicle. Changes in specific motor vehicle assignment, but remaining with the same type and configuration, do not require reauthorization.

• The executive director must document the authorization of commuting by completing a separate State Fleet Management Commuting Authorization Form for each state employee required to commute. If the commuting is taxable, the State Fleet Management Commuting Authorization Form must also be signed by the agency’s payroll officer to verify that commuting income will be imputed to the employee for payroll purposes. The completed form must be submitted to State Fleet Management, Division of Central Services.

Please provide a list of Department employees by division and program who use their state vehicles to commute to and from work.


Answer: The majority of employees commuting for the department qualify for the law enforcement exemption in the following areas: all Community Parole Officers (CPO), Community Parole Team Leaders, Community Parole Supervisors, Community Parole Managers, Inspector General (IG) Investigators/Supervisors, and IG K-9 Corps. The department also has a few other staff as approved by the Executive Director who qualify for a commuter vehicle.

Table 13: Department Commuter Vehicles

POSITION NUMBER PROGRAM


03556 SUPERINTENDENTS 83170 PAROLE



82000 PAROLE 83167 PAROLE

03111 MEDICAL SERVICES 82512 PAROLE

82326 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE 82560 PAROLE

07640 CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES 82708 PAROLE






07049 INSPECTOR GENERAL 82616 PAROLE




































































































































































Does the department reimburse employees for mileage expenses for using personal vehicles to simply commute to and from work? Answer: The department does not reimburse employees for mileage expenses for using personal vehicles to commute to and from work.

32. Why has the percentage of DOC inmates documented as needing mental health

services doubled in the last five years?

Answer: The number of offenders with mental illness continues to increase in the DOC. The Department has not seen the population double in the last five years. However, in the last 15 years the mentally ill population has increased significantly, growing at approximately 500 percent. In 1995, when San Carlos


Correctional Facility opened, the mentally ill population was approximately 650. Approximately 24.6% of the jurisdictional population (23,122) is identified as Offenders with a Mental Illness (OMI), which total 5,692 as of September 30, 2009. Approximately 20.4% of the offender population has serious mental illness (OSMI). This is an increase from 17.7 percent in July 2007. The percent equates to 4,151 offenders currently and 3,504 in 2007. The number of offenders with serious mental illness increased slowly over the last several years: the total in 2005 was 3,410 and in 2006 was 3,488.

33. In Colorado, the Judicial Department is responsible for probation services and the Department of Corrections is responsible for parole services. Why? Should the General Assembly consider assigning both responsibilities to one agency? Do you have any information about the potential effect of such a consolidation on the costs of providing these services and the outcomes achieved?

Answer: This issue has been raised and seriously studied in Colorado periodically in the past. Based on the following factors, the consistent conclusion has been that the agencies should remain separate and should coordinate where possible.

•••• Parole is in the Executive Branch and probation in the Judicial Branch. Parole officers need to regularly interact with prison management, case management, pre-release and reentry staff, and the Parole Board to maintain a continuity of treatment and supervision. Parole officers are integrated into the correctional reentry process for vocational, educational, and related services along the continuum. Probation officers are responsible for pre-sentence reports and closely interact with the Judiciary.

•••• Due process for Probation is through the courts. Due process for Parole is through the Parole Board. Consolidating these two processes would be costly and impractical.

•••• The Division of Parole is ACA (American Correctional Association) accredited, and the accreditation is integral and key to the entire accreditation of the Department of Corrections. Probation is not ACA accredited.

•••• The nature of the parolee and probationer clients differ, with a higher degree of risk posed by most parolees. Offenders that have been incarcerated historically have been more ingrained in the criminal culture and tend to have negative associations, few resources, and have less acceptance from the community. Parole officers are POST certified while probation officers are not. Parole officers are armed; probation officers are not. Parole officers have the authority to make arrests and transport offenders to county jails. Probation officers do not make arrests. The merger would bring with it the prospect of arming probation staff and acquiring post certification, which would significantly increase costs and have major job requirement implications.


