Final
Briefing by Colorado Board of Parole
COMMITTEE ON
JOINT JUDICIARY
Votes:
Action Taken:
<none>
<none>
08:06 AM -- Colorado Board of Parole
Allan Stanley, Chair, Colorado Board of Parole, introduced members of the parole board who were present. Mr. Stanley reviewed the basics of the parole board including the makeup of the board, the types of hearings the boards conducts, and the number of hearings the board conducts (Attachment A). Mr. Stanley indicated the board has experienced a larger than usual increase in the number of revocation hearings over the last few years.
Responding to questions from committee members asked at prior meetings, Mr. Stanley reviewed the reasons inmates remain in prison beyond their parole eligibility date (PED). He clarified that the PED is the earliest date an inmate is eligible to make an appearance before the parole board. It is rare for an inmate to be paroled on his or her PED. The PED is to be distinguished from the mandatory parole date (MRD) which comes after an inmate has served his or her entire sentence.
In response to a committee question regarding the suspected rapist currently being sought by law enforcement, Mr. Stanley explained that the individual never appeared before the parole board, discharging from the Department of Corrections (DOC) after serving his sentence. Further, he was sentenced prior to the mandatory parole law so he was not released to parole supervision. In response to a question regarding inmates who intentionally waive parole hearings, Mr. Stanley explained that inmates are now only allowed to waive parole up until the point that they will be released because their sentence is nearing its end. At that point, the board reviews a release plan.
Responding to a question regarding parolees who are granted parole but remain in prison while serving parole, Mr. Stanley explained that when an inmate is close to his or her mandatory parole date, the parole board meets with the inmate but that parole is discretionary, not mandatory. Terms and conditions are set then, but the inmate is not released. This avoids having to see the inmate again when the mandatory release date arrives. Inmates misunderstand the nature of this appearance before the board and sometimes believe that they have been paroled to their mandatory release dates, but that is not the case. The parole board just sets the terms and conditions at this meeting while the offender is still in prison, but the offender is not paroled. In addition, there are inmates who are waiting for a program to open up and in the meantime, the board sets a date for the inmate to be released to parole supervision. In these cases, the board sets a date upon which the inmate must meet certain conditions (completion of the program, for instance) prior to being released. In response to another question, Mr. Stanley explained that some inmates are given deferred parole for a year at a time or up to five years at a time.
Mr. Stanley reviewed the provisions of Senate Bill 03-252 regarding parole revocations. He responded to a committee question regarding self revocations. Prior to SB 03-252, there was an absolute right to self revocation. If a parolee was arrested for a new crime, he or she would self-revoke parole because he or she would go back to prison as a parole revocation and not for a new crime. Other individuals self-revoke because parole is difficult. After SB 03-252, inmates no longer have this absolute right to self revocation. A parolee now must request from the parole board permission to self-revoke. If the board allows this, it is counted as a technical parole violation. If the board refuses the request to self-revoke, the board conducts a revocation hearing.
Mr. Stanley disputed allegations that the board is too quick to revoke for parole violations. He indicated that parole officers work very hard with parolees before writing up a complaint. When a parolee violates a condition of parole, the parole officer can request a modification to the conditions of parole instead of filing a parole revocation. Three-hundred fifty such requests were made to the parole board in the last six months resulting in 350 fewer revocation hearings. When a parole officer requests a modification to the conditions of parole, the parolee essentially admits the violation. Mr. Stanley reiterated the point that parole officers do a lot to keep parolees on parole.
In response to a committee question asking if there has been an increase in revocations post SB 03-252, Mr. Stanley indicated there is not much in the way of data yet, but it appears that the numbers have doubled. Because of the number of parolees remaining in county jails, administrative hearing judges are forced to continue their hearings. He said this is the most significant impact on the number of revocation hearings. In response to a question on how to change the law to decrease that turnaround, Mr.Stanley said the board tried some modifications last year but was not fully able to implement the changes because of the lack of funding. He indicated the board will re-present the changes when it is more fiscally viable. Further, the board is still seeing the effects of SB 03-252 so they want to wait until next year to see if they have realized all of the ramifications of the law.
08:34 AM
Jeaneene Miller, Director, Division of Adult Parole Supervision, Department of Corrections, responded to committee questions on caseloads and recidivism indicating that caseloads are 1 parole officer to every 90 parolees; for Intensive Supervision Parole, that ratio is 1 parole officer to 30 or 35 parolees. She remarked that larger caseloads impact the ability to be effective and indicated that another factor increasing recidivism is the loss of contract for services dollars. Parolees require services such as employment assistance, housing assistance, substance abuse treatment, sex offender treatment, and mental health treatment. Ms. Miller explained the four components of parole: regular parole, Intensive Supervision Parole, interstate parole, and Lifetime Intensive Supervision Parole for sex offenders. She explained how offender assessments are used and how that gets the parolee to the treatment provider. She reviewed the many tools used to monitor parolees and their progress (Attachment B). Ms. Miller remarked that the biggest problem for parolees is housing. In response to a committee question regarding access to employment for parolees, Ms. Miller says this is one of the bigger problems. Parolees can't keep out of trouble if they're not stable. The Division of Adult Parole Supervision is working with community corrections providers to get better employment services
08:44 AM
Adjourn.