Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Agenda 11-18-13STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE , COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO November 18. 2013 Upon adjournment of City Council Meeting Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer. Administrative Services Director at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1.:. Staff Report(s) 2. Community Corrections -Jefferson County Commissione rs 3 . Proposed Flood Plain Ordinance Amendment \ A ~ .. ~ _ r City of • ~Whe atBi9ge ~0Ff1Cf OF THE CnY MANAGER T O : FROM: DATE: SU BJECT : Introdu ction Memorandum Mayor and Ci ty Council f\J Patrick Goff, City Manager WJ' November 13,2013 Community Corrections Jefferson County Commissioners and staff have requested time with the Mayor and City Council to provide an update on the Jefferson County Community Corrections Program. Commissioner Tighe and Justice Services Division Director Kathryn Otten wi ll provide an overview of the Program and plans for relocation of the current faci lity from the New York Bu ilding in Lakewood. Commissioners Griffin and Rosier also plan to attend the meeting. Background Since the mid-twentieth century, penal systems across the country have used "halfway houses" as facilities where offenders cou ld receive supervision and treatment outside of prison walls. Community corrections programs were origi nally 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. In Colorado, the community corrections system is a unique co ll aboration 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. City Clerk Janelle Shaver represents the City of Wheat Ridge on the I '1 Judicia l District Corrections Board. • Under state law, each local board may con tract with one or more community corrections programs to provide for the supervis ion and treatment of offenders. • The same local boards determ ine w hi ch offenders will be accepted into their local programs. Generally, local boards authorize their programs to manage two primary types of offenders. • Dive rsion clients are directly sentenced to community corrections by a district judge following a felony conviction. ln such cases, community corrections serves as the step Study Session -Community Corrections No' ember 13, 2013 Page2 right before prison. One measure of success in the management of diversion clients is whether they can pcm1anently 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, arc still under the supervision of the Colorado Department of Corrections. and are preparing for a t,'Tadual return to society by participatmg in a community correcttons 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 th ey remain crime-free, both during and afte r their transition from institutional life to freedo m. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Community Corrections Q&A 2. Community Corrections Risk Factor Analysis 3. Colorado Community Correct ions FY20 I 0 and FY 20 I I Annual Report COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Community Corrections programs promote public safety in the community; decrease the costly financial burden of incarceration on taxpayers; increase the opportunities for successful transition from prison to community or avoid costly prison sentences by diverting and placing offenders into community corrections; and increase the offender's financial contributions to the community through viable employment, paying taxes, child suppof"\ and restitution, and spending earnings locally . Ninety-Five percent of prison inmates eventually return to the community. A placement in community corrections offers offenders the opportunity to gradually accept the rules and responsibilities associated with freedom in a structured, controlled and safe environment. Offenders are closely supervised and monitored, receive specialized service s and receive s ubstance abuse and/or mental health treatment (depending on need). Community corrections programs afford the community a safer alternative to direct release. If offenders don't transition into the supervised environment of a community corrections program, they either release to parole and live in our community with much less supervision and accountability, or go to prison costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars. Community corrections is a much safer alternative for the public and the offender because it manages risk to the community. Intervention Community Corrections Services (ICCS), Jefferson County's contracted community corrections vendor, prepares offenders to successfully navigate the community by arming its' residents with job readiness and employment classes, resume building and preparation, mock interviews, training, employment, work clothes and hygiene products, fatherhood/motherhood education , GED preparation, life skills and a connection to multiple human service agencies. Through intensive case management and the use of a variety of assessment tools, case managers develop individualized program/performance plans that help residents think and act appropriately in the community, at work or with family. Many times a barrier for offender success is how they see themselves -as a felon; an ex-con; or an inmate. Therefore, how they act is like a felon; ex-con or an inmate. Part of the community corrections philosophy is to address the criminogenic needs, change behaviors and thought processes and prepare offenders to be employed, productive members of society. Changing the way offenders look at themselves impacts their success in the community. The majority of community corrections residents are employed while living in community corrections. Most pay rent and learn how to become self-sufficient. This is important as many enter community corrections as offenders and learn to be residents. They learn how to assimilate into society and learn bow to follow the rules . Expectations are clear, as are rewards and sanctions . Respect is paramount to successfully living in the community. Community correction s staff addresses behaviors that interfere with succes sful community living by helping residents work through anger management stressors, teaching coping skills and tackling 1 employability issues ; thereby, eliminating potential problems before they become a crisis. Modeling problem-solving skills is an invaluable life skill for the resident. Almost 85% of those in community corrections are parents. Community corrections programming encourages residents to work, earn a livable wage, and support their children. While in community corrections residents are required to pay chi ld support. Even though child visitation is not supposed to be dependent on paying child support, many times it is. Residents living in a community corrections center are working and able to make child support payments; therefore, are more likely to interact with their children. The "step down" into the community afforded by community corrections provides residents time to make amends with families and other community support systems. This is an advantage they wouldn't have if they released directly into the community or released homeless. W hy Does it Matter W h er e th e Co mmunity Co rrection s Cente r is Locat ed? The location of the community corrections center is extremely important as it is the hub for those who reside there . The center must be located close to a bus route or within bicyc le riding distance to employment opportunities, services, grocery or convenience stores and/or