•••• Parole is part of a centralized organization, while probation is more distributed among all judicial districts (reports to the Chief District Court Judge).

•••• Both entities utilize different electronic supervision management systems. Combining the two different systems could have Information Technology issues, implications, and create a major cost to the State of Colorado.

•••• There are ongoing opportunities for efficiencies and coordination, and probation and parole are committed to that and are working well together. Examples of such efforts underway include:

i. Coordinated risk assessment has been agreed to for over a decade

(using the Level of Supervision Inventory tool) and is now under review to determine if the Departments can jointly improve on what exists.

ii. Coordinated contracts for Electronic Home Monitoring and Day Reporting Services.

iii. Joint service on the Interagency Task Force for Treatment; the Interagency Committee on Adult and Juvenile Correctional Treatment (IAC) which meets approximately bi-monthly; the Sex Offender Management Board; and several committees of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.

iv. Collaboration (especially through the IAC) on joint research projects.

v. Collaboration on a joint effort to address absconding through prevention, research and information gathering to improve apprehension.

vi. Currently working together to increase the availability of treatment for offenders in rural areas.

vii. Recently collaboration with sister agencies to acquire a $2.2M grant to provide evidence-based training across the criminal justice system.

viii. Shared information on the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) system and both DOC and Judicial serve on the managing board for CJIS.

ix. Formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to work closely together on matters related to the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision, with a Judicial employee co-located with the DOC staff.

x. Jointly monitored/audited some community treatment providers and are exploring ways to improve that process.

In sum, there are many existing and possible avenues for improved collaboration between probation and parole that would not require consolidation and would not incur a significant cost to the State of Colorado.


34. Does the Department have information about total state expenditures for Substance abuse treatment?

Answer: DOC does not have information on the total state expenditures for substance abuse treatment. The substance abuse treatment dollars for DOC for FY 2008-09 was $6,179,029. The Department provides outpatient treatment groups and intensive treatment in Therapeutic Community settings. If not, what action could the General Assembly take to assist in gathering such information and to help coordinate treatment resources statewide? Answer: Gathering such information would require collaboration and joint efforts of state, county, and city agencies that currently provide substance abuse treatment.

35. Are existing substance abuse treatment services provided through the Judicial

Department, the Department of Human Services, the Department of Corrections, and the Department of Public Safety adequate to meet the need for services?

Answer: No, DOC’s existing treatment services are not adequate. There is a significant need that far exceeds what is available for individuals with substance abuse/dependency issues. The number of offenders in the Department with substance abuse problems continues to grow, and in FY 2007-08, 23% of the court commitments were admitted for drug offenses.12 The Department’s treatment program is based upon evidence based practice, and there has been a demonstrated treatment effect in the Therapeutic Communities (TC). The TC program is a comprehensive part of the recidivism reduction plan. The TC’s program is in collaboration with community based providers for follow-up services in community corrections. The community TC beds have greatly reduced the average length of stay in prison TC and contributed to a great reduction in recidivism than is provided by prison TC alone. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (October 2006) states the overall effect on reducing crime outcomes is a decrease of (5.7%) of offender recidivism.13

Are available treatment services effective? Answer: Central to the effectiveness of treatment is its duration, and the TC's offer a lengthier treatment experience (typically up to one year). Those that are effective in reducing recidivism frequently focus on criminogenic factors. Those factors most predictive of criminal behavior are:

12 (DOC Statistical Report 2008, June 2009, O’Keefe, Maureen and Barr, Bonnie pg. 15, www.doc.state.co.us). 13 (Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and

Crime Rates. Aos, Steve, Miller, Marna, and Drake, Elizabeth. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy)


Low self-control (impulsive behavior) Anti-social personality Anti-social values Criminal peers Substance abuse Dysfunctional family For offenders, enhancing offender motivation is important to recidivism reduction; excellent programs will not reduce recidivism if offenders do not participate in them. The value of education, employment, and vocational training in reducing recidivism is supported by research. Studies show that treatment can cut drug abuse in half, reduce criminal activity by up to 80%, and reduce arrests up to 64%.14 For those addicted to substances, outpatient treatment and residential therapeutic communities with community based care have good outcomes. In prison, programs have an enhanced effect when followed with after care in the community.15

36. Organizational charts for your department, showing divisions and subdivisions

(with geographic locations).

