COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS TODAY

Concept of Community Corrections
Types of Placement in Community Corrections
Specialized Services
Funding and Referral Flowchart (Adobe 5.0)

HISTORY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

Background
Current Program Status
Historical Timeline Summary
Funding History

THE CONCEPT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

Since the mid-twentieth century, penal systems across the country have used "halfway houses" as facilities where offenders could receive supervision and treatment outside of prison walls. Community corrections programs were originally designed as an intermediate point between probation/parole and prison. The concept was that offenders appropriate for community corrections may need more supervision and treatment than those on probation, but less physical confinement than that provided by a prison. Part of the enduring appeal of community corrections has been economic:

• Community corrections supervision is less costly than placement in a penal facility.
• In many cases, community corrections clients are employed, and defray the costs of their housing and treatment by making payments.
• Many offenders earn money to pay child support or restitution to their victims, which would be impossible if they were held in prison.

Over time, penal experts have also discovered that community corrections programs enhance public safety:

• Since relatively few sentences are life sentences, most prison inmates will return to the community eventually. For those offenders who are completing a term in prison or who are nearing parole, community corrections offers an opportunity to gradually accept the responsibilities and challenges associated with freedom, while remaining in a controlled environment.
• Without community corrections, some offenders would be on probation, living anonymously and spread across the community. Some of these offenders are better managed in the structured setting of a community corrections program, where their behaviors are carefully monitored and where they receive the type of training and education most likely to promote a return to productivity.

Colorado’s Unique Community Corrections System

In Colorado, the community corrections system is a unique collaboration between state agencies, local officials and community corrections providers, with an emphasis on local control.

• Local community corrections boards in each of Colorado's twenty-two judicial districts are an integral part of the system.
• Under state law, each local board may contract with one or more community corrections programs to provide for the supervision and treatment of offenders.
• The same local boards determine which offenders will be accepted into their local programs.

Generally, local boards authorize their programs to manage two main types of offenders.

• "Diversion clients" are directly sentenced to community corrections by a district judge following a felony conviction. In such cases, community corrections serves as the step right before prison. One measure of success in the management of diversion clients is whether they can permanently demonstrate that they do not require time in prison to become safe and productive members of society.
• "Transition clients" have been in a Colorado prison facility, are still under the supervision of the Colorado Department of Corrections, and are preparing for a gradual return to society by participating in a community corrections program. In such cases, community corrections serves as the step right after prison. One measure of success in the management of these clients is whether they remain crime-free, both during and after their transition from institutional life to freedom.

Some community corrections offenders progress through the system to become "nonresidential clients" or "day reporting clients." Typically, these offenders have "graduated" from the more structured part of their programs, and are permitted to live with some independence. They check in as often as every day, provide urine samples to detect any substance abuse, and are subject to monitoring at their jobs and elsewhere. Many nonresidential offenders continue classes begun while they were in residence at the program.

The diverse nature of community corrections programs in Colorado is part of the system’s strength:

• Some programs are operated by units of local government, such as a county; some are operated by not-for-profit corporations, while others are for-profit entities.
• Two programs are affiliated with the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, and specialize in the treatment of substance abuse.
• Some programs provide gender-specific treatment for female offenders.
• A number of programs are now expanding the availability of specialized treatment for offenders who also have mental health issues other than addiction.

State Oversight of Community Corrections in Colorado

The Governor's Advisory Council on Community Corrections has adopted a comprehensive set of Community Corrections Standards that apply to all community corrections programs in Colorado. The Standards establish minimum objective criteria that describe how programs should deal with issues related to public safety, offender management and best practices in offender rehabilitation.

The Office of Community Corrections (OCC) is a part of the Division of Criminal Justice in the Colorado Department of Public Safety. OCC is responsible for:

• The enforcement of the Community Corrections Standards through regular program audits, including site visits.
• The distribution of state and federal monies to community corrections boards and programs.
• The creation and presentation of specialized training programs for employees of local programs.
• The completion of "records checks" on prospective employees of community corrections programs.
• The collection of statistical data and other information about community corrections on behalf of the Colorado legislature and other state entities.