libraries, etc. Transportation is an essential component to the success of the resident. Without transportation, whether it is the bus or a bike, it is difficult for the resident to work -if he cannot work, he cannot pay rent, child support, restitution, taxes, etc., and therefore, cannot become self-sufficient. Residents generally ride the bus or ride a bicycle to work, attend support groups and/or to visit family. The light rail is cost prohibitive. How Do Comm uni ty Correction s Cen te rs Keep the Commun ity Sa fe? Community corrections has strict monitoring processes that are designed to keep the public safe. When the resident is released for work or on a job search, the resident must call in to the center from a land line. Community corrections staff also verify the whereabouts (work and non-work locations) and monitor the resident's activities. ICCS employs twenty full-time security staff whose primary responsibility is to monitor the residents whereabouts and hold residents accountable to the programs rules of conduct and house policies. Security staff is on location at the facility 24 hours per day, seven days per week. ln addition to the above precautions, fCCS has a PassPoint Substance Screening System. The PassPoint device incorporates an eye-testing technology that utilizes four ocular measurements that mirror reaction in the central nervous system. This is a non-invasive, 30 second test that reflects the recent use of 1 I different substances including alcohol. Those who obtain a high risk assessment are required to provide a urine sample. However, the use of the PassPoi nt has decreased the need for a traditional urine sample, while the overall frequency of substance abuse monitoring has been doubled. Residents don't mind looking into the PassPoint screen for 30 seconds to check for substances -it just becomes part of their accountability plan. 2 JCCS uses other tracking devices for residents who may be determined a higher risk , like the GPS trackjng system, Sleep Time and/or breathalyzer testing. These types of tracking devices combined with other tracking and verification methods ensure public safety. Who Monitors Community Corrections Centers and Why? The Office of Community Corrections (OCC) is a part of the Division of Criminal Justice in the Colorado Department of Public Safety. It is the responsibility of the Office of Community Corrections to monitor and audit community corrections centers and enforce the Community Corrections Standards through regular program audits and site visits. OCC assigns a risk factor to the community corrections centers, like ICCS, based on compliance with the standards. In the last audit, ICCS was rated one of the top centers in Colorado with a risk factor of 4, which is low risk. (Scale is 1 -4, l is high risk and 4 is low risk). The standards are related to program administration, personnel , management controls , security, escape, facilities, and case management. All of wruch effect public safety and the safety of the resident -the lower the risk of the center, the safer for the community. Wbo Decides Wbo Goes to Community Corrections? The final decision whether to accept or reject an application for placement in community corrections in Jefferson County, resides with Jefferson County . The Jefferson County Corrections Board (JCCB) renders all decisions on cases that mandate their approval. The JCCB is approved by the Commissioners and is made up of at least 1 5 members, of whom two are judges who sit in Jefferson County. The other members of the board represent justice, human services and other municipalities. The screening process is multi-tiered. The first screening of the application takes place at ICCS . lCCS staff and case managers review all applications (referred to as cases) and supporting case documentation. They either accept or reject each case. When ICCS fmishes, they forward all cases and supporting documentation to the Justice Services Division. The second screening of cases takes place at the Justice Services Division by a screening committee made up of a representative of probation, the Sheriff's Department, the Department of Corrections, a JCCB voting member, the District Attorney's Office, representatives of Justice Services and others as relevant to the case. This screening committee follows the Jefferson County guidelines , combined with their expertise to review the cases accepted by ICCS. Each case is thoroughly reviewed and then, is accepted, rejected or forwarded to the full JCCB. Cases are forwarded to the JCCB based on the type of offense , nature of the case, indecision by the screening committee, guidelines or risk factors. Those cases are presented to the full board for review and decision. The JCCB either accepts or rejects the case. The accepted cases go to community corrections and the rejected ones do not. In 2012 , 1889 cases were screened and only 685 cases were accepted. 3 Wbo Can Be Sentenced to Community Corrections? Diversion Placements -Offenders with less than two prior felony convictions on probation. A community corrections center is the alternative sentence to prison. Transition Placements -Inmates coming from the Department of Corrections placed in local residential facilities prior to parole release. Condition of Probation Placements -State statute allows probationers who are at risk of revocation to be placed in community corrections for stabilization and more intensive supervision. Specialized Service Placements -Offenders who have a higher level of criminogenic need and who necessitate specialized supervision and treatment. How Do We Help Neighbors Understand Community Corrections? • Outreach • Neighborhood awareness • Town Hall Meetings • Informational Seminars What Do We Know About Community Corrections? Community corrections is an vital part of the transition and stabilization process for offenders. It gives them the opportunity to succeed by re-learning how and why they must follow the rules of society. Community corrections staff provides essential support to residents who are transitioning from prison to community, and to those who need an intermediary step between community and prison. Community corrections provides an alternative sentencing option to judges that is much Jess costly to tax payers ·and much more beneficial to citizens. The average daily cost of incarceration is about $80 dollars per day, whereas the average daily cost of community corrections is about $37 per day -a savi ngs of about $43 dollars per day-an annual saving s of about $15 ,695 per year per offender. In addition, if an offender is allowed to live in the community corrections center, the resident will be employed, paying taxes, paying child supp ort, paying restitution, contributing to the economy and learning to become self-sufficient. If he stays in prison, he will not have those options. We know that 95% of the inmate population will release from prison. It is safer to allow them to release to community corrections where they will be supervised and monitored and receive programming and sustainable life benefits, than it is to have them release directly into the community where they have much less supervision , accountability and programming. We know that employment is essential for all offenders in the community. We also know that community corrections provides its· residents with a wealth of employment and education 4 services. It is a goal of ICCS that residents, who do not have a high school diploma or GED, receives one. It