Answer: This was provided in the November 6, 2009 Budget Request, as described in the OSPB Budget Instructions published on May 29, 2009.

37. Definitions of the roles and missions of your department, its divisions and subdivisions.

Answer: This is a part of the Department's Strategic Plan which was submitted in the November 6, 2009 Budget Request, as described in the OSPB Budget Instructions published on May 29, 2009.

38. The number of current personnel and the number of assigned FTE by division

and subdivision (with geographic locations), including all government employees and on-site contractors.

Answer: The Position and Object Code Detail Report was included in the November 6, 2009 Budget Request as Schedule 14. This is the information that is available on FTE at this time.

39. A specific list of names, salaries, and positions by division and subdivision of any salaried officer or employee making over $95,000 per year in FY 2009-10.

14 (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 1997, the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study

(NTIES), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Publication, Number SMA-97-3156.) 15 (Mackenzie (2006) What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents)


Answer: The table provided indicates there are 144 full time employees (FTE) making over $95,000, which represents 2.2% of Department of Corrections (DOC’s) 6,637.7 FTE’s. Clinical Service employees (which include Physicians, Dentists, and Pharmacists) comprise 27.4% of the 2.2%.

Table 14: Employees With Salaries Above $95,000

POSITION NUMBER

YEARLY SALARY

03321 $99,144

03380 $136,668

09010 $146,040

03531 $95,880

03055 $104,316

03090 $95,004

03507 $95,004

10020 $95,004

03016 $95,472

03000 $110,508

03013 $110,508

03567 $110,508

03010 $115,908

03355 $97,056

03385 $104,556

23101 $104,556

08215 $97,248

30518 $100,092

31460 $100,248

31463 $108,456

31464 $109,404

00544 $111,000

29304 $111,600

34120 $112,272

09351 $114,336

00992 $114,360

03180 $114,948

03330 $114,948

06327 $117,312

06075 $119,784

31490 $122,856

14129 $123,600

30504 $123,600

03111 $125,100

08309 $127,920

05015 $130,344

30505 $130,716

02031 $136,620

08235 $142,992

28164 $144,000

POSITION NUMBER

YEARLY SALARY

01586 $147,084

28168 $147,096

05025 $147,204

30507 $148,320

30489 $148,692

29287 $150,000

02191 $150,684

09349 $151,788

08245 $153,972

00407 $154,824

34119 $156,000

28000 $95,244

26000 $95,904

31001 $95,904

05033 $96,120

08001 $96,204

09263 $96,204

32002 $96,204

20002 $96,300

30001 $96,336

22000 $98,688

37000 $98,688

36000 $101,412

30709 $103,836

32000 $104,052

23001 $106,104

31000 $106,524

34000 $109,764

14000 $111,144

20000 $113,808

03122 $114,948

08208 $114,948

21000 $114,948

23000 $114,948

30000 $114,948

37019 $114,948

05000 $115,908

09100 $115,908

03062 $125,100

03556 $125,100

POSITION NUMBER

YEARLY SALARY

07500 $136,668

15003 $95,244

15000 $114,948

31560 $101,292

10007 $114,948

10154 $117,600

10199 $146,472

03349 $110,640

03420 $99,648

03352 $114,876

03079 $123,000

03774 $111,600

03310 $115,908

03392 $103,836

03344 $99,612

03583 $99,612

03532 $103,068

03014 $99,012

03398 $123,000

03757 $103,836

83001 $125,100

83201 $109,836

82400 $96,996

82671 $103,056

82658 $109,836

82749 $114,216

82760 $114,216

82001 $114,948

83015 $125,100

82000 $136,668

82536 $114,216

09003 $95,364

09005 $98,712

03489 $103,836

07613 $95,124

07717 $109,320

07636 $123,000

6-Jan-10 COR-hearing