In addition to OCC, other agencies with oversight responsibilities for community corrections programs include:

• The Colorado Department of Corrections, which maintains supervision of its transition offenders in community corrections placements.
• The Colorado Judicial Department, which maintains supervision of offenders who are in community corrections as the result of direct sentences or as a condition of probation.
• The Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division (ADAD) of the Colorado Department of Human Services, which oversees the adequacy of clinical services provided to offenders with a history of substance abuse.

The Direction of Community Corrections in Colorado

Community corrections is an important part of Colorado’s criminal justice system, in part because it can be cost-effective and in part because its programs combine access to offender rehabilitation services with intensive offender supervision in the interest of public safety. Many policymakers advocate the expansion of community corrections.

There remain a number of challenges:

• State resources are limited, and there is significant competition for tax dollars between all types of worthwhile uses for public money.
• Some providers have found it difficult to retain experienced staff members because their employees are often attracted to better paying positions in probation and parole.
• Some communities have struggled to find a consensus regarding where community corrections programs should be located, even though programs in Colorado have not been associated with a localized increase in crime. As a result, some programs are turning to less populated areas, which have the disadvantage of limited access to public transportation and other services.

Despite these and other concerns, Colorado’s community corrections programs continue to flourish. State agencies, local authorities, and public and private providers remain committed to the common goals of public safety and rehabilitation, from which both the offenders and the community ultimately benefit.

TYPES OF PLACEMENTS IN COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

DIVERSION BEDS

"Diversion" is the component of Community Corrections that provides a sentencing option to judges at the time of conviction. Judges may place offenders with less than two prior felony convictions on probation, or sentence any felon to prison or to Community Corrections. The legislative preference has been to use Community Corrections diversion primarily as an alternative to a prison sentence.

TRANSITION BEDS

"Transition" refers to the component of Community Corrections that places prison inmates in local residential facilities prior to their parole release. The purpose is to establish employment, begin contacts with family, and develop community support systems within a structured setting before full release to the community. The Council agrees with the Department of Corrections - Department of Public Safety arrangement to target at least 10% of the state inmate population in community programs. New prison projections would result in the following bed needs for the next five years.

PAROLE BEDS

Legislative changes in 1987 enabled the Parole Board to refer parolees to Community Corrections. The Council recommends increasing the resources for the Parole Board over the next five years, primarily to reduce the number of regressions or revocations of parolees who violate "technical"* conditions of their parole agreement. Parolees committing new crimes or involved in serious violations of parole must be returned to secure facilities.

*"Technical" conditions refer to rules of parole release, such as reporting to a parole officer, that do not involve violations of laws or ordinances.

SPECIALIZED TREATMENT PROGRAMS IN COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

The Council finds that the unmet needs of some offender groups is contributing to an increasing failure rate of offenders in all types of close community supervision (Community Corrections, ISP, etc.). The offender groups include substance abusers, sex offenders, mentally ill, domestic violence cases, and younger offenders with poor impulse control. The Council has promulgated standards to cover basic residential services using the current per diem rate, but the Council recommends meeting these needs through the use of specialized treatment programs with enhanced per dia.

• Peer I, Denver
• The Haven, Denver
• Crossroads, Pueblo

Intensive Residential Treatment (IRT) Programs for Substance Abusing Offenders

• San Luis Valley Community Corrections-IRT, Alamosa
• Larimer County Community Corrections, Ft. Collins.

Residential Dual Diagnosis Treatment (RDDT) Programs

• Modified Therapeutic Community for Dually Diagnosed Mentally Ill Offenders at Independence House Fillmore, Denver
• John Eachon Re-Entry Program – Mental Health Services at Intervention Community Corrections Services, Inc.
• Mesa County Community Corrections – RDDT Program
• Intervention Community Corrections Services – RDDT Program
• Larimer County Community Corrections – RDDT Program
• COMCOR, Inc – RDDT Program
  

Specialized Supervision and Treatment Programs for Sex Offenders

• COMCOR, Inc., Colorado Springs
• Larimer County Community Corrections, Ft. Collins.