is also their goal that all community corrections residents who can work, do. We know that in order to work or have sustainable income, residents must have transportation; therefore, it is essential for community corrections to be located near or on a bus line. Without transportation of some kind, employment opportunities are minimal. The residual effects on the health of the family, well-being of the children and the impact on the comrnuruty are costs that are difficult to measure. What we do know is custodial parents who receive child suppon are less likely to need the suppon of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and thus, become less dependent on the system. Commuruty corrections residents who are workjng and owe child support are required to pay child support. We know that community corrections programs and facilities are highly regulated to ensure public safety. There are multiple measures available and utilized to ensure verification and monitoring of residents. We also know that the Office of Community Corrections audits and conducts site visits to ensure that the community corrections center is a low risk facility. We know that TCCS is a low risk facility and is one of the top facilities in Colorado. We know that out of 1889 cases screened for acceptance, only 685 were accepted in 2012. 5 COL ITYCO CTI S FY2010 and FY2011 Annual Report Department of Public Safety James H. Davis-Executive Director Division of Criminal Justice Jeanne Smith -Director Office of Community Corrections Glenn A. Tapia-Director Alexandra Walker, Project Manager The Colorado Community Corrections An nual Report is a project undertaken by the D ivision of Criminal Justice, Office of Community Corrections. Each staff member of the Office of Community Corrections made significant contr ibutions to the analysis and provided in pu t into its design. The contributing staff in the Office of Community Cor rections are as follows : Glenn A . Tap ia Program Director Al exandra W al ke r Interagency Criminal Justice Specialist M indy Miklos Community Corrections Specialist Christine S c hm id Community Corrections Auditor Valari e Schamper Community Cor rections Auditor A rlene Duran Community Corrections Financial Officer Laura Altobelli Community Corrections Technician J ames Pyle Community Corrections Auditor OFFICE OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS 700 Kipling Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80215 (303) 239-444 2 Fax: (303) 239-4 4 11 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Statistical Overview .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . .. .. 6 Section 1: Residential Community Corrections .............................................................. 7 Section II : Non-Residential Community Corrections ....................................................... 33 Section Ill: Intensive Residential Treatment................................................................. 40 Section IV: Resident ial Dual Diagnosis Treatment......................................................... 47 Section V: Short-Term , Jail-Based Resident ial Program ................................................. 56 Section VI : Finances in Community Corrections........................................................... 60 Section VII : Program Audits ..................................................................................... 66 Section VIII : Noteworthy Accomplishments .................................................................. 68 Section IX: Performance Measurement for Commun ity Corrections.................................. 70 Section X : Governor's Community Corrections Advisory Council...................................... 73 Section XI : Summary .............................................................................................. 76 Introduction The Office of Community Corrections is a part of the Division of Criminal Justice in the Colorado Department of Public Safety. The mission of the Office of Community Corrections is to enhance public safety by working to improve the supervision and rehabilitation of offenders assigned to community corrections across Colorado . The Office of Community Corrections works collaboratively with many agencies, including the Colorado Department of Corrections, the Colorado Division of Probation Services, the Division of Behavioral Health, community corrections boards in the various judicial districts and community corrections providers. As part of its duties, the Office of Community Corrections audits and monitors community corrections boards and programs to ensure compliance with contracts, federal grant requirements and with the Colorado Community Corrections Standards. Subject matter experts in the Office of Community Corrections provide essential technical assistance related to the Standards, data collection and management in the Community Corrections Information and Billing system, the accuracy of offender earned time/sentence reduction computations and the use of the Standardized Offender Assessment instruments. The Office of Community Corrections is also responsible for the distribution and expenditure of state and federal funds, the administration of community corrections contracts and federal grant programs, community corrections-related data collection and the preparation of reports to the Colorado General Assembly, the federal government and the public. This report summarizes activities in community corrections programs for Fiscal Year 2010 (July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010; denoted throughout the report as FY10) and Fiscal Year 2011 (July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011; denoted throughout the report as FYll). Community Corrections Programs Colorado community corrections is a viable and fiscally sound alternative to Incarceration in prison. Services are designed to promote productive reintegration of offenders back into the community. Community corrections provides: • services for offenders convicted of le ss severe offenses who are diverted from prison • services for offenders in transition between prison and parole • services for parolees released by the Colorado Board of Parole • short-term stabilization services for offenders on probation and parole • specialized treatment for offenders with a history of substance use and mental illness During FY10 and FYll, there were twenty-two local Community Corrections Boards within the twenty-two Judicial Districts statewide in Colorado. Thirty-four separate residential facilities delivered community corrections services throughout the state, seven of which are operated by units of local or state government. The remaining programs were operated by private agencies. Three of these programs serve female offenders exclusively. Fun d ing and Referral System The Joint Budget Committee of the State legislature appropriates general and cash funds to the Department of Public Safety to fund community corrections services. In addition, local communities use other state, federal and local funds to augment state general and cash funds. The Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Community Corrections allocates these state funds through each of the twenty-two community corrections boards . Subsequently, each board sub-contracts with local programs to provide community corrections services. The Division of Criminal Justice funded the following beds during FYlO and FYll: Bed Type FYlO FYll Diversion Residential 