39

40. A specific list of names, bonuses, and positions by division and subdivision of any

salaried officer or employee making over $95,000 per year who received any bonuses in FY 2008-09.

Answer: The bonuses listed below were earned and approved in FY 2007-08 but were paid (received) in FY 2008-09.

Table 15: Employees Making over $95,000 and Received Bonuses

POSITION NUMBER

BONUS PAID FY 08-09

23101 $997

03489 $988

07613 $905

07717 $1,040

41. Numbers and locations of any buildings owned or rented by any division or

subdivision (by location) and the annual energy costs of all buildings.

Answer: The table below displays the DOC facility (buildings owned) and FY 2008-09 utility costs:

Table 16: Buildings Owned and Utilities Facility Name FY 2008-09 Utility Costs

Arrowhead Correctional Center $56,232.16

Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility $1,301,985.77

Buena Vista Correctional Complex $1,914,301.25

Centennial Correctional Facility $65,526.03

Correctional Industries $964,430.25

Colorado Correctional Center $33,900.00

Colorado State Penitentiary $154,927.14

Colorado State Penitentiary II $472,128.15

Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility $1,287,593.50

Colorado Women’s Correctional Facility $34,062.16

Delta Correctional Center $380,308.68

Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center $672,057.32

Denver Women’s Correctional Facility $977,024.99

East Cañon City Prison Complex * $3,284,948.94

Fremont Correctional Facility $574,216.40

Fort Lyon Correctional Facility $1,464,020.76

Four Mile Correctional Center $75,199.03

Limon Correctional Facility $1,321,490.08

La Vista Correctional Facility $304,824.77

Rifle Correctional Center $207,208.07

San Carlos Correctional Facility $274,706.54

Sterling Correctional Facility $2,855,928.77

Trinidad Correctional Facility $677,157.98


Table 16: Buildings Owned and Utilities Facility Name FY 2008-09 Utility Costs

Youthful Offender System $32,388.26

Total DOC Facilities $19,386,567.00

*East Canon City Prison Complex includes Colorado Correctional Center, Arrowhead Correctional

Center, Colorado State Penitentiary, Colorado Industries and Shops, Four Mile Correctional Center, San Carlos Correctional Facility, and Fremont Correctional Facility. The utilities included in the costs above are due to the facilities being metered together instead of each facility being on separate meters. The combined costs are water $868,072, sewer $406,958, propane $31,460,

electric $1,438,123, heating oil $26,587, and natural gas $513,749.

The following table shows energy costs for space that is leased and utility costs are not included in the lease price:

Table 17: Leased Space and Utilities Division/Location FY 2008-09 Utility Costs

Administration:

Training Academy - Cañon City $40,864.00

Parole & Community Corrections:

Colorado Springs - Colorado Ave. $9,645.00

Denver - Sherman $10,455.00

Craig $2,780.00

Longmont $2,765.00

Grand Junction $8,273.00

09 Total Energy Costs in Leased Space $74,782.00

42. Any real property or land owned, managed, or rented by any division or subdivision

(by geographic location). Answer: The table below displays DOC real property or land owned, managed or

rented:

Table 18: DOC Owned, Managed, and Leased Property Facility or other common name Address or location County Acres Ownership status

Own Manage Lease Lessee

East Cañon City Prison Complex (ACC, CCF, CSF I, CSP II, CWCF, FCF, FMCC, SCC, CCi, & misc. prison operations)