HISTORY OF COLORADO COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

BACKGROUND

A form of community corrections principles were practiced as early as 1957 when, Wayne K. Patterson, the warden for the state penal system, persuaded the legislature to use inmates from the reformatory to build small parks adjacent to highways around the state.

The term "community corrections" is one that is often confusing. In the broadest sense, it is the supervision or treatment of criminal offenders in non-secure settings. In Colorado and other states with Community Corrections Acts, the term refers to specific programs that are based and operated in local communities. Community based corrections programs broaden the range of criminal sanctions available to the justice system. They manage offender populations that would otherwise be placed in secure facilities.

The Colorado Legislature officially initiated community Corrections in Colorado in 1974 with the enactment of the first “Community Corrections Act”, Senate Bill 55. The legislation was passed after Sen. Ralph Cole led a group of local officials and state lawmakers on a tour of similar community programs in Iowa.

Senator Cole and others discovered that many communities would be willing to “correct” their own offenders. Senator Cole, having run prison camps during the Second World War, knew what it was like to work with offenders. Senator Cole wanted communities to be safe but involved in the rehabilitation of offenders. Senator Cole devised a plan whereby communities would be able to reject any offenders they would not want in the community. In addition, programs could reject offenders if they felt they could not manage them. This two-fold protection for the community is unique within the United States. In most states, community offenders are placed in the community with or without community support.

The strength of Colorado Community Corrections, as envisioned by Senator Cole, was his emphasis on community control. Furthermore, he knew that most offenders do return to our communities eventually. He saw community corrections as a way to reintegrate these offenders without simply dumping them on our streets. By doing so, he knew that our communities would be safer places to live. For him, ignorance was not bliss. Offenders hiding in apartments and unknown to neighbors are much more dangerous than those who are known in our communities and supervised.

Secrets are offender’s friends. Knowing who they are and where they are forces accountability of offenders. Senator Cole’s vision is alive and well today. With community corrections having tripled in the past 20 years, communities are becoming better and better at knowing which offenders they can manage and which offenders cannot be managed at the local level.

Local community corrections boards and programs were authorized by the 1974 act, but no funds for services were appropriated that year. Larimer County was the first jurisdiction to establish a community corrections board and used federal grant funds to begin program activities.

A significant provision in the community corrections model in Colorado is the level of local control. Boards appointed by locally elected officials have the authority to screen and reject any offender referrals to programs in their communities. These boards also contract with private service providers or county providers, screen offenders for placement and oversee local programs. It was recognized that without a strong level of local support for programs, it would be difficult for the state to sustain locally based services.

In 1976, Senate Bill 4 encouraged judicial districts to divert adjudicated non-violent offenders away from prison and into local residential or non-residential programs. Limited funding ($300,000) was provided for purchase of services. These funds went to programs in Larimer, Boulder, Denver, Mesa, El Paso, and Pueblo counties that had previously operated on federal grants or served county correctional agencies. As state appropriations increased over the next few years, new programs were formed in Adams, Jefferson, La Plata and Denver counties.

An amendment to the Community Corrections Act in 1979 authorized local community boards to screen and place inmates in local programs prior to parole release. This change defined the offender populations that have been supervised in community programs during the last eleven years.

The offender populations served by Community Corrections fall into two primary groups. The first group is placed directly in community programs by judges at the time of conviction. Usually such placement is made instead of a prison sentence and is referred to as "Diversion." Currently, over 2400 felons are supervised in community programs in this status.

The second group supervised in community programs is offenders who have served time in prison, then are placed in a community program prior to their release to parole or as a condition of parole. This group is referred to as "Transition" as services are provided to assist in their reintegration to local communities. Over 1500 "Transition" offenders are in community programs today.

The appropriations for Community Corrections have seen gradual increases since the program started in 1974. From the first appropriations mentioned previously, funding increased to $1.7 million in FY 1979-80. Five years later $5.8 million was appropriated and funding for fiscal year 2007-2008 is $48 million. Despite these increases, the funding has not kept pace with the demand for beds and needs for resources to provide quality services. Judges have backlogs of offenders waiting for placements in community beds and per diem rates paid to program providers have not increased as costs have escalated.