1507 1569 Diversion Non -Residential 1230 1237 Transition 1593 1650 Referrals for community corrections services are derived from the State Judicial Branch or the Department of Corrections (DOC). Referrals for direct sentence (Diversion) offenders are made from the criminal court system to local community corrections boards. Referrals for Transition , Parole and Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) offenders are made by the Division of Adult Parole/Community Corrections/YO$ of the Department of Corrections . local community corrections boards vary by size, membership, philosophy and degree of program control. Board members are typically appointed by locally elected officials; they have the authority to screen and accept or reject any offenders referred to programs in their communities. Boards may Institute guidelines in the operation of the programs, enforce the guidelines and monitor program compliance with state and local standards. Many boards provide an array of critical services designed to assist the program to better serve the needs of the offenders. Offenders who are not approved for placement in the local program by the community corrections board return to the sentencing judge for an alternative placement. Transition, Parole and ISP offenders who are not approved for placement in a local program remain under the supervision of the DOC. New Pro gramming in Commun ity Cor re ctions While there were no new community corrections pr ograms started in FYlO or FYll, numerous existing programs developed additional programming to meet the needs of their clientele. The following is a description of some of the new programming being offered in community corrections statewide. Arapahoe County Residential Center, in collaboration with the Colorado Department of Corrections and Arapahoe Douglas Mental Health Network created the Achieving Recovery, Changing Habits to Empower and Succeed (ARCHES) program to provide a coordinated, integrated system of care and the appropriate mental health and substance use services that facilitate successful integration of inmates with mental illness into community placement at ACRC. The high i ntensity and mu lti-disci p li n ary app r oach pr ovides residential/transitiona l housing (including a halfway house for inmates), mental health and substance use treatment, correctional supervision and wrap around case management services to access community resources for more independent levels of care . Cognitive behavioral and psycho -e ducational programs provide classes in developing life skills, assisting with housing/employment/benefits programs, substance use treatment, mental health treatment, and other specialized services for the offender population. The ARCHES program places emphas is on integrated treatment of co-occurring disorders (mental health and substance use), in the same setting, utilizing cross-trained staff in a 2 multi-disciplinary modality. Residents are responsible for and accountable to a structured, scheduled day and staff is consistently monitoring participation and compliance . The Independence House Fillmore Dual Diagnosis Program began accepting Diversion clients in February of 2010 . This is the first time that Denver county has offered Diversion clie nts onsite residential treatment which has afforded clientele who are currently on probation or Incarcerated at t he Denver City or County Jail an opportunity to undergo intensive mental hea lth and substance use therapy for a minimum of nine months in a supportive community. Programming includes psychiatric evaluation and care and a minimum of five hours of drug and alcohol group therapy per week . The program uses approved curricu la including Strategies for Self Improvement and Change, Relapse Prevention, The Stages of Change, and Co-Occurring Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Disorders. These classes are offered to address substance use and skill building in reference to co -occurring disorders and criminogenic needs. Clients are also offered Symptoms Management and Medication Management classes to help them further understand their mental illness and any needed medication. The Diversion clientele are afforded with the opportunity to Jearn ways to change their thoughts and behaviors through both positive and corrective feedback from their peers in order to l ive a pro-social life in the community. In January of 2010, ComCor, Inc. began offering the ComCor Transportation Assistance Program (CTAP). This FTA grant funded program provides transportation assistance for low income clients going to and from work or work related activities. This service is provided for clients at no cost. ComCor initially purchased two shuttles to provide transportation for clients during peak travel hours, Monday through Friday from 4 :30am to 10pm . Since that time, the demand for this transportation service has continued to grow. To meet the demand, ComCor plans to add a third shuttle and to expand operating hours beginning in 2012. The CTAP shuttles have become a va l uable part of ComCor's existing Vocationa l Services Department. On March 101n, 2011 The Haven opened The Baby Haven's Child Care Center in Denver, Colorado which provides quality therapeutic and educational services to infants of mothers in residence at the Haven and in their aftercare program. The center is a licensed facility that can accommodate up to 48 children, ages 2 weeks to 5 years old. Specially designed to meet the needs of drug exposed infants, the Baby Haven provides programs to enhance the children's social, emotional, and developmental growth. The center provides a range of services that exceeds benchmarked standards that nurture and stimulate the children t hey serve . The center employs teachers who meet or exceed early care and education standards . The Baby Haven boasts a low child to teacher ratio to ens ure that chi l dren are receiving high quality care and interaction. In addition to classroom cu rriculum and activities the center offers services such as trained psychologists who specialize in infant mental hea lth, a Doula program, an on -s ite physical therapist, first-aid courses, nutritional instruction, and family partnership events and activities. Several programs including the Williams Street Center and Phoenix Center have incorporated into the services they provide a 12 week program for male offenders with children called Inside Out Dads into the services they provide. This curriculum addresses relationships, child development, parenting, discipline and the role of the father as well as issues surrounding masculinity, spirituality, anger, and stress. Commu n ity Corrections in Colorado Figure 1 is a summary of the community corrections programs and the number of diversion, non-residential and transition offender beds that were funded through the DCJ in FY10 and FYll. Figure 2 represents the organizational structure of community corrections funding in Colorado. 3 218 229 455 175 1&2 195 192 138 158 188 184 235 Figure 1 and Average Daily Po Denver COI<ndo Springs ouranso 253 229 1&8 171 192 138 158 100 1 ISP/Condition of Parole beds are included In Transition beds. Condition of Probation beds are Included In Diversion beds . Judicial Districts with bed allocations but no programs pay for their offenders to be housed in a different judicial district. 