Evans Blvd. & US Hwy. 50

Fremont 4,300 X

127 X Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility

275 W Hwy 50 Canon City, CO 81212

Fremont

44 X (X) DOC to Canon City

Downtown warehouse 301 S 8th Street Canon City, CO 81212

Fremont 5 X

"old personnel office" 121 Main St. Canon City, CO 81212

Fremont 1 X

Woodpecker Hill (cemetery plots) Greenwood Pioneer Cemetery S. 1st Street Canon City, CO 81212

Fremont 1 X




Colorado Correctional Center (Camp George West)

15445 S. Golden Rd. Golden, CO 80401

Denver 5 X DoMA to DOC

Denver Complex

Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center

10900 Smith Road Denver, CO 80239

Denver 42 X

Denver Women’s Correctional Facility

3600 Havana Denver, CO 80239

Denver 26 X

Colorado Mental Health Institute-Pueblo

Youthful Offender Services 1300 West 13th Street Pueblo, CO 81003

Pueblo 8 X DHS to DOC

San Carlos Correctional Facility 1410 W. 13th St. Pueblo, CO 81003


La Vista Correctional Facility 1401 W. 17th Street Pueblo, CO 81003


Buena Vista Complex

424 X Buena Vista Correctional Facility

15125 Hwy 24 & 285 Buena Vista, CO 81211

Chaffee

30 X DOW to DOC

Buena Vista Minimum Center 15125 Hwy 24 & 285 Buena Vista, CO 81211

Chaffee 17 X

Colorado Corrections Alternatives Program

15125 Hwy 24 & 285 Buena Vista, CO 81211

Chaffee 9 X

1,240 X BV Ranch no address Chaffee

120 X (X) DOC to BVSD

162 X Sterling Correctional Facility 12101 Colorado Hwy 61 Sterling, CO 80751

Logan

760 X State Land Board to DOC

312 X Fort Lyon Correctional Facility 30999 County Road 15 Ft. Lyon, 81038

Bent

8 X

Trinidad Correctional Facility 21000 Hwy 350 East Model, CO 81059

Las Animas

450 X State Land Board to DOC

Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility

12750 Highway 96, Lane 13 Crowley, CO 81034

Crowley 397 X

Limon Correctional Facility 49030 State Hwy 71 Limon, CO 80826

Lincoln 320 X State Land Board to DOC

Delta Correctional Center 4102 Sawmill Mesa Rd Delta, CO 81416

Delta 114 X




Rifle Correctional Center 0200 County Road 219 Rifle, CO 81650

Garfield 98 X

The table displays DOC leased property by Division:

Table 19: DOC Leased Property

Lessor Function Location County Sq ft

Central Office

SPCL Colorado Springs DOC, LLC Central Office 2863 South Circle Dr Co Springs, CO El Paso 60,143

Training Academy

Yucaipa/CV11 Canon City LLC Training Academy 2951 E Hwy 50 Canon City, CO Fremont 15,688

Adult Parole, Community Corrections and YOS (APCCY)

NSHT, LLC Parole/Community 3720 Sinton Rd, Co Springs, CO El Paso 6,504

Mark Cunningham Parole/Community 516 W. Colorado Ave, CO El Paso 10,200

Hermesman, Theodore A Parole/Community 1474 Main Suite 130, Durango, CO La Plata 1,104

Marx Family LLC Parole/Community 205 S Main, Longmont, CO Boulder 2,450

DDD Properties LLC Parole/Community 2516 Foresight Circle, Grand Junction, CO Mesa 9,431

City of Westminster Parole/Community 8800 Sheridan Blvd., Westminster, CO Adams 23,674

877 Federal LLC Parole/Community 877-881 Federal, Denver, CO Denver 3,822

Dunkheld Broadway LLC Parole/Community 940 Broadway, Denver, CO Denver 28,600

South Galapago Properties Inc Parole/Community 3600-3642 S Galapago, Englewood, CO Arapahoe 6,441