In the early years, a problem that plagued the program was a lack of administrative stability. As is true today, both the state and local government shared oversight of the program. But, during the first decade of the program, state administration bounced between or was shared by the Department of Corrections and the Judicial Department before being placed under the Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) in the Department of Public Safety in 1986. These administrative shifts led to inconsistencies in state direction and difficulties in resolving the different state/local interests that emerged in joint oversight of the program.

To stabilize the administration of the program after its transfer to DCJ, Governor Lamm created the first Community Corrections Advisory Council in 1986. Governor Romer appointed a second Council in 1988 with membership representing state and local interests associated with the program. Governor Ritter approved the latest Advisory Council in June 2007. While funding comes from the state and referrals to programs come from state criminal justice agencies, the programs are based in local communities and the enabling legislation reflects the importance of local support and control. Local boards have the authority to accept or reject referrals to programs and decide which programs will exist in their communities. The Community Corrections program is dependent on coordination of these boards with the state administrative agency, as well as support of the legislature, local government, criminal justice agencies and the local programs if it is to effectively serve the State.

CURRENT PROGRAM STATUS

Currently there are twenty-two local community corrections boards throughout Colorado and thirty-five separate residential facilities delivering community corrections services. In four communities, units of local government operate programs. The remaining programs are operated by private agencies. Boards vary in size, makeup, philosophy and degree of program control. The programs supervised approximately 5600 felons in 2006. Following is a summary of the boards and programs that exist around the State listed by Judicial Districts.

1st Judicial District
A 19-member board is appointed by the Jefferson County Commissioners with inter-governmental agreements to insure coordination with municipalities. Intervention Community Corrections Services, Inc. is the only program serving this district.

2nd Judicial District
The 19-member Denver Community Corrections Board was created in 1976 and is appointed by the Mayor. The following programs operate within the City and County of Denver:

• Independence House (2 facilities)
• Community Education Centers (2 facilities)
• Correctional Management Inc. (4 facilities)
• Denver County Jail (Phase 1)
• UCHSC A.R.T.S., PEER-1
• UCHSC A.R.T.S., The Haven

3rd Judicial District
The 3rd Judicial District Community Corrections Board is operated out of the Huerfano County Court. There are no community corrections programs located within the district.

4th Judicial District
The local board was formed in El Paso County in 1978. The El Paso County Commissioners recreated and appointed a new 15-member board in 1997. One of the three programs operates both traditional community corrections programs and intensive drug treatment programs. The following programs operate within Colorado Springs:

• ComCor, Inc. (2 facilities)
• Community Alternatives of El Paso County
• Gateway: Through the Rockies

5th Judicial District
Formed in 1986 under appointing authority of Lake, Eagle, Clear Creek, and Summit County commissioners, the local board has eight members. There are no community corrections programs located in the 5th District.

6th Judicial District
The six-member board formed in 1986. The City of Durango and La Plata County share appointing authority of the board. The local program, Hilltop House, was established in 1979. Unlike other programs, Hilltop House contracts directly with the state.

7th Judicial District
The 15-member board was created in 1982. Various County Commissioners of counties in the judicial district and criminal justice officials serve on the board. There is no community corrections program located in this district.

8th Judicial District
The 21-member board in Larimer County was created in 1976, the first in the State. The local program, Larimer County Community Corrections Program, established in 1978, is one of three in the State that is operated by the county.

9th Judicial District
The board was formed in 1982. GCCC Garfield County Community Corrections opened in September 2003. The county constructed a new facility in Rifle that opened in June of 2007.

10th Judicial District
The Pueblo County Community Corrections Board is been comprised of the three Pueblo County commissioners. Two private programs operate in Pueblo:

• Minnequa Community Corrections Center, established in 1982
• Pueblo Community Corrections Services, Inc.was established in 1988.

11th Judicial District
The 11th Judicial District created a Community Corrections Board in June 1998. The Chief District Court Judge in the 11th Judicial District chairs the Board. There is no community corrections program in this district.

12th Judicial District
The 13-member board was formed in 1981. Both a traditional community corrections program and an intensive drug treatment facility are operated by the San Luis Valley Mental Health Center. The corrections program was formed in 1983, the drug program began in 1989. In 2005, the facility opened a female wing.