460 217 191 198 4 State Judicial DIVERSION Referrals i I I I I I I I r-- 1 I *I I I I I I Figure 2 COLORADO COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Funding and Referral System Sub--Cont ra cts Sub--Contracts Funding Stream 1 Sub-Contracts Referrals I I I I ~ * • Some referrals are made directly to programs where boards have developed automatic acceptance criteria Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, 2003 5 Statistical Overview Statistics derived for this annual report represent a summary of all community corrections offenders who were discharged from residential, non-residential, intensive residential treatment (IRT), Residential Dual Diagnosis Treatment (ROOT), and Short Term Residential programs during the 2009 -2010 and 2010-2011 fiscal years (July 1, 2009 -June 30, 2010 and July 1, 2010-June 30, 2011 respectively). Data from fiscal year 2009 (July 1, 2008 -June 30, 2009) is reported for some measures when available. For the purposes of this report, fiscal years will be reported as FY09, FY10 and FY11. On July 1, 2008, the Division of Criminal Justice/Office of Community Corrections (DCJ/OCC) implemented an internet-based data collection and management system for all programs statewide. Due to the transition, the DCJ/OCC determined that an annual report would be published once the system was tested and used exclusively. For this reason the current report is the first since the inception of the new data collection and management system . The Community Corrections Information and Billing (CCIB} system is used to determine the payments that need to be made to Boards and programs, as well as to track a vast array of information related to offenders in the Colorado community corrections system . CCIB collects data relevant to each offender's current crime and criminal history as well as service data relevant to each offender's current community corrections stay. This data includes fiscal information (e.g., earnings, taxes, restitution and child support paid), standardized assessment outcomes, treatment services provided, and termination reasons. The database contains real -time data as programs are required to enter offender demographic information within 5 working days of an offender's entry into the program, and the remaining service related data within S working days of an offender's termination from the program. Some issues arise when analyzing discharge information of this nature. Because the report focuses on people who are discharged , data may over-represent offenders who are discharged after short lengths of stay and under- represent offenders who stay for long periods of time. Furthermore, the data may not represent the characteristics of the current population, since information is only collected after an offender is discharged from a program. DCJ/OCC staff periodically review the data contained in CCIB for accuracy and ask programs to make corrections where necessary. Data exported for this report has been reviewed and corrected by DCJ/OCC staff when appropriate. Note that in several of the tables where ranges are specified , the measure of the "median" (the center number in the range) Is used to describe the data . This measure is used to represent the average because it is not as sensitive to extreme ranges in the mean. The llmean" is the average value In a set of numbers. 6 I Section I Residential Community Corrections The purpose of the residential phase of community corrections is to provide offenders with the knowledge and skills necessary to be emotionally, cognitively, behaviorally and financially prepared for their reintegration into the community. Residential programs strive to accomplish this rehabilitative task by a variety of means. Through assessment-driven individual treatment plan s, programs attempt to match offender risks and needs with the most appropriate treatment modality. Offenders are assisted in obtaining regular employment and encouraged to participate in educational and vocational services. Programs monitor the payment of restitution, court fines, court-ordered child support and useful community service requirements. Program staff carefully monitor offenders in the community to enhance offender accountability and to address public safety concerns . Offender Types Community Corrections serves adult offenders who have been convicted of felony offenses. There are two major groups of commu nity corrections offenders: Diversion and Transition. Diversion offenders are sentenced directly to community corrections by the courts, as a diversion from a prison sen tence. In rare instances, some diversion offenders have been sentenced as a condition of a probation placement for up to 90 days. Transition offenders are returning to the community after serving a Department of Corrections prison sentence. These offenders include Parolees and offenders in the Intensive Supervision Program (ISP). Transition offenders are referred to community corrections boards and programs from the Department of Corrections. Condition of Parole offenders are referred from the parole board as a condition of the offender's period of parole . ISP offenders are referred to community corrections as a condition of their ISP placement. For the purposes of this report, all DOC offenders are referred to as ''Transition" offenders. In FYlO , residential community corrections programs discharged 5,776 offenders whereas in FYll 5,681 offenders were discharged. Offenders may have been transferred from one residential facility to another, or discharged more than once from a residential facility. For this reason, an offender may be counted more than once In this data. In FYlO, forty-six percent (46%) of all residential community corrections offenders were Diversion clients and fifty- four percent (54%) were Transition clients. In FYll there was a slight decrease in the percentage of diversion clients in residential community corrections to forty-five (45%) percent with a slight increase to fifty-five (55%) percent of the population being transition clients. Further breakdown of the legal status of community corrections offenders for FYlO and FYll is provided in Figure 3. 7 Figure 3 Offender Legal Status 60.00% 50.00% 4 0 .00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% I 0.00% Probation DOC Parole DOCISP ' •FYlO 1.30% 50.20% 3.40% 0 .30% •FYll 2 .50% 49 .60 % 5% 0 .20% L__ ~ Demographics The profi le of the "typical" residential community corrections offender in Colorado has been consistent for many years : male, Caucasian, single, with a h igh school diploma or GED . In both FYlO and FYll the typical offender was serving a sentence for a class 4 felony, had no more than two prior convictions, and successfully completed res i dential community corrections . Figure 4 presents demographic data on gender, age, ethnicity, marital status, education at entry to the program, current felony class, and number of prior convictions. Generally, trends in termination data are stagnant between the two years with the exception of a slight decrease in the number of females, an increase of younger offenders and those with higher class felony offenses. 