Parole board outlines revocation process and limited relief from PPMM; committee seeks transparency on risk assessment and revocation trends

The Colorado State Parole Board presented its role and procedures to the Joint Budget Committee and defended a renewed focus on procedural fairness even as lawmakers questioned rising revocation and return rates.

"The parole board is not asking for any additional financial increases this year," Chair Rondy Moore said, noting the board's status as an independent decision-making body supported administratively by CDOC. Moore described the board’s mission to increase public safety by evaluating candidates for reintegration and said members are using a procedural-justice framework to increase transparency and consistency.

Kito Bess, director of adult parole, reviewed the revocation process and cited CRS 17-22.5-404(9) in explaining how technical parole violations are filed and adjudicated. He said technical returns have increased in the most recent period and linked that trend partly to expanded fugitive apprehension work that has reduced absconders but also resulted in more revocation filings.

Several lawmakers pressed for more detail about how risk-assessment scoring and parole practices affect returns and bed demand. Representative Taggart and Senator Kirkmeyer urged the board and DOC to be more transparent about the risk-assessment reviews that produced startling public numbers in prior reporting. "It's got to come from you folks, and it needs to be very transparent," Taggart said.

Moore and Vice Chair Stephen Holmes said the board is reviewing special-needs parole referrals under new legislation and noted that statutory constraints limit how many people can be reviewed quickly under the PPMM. Under the PPMM reviews since Aug. 16, the board said 91 offenders qualified for review under the statute and 29 (about 32%) were released.

On revocation outcomes, Holmes said the board relies on the parole division's documentation of interventions before complaints are filed and that revocations reflect a mix of conduct and public-safety considerations. Lawmakers sought more data on which types of officers are filing complaints and whether systemic changes could reduce revocations for technical violations.

The committee requested additional comparative data on parole releases, revocation rates over time, and the application and outcomes of the board’s procedural-justice framework.