13th Judicial District
The Morgan County board was formed in 1986. Advantage Treatment Center in Sterling serves this district.

14th Judicial District
The board in Craig began operation in 1981. That same year the Correctional Alternative Placement Services opened in Craig.

15th Judicial District
The board was formed in 1984. There is no community corrections program in this district.

16th Judicial District
The 15-member Tri-county community corrections board is made up of representatives of Otero, Bent and Crowley Counties. There is no community corrections program in this district.

17th Judicial District
The 13-member board was formed in 1979. There are three residential community corrections programs in the 17th District:

• Southern Corrections Systems operates two facilities in the county Loft House (formed in 1979) and Phoenix Center (opened in 1988).
• Correctional Psychology Associates has one facility, Time To Change (opened in 2003).

18th Judicial District
Arapahoe County Commissioners formed a 15-member board in 1980. The three programs currently in operation are:

• Arapahoe Community Treatment Center
• Arapahoe County Residential Center
• Centennial Community Transition Center

19th Judicial District
The Weld County Board of Commissioners formed the nine-member board in the early 1980’s. Intervention Community Corrections Services (ICCS) is the current vendor.

20th Judicial District
Boulder County commissioners established the thirteen-member board in 1972. Correctional Management, Inc. operates two programs in this district:

• Boulder Community Treatment Center
• Longmont Community Treatment Center.

21st Judicial District
The 19-member board in Grand Junction was formed by the Mesa County commissioners in 1977. The county operates the Mesa County Community Corrections facility that houses community corrections and a specialized methamphetamine treatment facility. The facility began operation in 1971.

22nd Judicial District
The 19-member board in Cortez was formed in 1991. There is no community corrections program in this district.

Since transfer of Community Corrections to the Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) several key policies have been developed in collaboration with the Community Corrections Advisory Council. These policies are intended to bring stability to the program and improve program quality.

1. Administration and service delivery structure for Community Corrections is a complex network of state and local agencies, both public and private. DCJ will consult with the Community Corrections Advisory Council, which represents those various interests, on major issues such as:

• policy formation,
• resource allocations,
• legislative initiatives, and
• major administrative decisions.

2. Funds appropriated by the General Assembly are allocated to community boards and programs proportionate to caseload and offender population comparisons of geographic areas served by the boards or programs. Distribution of resources will vary from these allocations only to support specialized services, to provide a viable funding base for small regional programs, or to reflect local options to limit program size.

3. Program standards have been developed (with participation and review by criminal justice agencies, local boards, and program providers) to clearly identify minimum supervision and treatment services, establish acceptable levels for health and safety within facilities, and establish expectations for professional program operation and management.

4. Compliance with standards are enforced through periodic audits and monitoring by state and local officials representing DCJ, local boards, and referral agencies.

The Council has identified the following issues and problems that must be addressed to insure that the Community Corrections program remains a viable component of the criminal justice system.

* Additional resources are necessary if the program is to reach its full potential and provide relief for the growing demand for prison beds. During a time when the legislature increased criminal sanctions, thereby increasing the number of offenders requiring supervision, the per diem rate for community programs was reduced.

* Expansion of program services is necessary if higher risk offender populations are to be placed in Community Corrections. The local screening of referrals by community boards provides appropriate safeguards to avoid placing an offender in the community whose needs or risks exceed the ability of local programs. Policy-makers should not interpret existing rejection rates by local boards or programs as an indication that saturation levels have been reached. It is an indication that existing resources are insufficient to deal with higher risk referrals.

* Concerns that increased funding of community programs will result in more profits for providers rather than higher levels of service are unfounded. The Council has established program standards. Improved levels of oversight and monitoring of programs have been instituted. Local boards, and providers who do not meet expectations of state and local officials will be replaced.