8 Figure 4 OFFENDER DEMOGRAPHICS FYlO AND FYll Gender Male 78 .8% 82 .6% Female 21 .2% 17.4% A le 18-20 0.1% 0.7% 21-25 12.2% 15.7% 26-30 21 .8% 21.9% 31-35 18.0% 17.1% 36-40 13.6% 14.2% 41+ 34.2% 30.4% Ethnldty Caucasian 54 .6% 53 .7% African Amer ican 16.6% 16.5% Hispanic 26.1% 27.1% Asian America n/Pacific Islander 0.6% 0 .8% Native American/Alaskan Native 1 .7% 1.4% Other /Unknown 0.4% 0.5% MariUI Status Single 52 .4% 54.8% Married/Common Law 24 .5% 22 .9% Separated/Divorced/Widowed 22 .4% 21.3% Unknown 0.7% 1.1% Education Level at Entry 81h Grade or Less 3.6% 2.5% 9th through 11th Grade 20.8% 20.5% 12th Grade o r GED 60.8% 63.0% Vocational/Some College 11.1% 10.8 % College or Above 2.1% 1.8% Unknown 1.5% 1.3% Current Crime Felony Oass Fl -F3 16.5% 18.2% F4 -F6 83 .5% 81.8% Pr ior Adult Felony Conviction Zero 18.7% 19.3% One to Two 39.2% 39.3% Three or More 42.1% 41.4% 9 Criminal History Most community corrections offenders in FY10 and FYll were serving sentence s for non -v iolent, mid-leve l felony offense s. The most common types of offenses committed by both Diversion and Transiti on offenders were drug- related offenses, theft and burglary. This has been a consistent trend over the past several years. Figure 5 depicts the most frequent convictions for which Diversion and Tran sition offenders were serving sentences . Flgure 5 Current Felony Offenses Amongst Community Corrections Offenders FYlO FYll Offense Type N Percent N Percent Control led Substance 1887 32.7 1679 29.6 Theft 83 1 14.4 766 13.5 Burglary/Criminal Trespass 682 11.8 752 13.2 Assault/me nac ing 470 8.1 485 8.5 Motor Vehicle Theft 292 5.1 249 4.4 Forgery 275 4.8 225 4.0 Escape 229 4.0 273 4.8 Drivi ng Rel ated 226 3.9 229 4.0 Robbery 166 2.9 220 3.9 Other 123 2.1 127 2.2 ldentity Theft 122 2.1 160 2.8 Sex assault 95 1.6 112 2.0 Criminal Mischief 88 1.5 69 1.2 C rimes A gainst C hHd ren 70 1.2 74 1.3 Weapons 47 .8 52 .9 Homicide 44 .8 70 1.2 Fraud 42 .7 46 .8 Organized C rime 27 .5 28 .5 Kidnapping 22 .4 27 .5 In timidation 19 .3 19 .3 Arson 10 .2 10 .2 Habitual Cr im inal 9 .2 9 .2 10 In the CCIB system, programs can only report one cu r rent crime for each offender, though often offenders are serving concurrent sentences on multiple crimes. In these instances, programs are asked to report the highest class felony in CCIB. If there are two crimes of the same felony class, programs are asked to report the crime against a person (if applicable). According to the data, eighty-eight percent {88%) of Diversion offenders and seve nty-seven percent (77 %) of Transition offenders were serving sentences for either a class 4, 5 or 6 felony. Figures 6 and 7 depict the current felony class of both Diversion and Transition offenders. Figure 6 Felony Class FVlO 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Fl F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 • Diversion • Tran si t ion • Ov erall Figure 7 Felony Class FYll 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Fl F2 F3 F4 FS F6 • Diversion • Transi tion • Overall II Over the last three fiscal years, FY09-FY11, prior felony offense data has remained constant within the community corrections population with the average age of first arrest for all offenders i n FY10 being twenty-one years old and twenty-two years old in FYll. The data demonstrates that the vast majority of community corrections offenders committed non-violent crimes and do not have extensive criminal histories. This is demonstrated in figure 8 below. In addition, the data indicates that the number of prior felony offenses between diversion and transition have also remained constant over the last three fiscal years with 23 % of diversion offenders and 15-16% of transition offenders having no prior felony convictions. This is demonstrated in figure 9. 16% 15% 16% Criminal History Scores A Criminal History Score (Mande, 1986) is a composite score that reflects the seriousness of an offender's criminal past. Functionally, it is a value derived from a weighted combination of the six variables defined below. The number of occurrences for each item is multiplied (*) by the weight (in parentheses), totaled and then collapsed into scores of zero through four. Number of juvenile adjudications*(.S) Number of juvenile commitments*(1) Number of prior adult felony convictions*{1) Number of prior adult violent arrests*{1.5) Number of adult probation revocations*(.7S) Number of adult parole revocations*(2) The Criminal History Score was found to be statistically related to both program failure and program infractions in a research project conducted by English and Mande .2 In the files studied, it was found that the higher the score, the more frequently program infractions occurred. Figure 10 compares Criminal History Scores of FY10 and FYll with seven previous fiscal years. The Criminal History Score range is 1-4. 2 K. Engl ish, M . Mande, "Community Co rrect io ns in Col orado: Why Do Some Succeed and Others FaiR" Col orado Department of Pub lic Safety, Div isi o n o f Cri minal Ju st i ce, 19 91 . 12 Figure 10 Criminal History Scores for Residential Offenders Diven ion Transitioa Overa ll Fisal Yea r Mean Median Mean Med ian Men Median FY 01102 2.48 3 2.81 4 2.64 3 FY 02/03 2.47 3 2.86 4 2.66 3 FY 03/04 2.4 3 2.94 4 2.66 3 FY 04/05 2.44 3 2.91 4 2.66 3 FY 05/06 2 .55 3 3.01 4 2.78 3 FY 06/07 2.46 3 2.92 4 2.68 3 FY08/09 2.68 3 3.08 4 2.88 4 FY09/10 2.81 3 3.26 4 3.05 4 FYl0/11 2.76 3 3.26 4 3.03 4 In general, the average criminal history score for community corrections offenders has been increasing over the last ten years. This trend can be seen in figure 11. Figure 11 Criminal History Score 3.1 3 2.9 2.8 / / 2.7 2.6 ..... 2.5 2.4 f-- FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY08/09 FY09/10 FYl0/11 13 St andardiz ed Offende r As sess ments and Treatment In 1991 the Colorado General Assembly established substance use as a major issue In the criminal justice system, a significant factor in the commission of crime, and an impediment to rehabilitation. As a result a standardized assessment procedure was developed to assess an individual's level of risk for recidivism and relapse, identify their criminogenic needs associated with their criminality and substa n ce use, and to match individuals with the appropriate level of substance use treatment based on the recommen dations of the assessment . As of July 1, 1992 all adu lt fe lony offenders, and more recently misdemeanor offenders, have been required to undergo the standardized offender assessment pr ocedure. In community corrections, all offenders are screened and assesse d upon intake wit h the Standardized Offender Assessment Revised (SOA -R) process . The purpose of the SOA-R process is to measu r e an offender's level of recidivism risk and criminogenic needs . The assessment process also detects and subsequently measures the severity of substance use and provides a treatment r ecommen d ation based on an offender's level of risk and severity of substance use. Four (4) separate instruments comprise the SOA-R battery, three (3) of which are described below. The Simple Screening Instr ument (SSI-R), a self-report questionnai re, is used to screen for alcohol and other drug invo lvement within the last 6 months. The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) is a 54-item assessment instrument that is administered by a trained professional using a semi-structured interview. The LSI provides a measure of risk for recidivism and p rofiles an offender's areas of need that contribute to his/her level of risk. Offenders sco r e higher on the LSI as their risk of recidivism increases. The LS I is administered at intake and again at 6-month intervals to measure the degree of change in recidivism risk. The Adult Sub st ance Use Survey-Revi se d (ASUS -R) is a self-report questionnaire that assesses substance use across several dimensions. The ASUS-R contains multiple sca les, two of which are reported herein. The Disruption Scale measures the