COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Budget Hearing January 6, 2010 ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 1

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 2

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. 3

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 stateowned 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 4

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 5

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 highcustody 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. 6

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%202 005.pdf 7

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 nonnegligent manslaughter Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 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 8

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 nonnegligent manslaughter Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 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 Aggravated assault Aggravated assault Burglary Burglary Larcenytheft Larcenytheft State Robbery Robbery 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 Motor vehicle theft Motor vehicle theft 9

Table 2: Comparison for Crime Rates 2002 to 2008 Index of Crime 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008 Aggravated assault Aggravated assault Burglary Burglary Larcenytheft Larcenytheft Motor vehicle theft State Robbery Robbery 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. Motor vehicle theft 10

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 30 th of each of the last six years: 11

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 12

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 13

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 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 14

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) (NST-EST 2009-01) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division Release Date: December 2009 Per Capita Spending ** 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% 15

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 16

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, 2009 2 ). 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, 2009 3 ) Stimulus spending programs, such as extended unemployment benefits and food stamps have prevented people from resorting to crime out of hunger and desperation (Barrett, 2009 4 ) 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-todrop/ 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 17

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, 2009 5 ). 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 18

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, 2009 6 ). 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, 2009 7 ). 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, 1999 8 ). 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 2008 9, 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. 19

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 2009 10. 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 rate 11 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. 20