HISTORICAL TIMELINE SUMMARY

• 1957
  • Wayne K. Patterson persuaded the legislature to use inmates from the State Reformatory to build small parks adjacent to highways around the state.
• 1960
  • Ray Bright, as an employee of the State Reformatory, began the development of the first honor/work camp in the Delta, Colorado area.
• 1967
  • The Work Release Act (C.R.S. 16-11-212) was passed.
• 1969
  • Bails Hall, a Division of Corrections work release center established in Denver.
• 1971
  • The Veteran's Administration opened a residential treatment program for Vietnam vets.
  • The Mesa County work release program started serving county jail clients.
  • Empathy House in Boulder started serving Federal Bureau of Prisons and county clients.
• 1972
  • Pikes Peak Mental Health Center in Colorado Springs started a residential treatment program for criminal clients called Adult Forensics Program.
  • The Pueblo Sheriff's Department initiated a county work release program for misdemeanant offenders.
• 1973
  • An interim Legislative Committee began hearings on the need for community corrections legislation.
  • Southwest Denver Mental Health Program started a residential community corrections program in southwest Denver called Walden Community Treatment Center.
• 1974
  • Senate Bill 55, the first Community Corrections Act (C.R.S. 105-10-101) passed by the legislature beginning community corrections in Colorado with $178,074 provided for purchasing services.
  • Stepping Stone, a residential community corrections program to serve Federal Bureau of Prisons clients, opened in Denver.
  • A private organization called Our House opened for business in Pueblo. The residential program was established to serve clients with substance-abuse problems.
• 1975
  • The Larimer County Commissioners approved the establishment of a local community corrections board, as permitted by S.B. 55 in 1974. A non-residential program was started this same year.
  • The Division of Corrections wrote an LEAA grant and received funding for a residential work and educational release program. This program was set up at the site of Fort Logan in southwest Denver.
• 1976
  • Senate Bill 4 (C.R.S. 17-27-101, et seq.) passed with a small amount ($301,000) of purchase of service monies. This statute encouraged judicial districts to divert adjudicated non-violent offenders into local residential and non-residential programs.
  • Hilltop House in Durango was established.
  • Loft House in Adams County was established.
  • Denver Sheriff's Department started the Phase I Program.
  • Emerson House was established in Denver.
• 1977
  • Community Responsibility Center in Jefferson County was established.
  • Williams Street Center in Denver was established.
  • ComCor In Colorado Springs opened for business.
  • S.B.587, an omnibus corrections bill, was approved. This statute created a cabinet-level, Department of Corrections (DOC). The Community Corrections Act was included in this bill. The substance of the Community Corrections Act was not changed from its 1976 form.
• 1978
  • The legislature transferred diversion and purchase of service appropriations to DOC.
  • Oasis, a non-residential program started in Denver.
  • The Division of Criminal Justice published a Community Corrections Master Plan.
  • Independence House Family, a residential community corrections program, was established in Denver.
• 1979
  • An amendment to the Community Corrections Act (C.R.S. 17-27-101, et seq) authorizing local community corrections boards to screen transitional clients, passed by the legislature.
• 1980
  • A Division of Criminal Justice study recommended increase in community corrections funding as a way to avoid additional prison beds.
• 1981
  • Diversion money transferred from the Department of Corrections to the State Judicial Department.
  • Community corrections boards started in the 12th, 13th, 14th, 18th, 19th and 20th judicial districts.
• 1982
  • San Luis Valley Community Corrections in Alamosa was established.
  • Correctional Alternative Placement Service in Craig was established.
  • Weld County non-residential program began.
  • Alpha Center was established in Denver.
  • Rocky Mountain Community Corrections in Pueblo was established.
  • Community corrections boards started in the 7th and 9th judicial districts.
• 1983
  • House Bill 1203 passed (C.R.S. 17-27-105(5) et seq.), clarified that direct sentences to community corrections may be subject to an additional year of probation supervision and that probation officers supervise all diversion offenders. (C.R.S. 17-27-114 et seq.) Gave facility directors authorization to have an offender in the community corrections arrested.
  • Arapahoe Community Treatment Center in Arapahoe County was established.
  • Community corrections board was started in the 15th judicial district.
  • Community Responsibility Center opens a community corrections program for women which accepts women from all judicial districts.
  • Prison overcrowding study indicates 6% (or 190 inmates) of prison inmates are low risk, have 12 months or less until parole eligibility and are not in community corrections.
  • Community corrections board established in the 1st judicial district.
• 1984
  • The Restitution Center was established in Weld County.
  • ComCor, a county agency in Colorado Springs, is reorganized as Pikes Peak Community Corrections, a private non-profit corporation.
• 1985
  • The 7th judicial district contracted with Rocky Mountain Community Corrections to provide diversion and non-residential services.
• 1986
  • Community Corrections was transferred to the Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice from the Judicial Department and the Department of Corrections with a budget of $7,303,293. Funding was provided for 370 Transition beds and 406 Diversion beds and 275 Diversion Non-Residential slots for a total of 1051 offenders being served.
  • The Division of Criminal Justice began to require that all community corrections contracts have the exhibit"A" submitted as a part of the contract.
  • The first Governor's Community Corrections Advisory Council was formed by Governor Lamm.
• 1987
  • The State began providing $60,000 loans to local providers as start up incentives.
• 1988
  • Colorado Community Corrections Standards for Residential Services were developed to establish minimum expectations for all programs and to establish measures by which to analyze program quality.
  • The Colorado Association of Community Corrections Boards (CACCB) was established.
• 1989
  • The Critical Intensive Residential Treatment (CIRT) program was initiated.
  • The first community corrections audits are conducted to determine levels of compliance with residential standards.
• 1991
  • Colorado Community Corrections Standards for Non-Residential Services were established to provide more consistency to supervision and services of non-residential programs
  • Day Reporting Center (DRC) program was initiated.
• 1993
  • The 3/4 House program was initiated.
  • HB 1233 is passed which restructures the statutes related to community corrections.
• 1998
  • The Colorado Corrections budget grew to $29,719,707 with funding for 858 Transition beds, 1022 Diversion Residential beds and 1024 Diversion Non-Residential slots, for an excess of 3000 offenders in the community corrections.
  • Community Alternatives of El Paso County (Williams Street) opened up a community corrections treatment facility in Colorado Springs.
• 1999
  • Centennial Community Transition Center (Community Management, Inc.) opened a community corrections treatment facility in Arapahoe County.
  • Five year Community Corrections Contracts were approved.
    