degree to which alcohol and drug use has resulted in disruptive consequences and/or problems for the offender. The Defensive scale measures the d egree to which an offender is willing to disclose sensitive information on t he ASUS -R. Fig u re 12 o utlines the SOA-R scales. Figu re 12 In s I t'llllll'll l I P ossihll' Sror c l~:lll gl' I ;\l ca s un· SSI-R 0-15 Drug/ Alcohol Involvement in Last6 Months LSI 0-54 Risk of Recidivism/Criminogenic Needs ASUS-R Disruption 0-80 Disruptive Consequences of Alcohol/Drug Use ASUS-R Defensive 0-21 Defensiveness/G uardedness with ASUS 14 Figure 13 provides the mean SOA-R scores for male and female community corrections offenders in FY10 and FYll. In comparison to male offenders, female offenders in community corrections generally had higher LSI Scores, higher SSI-R scores, and higher ASUS-R Disruption scores. Thi s data indicates that male offenders are slightly more guarded than females in the disclosu re of alcohol/drug use information on the ASUS-R, as evidenced by the ASUS-R Defens ive scale. Figure 13 SSI-Il ,\Sl S-ll :\Sl"S-1{ ln itilll 1 ~"1 l 'pd:tt!.' L')l Sron• l>iHuption l>efensh l" (.\lt:an) (:\l t'all) (.\Iran) (:\h•an) (\lean ) FY10 Males 2 8.22 22.9 7.18 18 .55 13 .52 Females 29.9 24.46 8.57 23.37 11.68 FYll Males 2 8.6 23.7 1 6 .96 18 .91 14 .25 Females 29.87 25.1 9.13 24.38 13.76 Both male and female offenders had lower LSI scores in their most recent LSI update while under community corrections supervision, which indicates a reduction in the risk of recidivism prior to or upon termination . Thi s data is presented in figure 14. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Males FYlO Figure 14 LSI Risk Reduction Females Males Females FYll •Initial LSI (Mean) • Update LSI (Mean) Assessment data regarding diversion and transition offenders indicate that dive rsi on clients have slightly higher LSI scores both initially and when updated, higher SSI-R scores, and higher alcohol/drug disruption scores. Transition clients sco red higher overall on the defensive scale scores. Both diversion and transition clients experienced sig nificant decreases in their LSI scores between intake and their most recent LSI update under community corrections supervision. Overall the data indicates a slight increase in LSI scores statewide from FY10 to FY11. Diversion clients experienced an 18.3% reduction in mean LSI scores from entry through termination in FY10 and a 16.4% reduction in FYll. Transition clients experienced an 18.9% reduction in mean LSI scores from entry through termination in FYll and a 17.3% reduction in FYll. Overall the data indicates an overall reduction 15 in recidivism risk after six months of residential supervision. Although SSI -R scores experienced a slight decrease in FYll, ASUS Disruption and Defensiveness scores increased from FYlO to FYll. Substance Use Treatment In conjunction with the SOA-R, a sta ndardized treatment system for offenders is used in community corrections. The treatment system consists of eight categorical levels . Scores on the SOA-R drive placement into one of the eight substance use treatment levels. The treatment system provides substance use education and treatment services of varying intensity. Generally, the number of hours in treatment increases as the treatment level increases . The lower end of the continuum emphasizes didactic education and the h igher end of the continuum involves process -oriented therapy . Figure 16 reports the percentage of offenders in community corrections who are assessed at each level of substance use treatment. Generally, a higher proportion of offenders are assessed at level 3 (weekly outpatient), and level 4a (enhanced outpatient), for substance use treatment. Figure 17 indicates the percentage of male and female offenders in community corrections who are assessed at each level of substance use treatment for both fiscal years. Generally, a higher proportion of female offenders are assessed as needing more inten sive levels of substance use treatment. This is consistent with data from figure 13 showing higher ri sk levels, higher substance use disruption and higher criminogenic need among female community corrections offenders. 16 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Figure 16 Substance Use Treatment Needs 1111 __ _ (1) No TX (2) Drug & (3) Weekly (4A) (48) (4C) (40} (5) MH Alcohol Outpatient Enhanced Intensive Intensive Therapeutic Referral Education Outpatient Outpatient Resident ial Community Tx •FYlO •FVll Figure 17 Substance Use Treatment Needs by Gender •Ma les FYlO • Females FY lO Males FYll • Female s FVll 17 Figure 18 demonstrates the percent age of d ive r sion and transition offenders in community corrections who are assessed at each level of substance use treat ment for bot h fiscal years. Generally, a higher proportion of diversion offenders are ass essed as needing more intensive levels of substance use treatment. This is consistent with data showi ng higher risk levels and higher substance use disruption scores among diversion community corrections offenders. Data regarding substance use treatment needs are very likely to under-r epresent true treatment needs due to gaps in treatment availability and funding in FYlO and FYll. 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20 .00% 10.00% 0 .00% Figure 18 Substance Use Treatment Needs By Legal Status • D1vers1on FY l O • Transition FY l O D1vers1on FYll Transition FYll 18 M e ntal Illness Rates of mental illness within community corrections programs in Colorado have been increasing for the last three fiscal years . Figure 19 demonstrates this trend f r om FY09 through FYll. Figure 19 Rates of Mental Illness 20.0 % 18.0 % ..... 16.0 % ....,..... "' '!!r ~ 14 .0 % ·~ 12 .0 % 10.0 % 8 .0 % 6 .0 % 4 .0 % 2 .0 % 0 .0 ~ I FY09 FV10 FVU 3 ~Ra te 14 .4% I 17 .6% ~-17.8% Generally, female community corrections offen ders have higher rates of a known or documented clinical diagnosis of mental illness . Figure 20 demonstrates the marked difference between r ates of mental illness for males versus female offender s in comm u nity corrections. Figure 20 Rates of Mental Illness By Gender 40.00% ---3 5.00% -----30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15 .00% 10 .00% .....- 5 .00% 0 .00% F ± FY09 FYlO ~11 ~ -.-Males 9 .70% 12 .20% 1 3 .60% §. Femal es -- 32.20% 3 7 .80% 37 60% 19 Communi ty Corrections Services Offend er s in community correction s are required to participate in a variety of treatment oriented services . These services include case management, life skills training, drug and alcohol education, money management assistance, and educational and vocational guidance. In many cases, offenders access services i n t h e community beyond those provided by the program . The Sp ecialized Offender Se rvices Fun d, admi nistered by DCJ , can hel p offenders who qualify for spec ial assistance if t hey are in f inancial need and meet t he defined criteria. Figure 21 represents the percentage of offenders under commun ity corrections supervision who received each type of treatment service . Several treatment service areas experienced an increase in FYll with the exception of substance use, domestic violence, and anger management treatment services. 