Security Service Federal CU Parole/Community 310 E Abriendo, Pueblo, CO Pueblo 6,082

745 Sherman, LLC Parole/Community 745 Sherman LLC, Denver, CO Denver 8,260

The Sports Authority Parole/Community 1001 Lincoln Street, Denver, CO Denver 20,833

Everitt Plaza, LLC Parole/Community 3000 South College, Ft Collins, CO Larimer 6,104

6475 Wadsworth, LLC Parole/Community 800 8th, Greeley, CO Weld 3,860

Highpoint Investment, LLC Parole/Community 1558 12th Street, Alamosa, CO Alamosa 908

City of La Junta Parole/Community 617 Raton Ave., La Junta, CO Otero 697

James Jeffery & Kathleen Mitchell Parole/Community 109 East Victory Way, Craig, CO Moffat 1,354

Well Fargo NA Parole/Community 1218 Royal Gorge Blvd, Canon City, CO Fremont 950

Adria Easton Colver Parole/Community 301 Popular Street, Sterling, CO Logan 1,288

Correctional Industries

4999 LTD Correctional Industries 4999 Oakland Street, Denver, CO Denver 50,050

Prison Facilities

CSP II Prison Facility Evans Blvd. and Hwy 50, Canon City, CO Fremont 523,278

TOTAL 791,721

43. List essential computer systems and databases used by the department, its divisions

and subdivision, with their actual FY 2008-09 expenditures.


Answer: Please see the Governor's Office of Information Technology for this information.

44. Any actual FY 2008-09 expenditures over $100,000 total from the department or from its divisions and subdivision to any private contractor, identifying the contract, the project, and whether the contracts were sole-source or competitive bid.

Answer: The Governor has determined that this request is administratively burdensome and is best accessed through the State Controller. Please contact the State Controller for a report with this information.

45. The amount of actual expenditures for any lobbying, public relations, gifts, public advertising, or publications including:

a. expenditures for lobbying by public employees, contract lobbyists, or "think tanks”;

b. expenditures for lobbying purposes at other levels of government; c. expenditures for lobbying purposes from grants, gifts, scholarships, or

tuition; d. expenditures for publications or media used for lobbying purposes; e. expenditures for gratuities, tickets, entertainment, receptions or travel for

purposes of lobbying elected officials; or f. expenditures for any public advertising. Include all advertising

campaigns, including those that are not for public relations.

Answer: The Governor's Office collected the information outlined in this question and gave it to the LCS in September 2009. Please contact LCS to request the information.

46. List of all boards, commissions, and study groups, including actual FY 2008-09 expenditures, travel, per diem budgets and assigned FTEs.

Answer: The Governor's Office collected that information and gave it to the JBC in August 2009. Please contact OSPB to request a copy of what was submitted. The Governor has determined that the remainder of this request is administratively burdensome as the operating budget is not appropriated or expended according to specific FTE.

47. Suggest budget and staff reductions, including reductions in FTE and hours, by division and subdivision that will reduce your department’s total FY 2010-11 General Fund expenditures by 12.5% relative to FY 09-10 appropriations before any adjustments that have been announced since the end of the 2009 session.

Answer: Please see the Governor's November 6, 2009 Budget Request for budget balancing proposals for FY 2010-11, and his December 1, 2009 Budget Balancing package for FY 2009-10.

48. Suggest budget and staff reductions, including reductions in FTE and hours, by division and subdivision that will reduce your department’s total FY 2010-11


General Fund expenditures by 25.0% relative to FY 09-10 appropriations before any adjustments that have been announced since the end of the 2009 session.

Answer: Please see the Governor's November 6, 2009 Budget Request for budget balancing proposals for FY 2010-11, and his December 1, 2009 Budget Balancing package for FY 2009-10.

Documents

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ... This cost estimate uses a cost allocation model that ... institutional behavior. As such, cost …