• 2003
  • Significant budget cuts resulted in Diversion funding being reduced by 100 beds. Offender subsistence fees were increased to offset the reduction in the per diem rates.
  • Pursuant to state statute, the Division of Criminal Justice publishes the first "Community Corrections Risk Factor Analysis" - the results of an annual performance measurement tool for all residential community corrections programs.
  • New programs:
    • Denver City and County-CMI Ulster and CMI Dahlia
    • Garfield County-Garfield County Community Corrections
    • Montezuma County-Montezuma County Community Corrections
• 2005
  • Montezuma County Community Corrections closed down operations and contracted out for offender services.
  • The Colorado Community Corrections Standards, the Community Corrections Audit Guidelines were revised and the Compliance Process Overview was completed. (A process to bring programs and boards into compliance with statute, contract and standard requirements or face sanctions for failure to do so).
  • The 3rd Judicial District had operated with two local Community Corrections boards for several years. On December 31, 2005 the two Boards were merged into one Board managed out of the Huerfano County Court with District Court Judge Claude Appel as the Board Chair.
    
• 2007
  • The Colorado Community Corrections Standards are revised.
  • The Division of Criminal Justice recommends a model of accountability measures to the Governor’s Office and the Legislature. The process and implementation will be carried out over the next three years.
  • Garfield County Community Corrections program opens its new facility in Rifle
  • The State Legislature funds residential mental health beds in community corrections. New specialized programs are funded to serve offenders with mental illness.
• 2009
• Crossroads Therapeutic Community is opened in Pueblo, CO
• Time to Change opens a new residential program in Adams County
• Community Education Center begins operation of the Loft House and Phoenix Center programs in Adams County – both of which were formerly operated by Avalon Correctional Services.
• Intervention, Inc begins operation of the residential program in Greeley, which was formerly operated by Avalon Corrections Services.
  

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS APPROPRIATIONS FY 1976 - FY 2008 (In Millions)