Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Corrections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears DCJ data on community corrections: 44% of referrals denied; recidivism measures vary by definition
Summary
Deputy Division of Criminal Justice officials told the Joint Budget Committee that recidivism depends on definition: DCJ reported a 2‑year filing rate of 33% (27% convictions) and a felony‑conviction recidivism of 18.89% for FY2021–FY2022. Committee members pressed on referral denials, the lack of a centralized database, and which risk instrument to use.
Deputy Director Chris Lobato Frestovsky of the Division of Criminal Justice told the Joint Budget Committee that community corrections serves a broad population and that measuring recidivism depends on the definition used.
“Katie Ruskie” (Katie Ruskie, manager, Office of Community Corrections) told the committee that, using the statewide definition the Office of Research and Statistics now reports, 33% of individuals had a new filing and 27% had a conviction within two years; when limited to felony convictions in performance‑based contracting data, the two‑year felony‑conviction rate was 18.89% for the 2021–22 cohort.
Ruskie also told the committee that referral outcomes vary by source and by board/provider practice. Using Department of Corrections (DOC) referral data for FY2025, DCJ reported that 44% of referrals to non‑specialized residential community corrections placements were denied; the denial rate rose to about 50% for people with violent offenses. DCJ staff said the top denial reasons boards reported were “other,” current offense, and severity of crime; providers cited disciplinary history, “other,” and prior supervision failures.
Committee members pressed staff on three recurring themes: inconsistent definitions and assessment tools across agencies, the absence of a centralized referral database, and statutory constraints. Ruskie and Lobato described multiple risk instruments in use: the Division relies on the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) at intake and DOC uses the CARES (Colorado Actuarial Risk Assessment Scale) for release decisions. Lobato said the CARES has been validated on a Colorado population and is updated regularly; Ruskie noted differences in what each instrument measures and how jurisdictions implement them.
On centralization, DCJ staff said they do not operate a single statewide referral database. Ruskie said DOC maintains referral flows and that DCJ receives some DOC data; she described local work with community corrections boards and occasional case‑level conversations, and said statute currently requires DOC to send referrals on a time‑based schedule whether or not a case manager recommends placement.
The committee asked for follow‑up data; DCJ offered to provide additional technical‑violation return‑to‑prison figures, CARES/LISI crosswalks where available, and more detail on denial reasons and patterns. No formal action or vote occurred on the record during the briefing.
Next steps: DCJ will supply additional referral and technical‑violation data on request and the committee indicated interest in improved data standardization across DOC, parole, and community corrections.