60.00% 50 .00% 40.00% 3 0 .0 0% 20 .0 0% 10.00% 0 .00% Figure 21 Treatment Services Received •FYlO •FY ll 20 Generally, females receive a higher proportion of services while in community corrections with the exception of sex offender, domestic violence, and anger management treatment . These trends can be seen in figure 22. This is consistent with assessment data form Figures 13, 14, and 20 that show higher risk, higher needs, and higher rates of mental illness for female offenders in community corrections. 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0 .00% Figure 22 Treatment Services Received by Gender •FYlOMale • FYlO Female FYllMale FYll Female 21 Figure 23 shows the treatment services received by both the Divers ion and Tran si tion offender populations i n commun ity correction s in FYlO and FYll. Generally, Diversion clients access more services than their Trans it ion counterpart s. 60.00% 50.00% 4 0 .00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0 .00% Figure 23 Treatment Services Received by Legal Status • FYl O Diversion • FYlO Transition FYll Diversion FYll Transi t ion Of those ind ividual s who received treatment services while under residential community corrections supervision, the average number of sessions received varied considerably. Figure 24 illustrates the average number of treatment ses sions received by offender s who received treatment service s. Sex Offender Average Number of Sessions for FYlO 26.3 30.1 17.2 19.7 18.1 11.4 Average Number of Sessions for FYll 32.4 31.2 22 .3 18.6 1 7.4 10.4 22 Educational Attainment Offenders in community corrections were able to make notable improvements in their education levels while under community corrections supervision. Figure 25 illustrates the number of residential community corrections clients who were able to obtain their GED between the time that they entered the program and the time that they left for both FYlO and FYll. Overall, in FYlO there were 158 offenders who obtained their GED, 70 who attended vocational school or some college, and 7 offenders who obtained a college degree or higher level of education while i n a community corrections program . Overall, in FYll there were 134 offenders who obtained their GED, 68 who attended vocational sc hool or some college, and 5 offenders who obtained a college degree or higher level of education. Figure 26 illustrates the same growth for individuals who were able to get vocational training or some college and Figure 27 shows the number of individuals who obtained their college degree while under community corrections supervision. Figure 25 GED Attainment FYlO FYll 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 2350 2400 --FVU ----• Education at Cntry 2246 • Educa t ion at Exit 2380 -'-------- FVlO 214 5 2303 23 Figure 26 Vocational School/Some College Attainment FYlO FVll 560 580 600 r-= FVll 8 Education at Cntry j _ _ __ ___:_:61..=.:1=- • Educatton at btl 679 620 640 660 Figure 27 680 700 FVlO 643 713 Undergraduate Degree or Higher Attainment FYlO FYll 720 0 20 40 FVll 101 60 80 100 120 • Educa110n oa1 Cnuvf • Cducallon .11 Cxll 106 J FYlO 124 131 740 140 24 Discharges Offenders are discharged from commun ity corrections residential programs when they complete the le ngth of their sentence, tran sfer to another residential program, progress to a non-re sidential program , or when they violate pre-deter m ined rule s. In FY10, fifty-three percent (53%) of community correct ions offenders succe ss fully completed their re sidential placement, with a slight decrease to fifty-two percent (52%) in FYll. It is important to note that there are several termination categor ies, such as a transfer or continuous stay, which are not con sidered as successful or unsuccessful completions but are considered neutral. These types of termination reasons make up approximately 10% of the population in both years. Overall discharges due to the commission of a new crime represented less t han two pe r ce nt of termination s in both fi scal years. In FYlO, eighty-three percent (8 3%) of the new crimes were non-violent. In FYll, eighty-eight percent (88%) of the new crimes were non-violent. Misdemeanors, t hefts and drug related charges make up the majority of the new crimes in both fiscal years. Discharges for escape were eleven percent (11%) in FYlO and twelve percent (12%) in FYll. The termi nation data is presented in Figure28 . Figure 28 FY 10 T r ansi tion 1781 Overa ll FY Di version 11 Although successful program completion cannot be predicted in community corrections, using an offender's LSI score provides insight into the likelihood of successful discha rge from a community corrections program . LSI score s were divided into three categories: low risk, medium risk, and high risk . No establ ished LSI cut-offs exist in community corrections . The cut-offs presented in figures 29 and 30 were determined based on the nature of the community corrections population with the statewide mean LSI score (28.57 in FY10 and 28 .82 in FYll) placed in the medium risk category. The results of this analysis show that offenders with lower risk/need scores have higher rate s of successful program completion and lower rates of discharge due to technical violations and escape . Inversely, higher risk offenders have higher rates of discharge resulting from a technical violation or escape and lower rates of successful program completion . 25 Figure 29 Community Corrections Success by Risk Level FY10 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30 .0 % 20 .0% 10.0% 0.0% •LSIScore: 1·24 Successful COmpletion • FY10 68.2% 61.4 % 55.3% Escape· FY10 Figure 30 7 .4 % 9.5% 14.8% Technical Violation • FY10 22.8% 27.8% Community Corrections Success by Risk Level FY11 80.0 % Escape· FYll • LS I Score: 25·30 62 .0% • LSI Score: 3 14.8% 30.9% 26 Another way to understand LSI risk scores and program outcomes is to look at the average LSI score for specific individuals versus others. Figure 31 compares the differ ence in average LSI scores for those offenders who escaped, got a technical violation and were unsuccessfu lly terminated from a community co r rections program versus those who did or were not for both FY10 an d FYll. 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 Technical Violations Figur e 31 Average LSI Score Comparison •FYlO .FYll Discharges due to technical violations fall into two categories. One category consists of rules that reflect the offender's behavior and actions which include d isobeying a lawful order, unaccountable tim e or location whi le signed out of the facility or failure to follow the program plan. Th e second category involves substance use (alcohol or other d r ugs) while residing in the facility. Of t h e 1489 offenders discharged In FY10 d ue to technical violations, 519 (35%) were substance use relat ed d ischarges, while 970 (65%) were behavioral or p rogrammatic rule vio lations. In FYll, 1482 offenders we re d ischa r ged du e to t echn ical violations, 478 {32%) w ere su bstance use related discha r ges, w h ile 1004 (68%) w ere b eh avio r al or progra mmat ic r ule v io latio ns. Escapes Because they represent a small percentage of discharges, reducing the number of escapes and otherwise increasing success rates in community corrections is a top priority. Early id entification and intervention can help to reduce the risk of escape in community corrections programs. As shown In figure 28 (above), diversion offenders have higher rates of escape than transitio n offenders. 27 Substance Use Discharge s Figure 32 shows the substance(s} used that resulted in termination from the program . Figure 32 Drug Related Terminations 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25 .00% 20.00% 15 .00% 10.00% 5.00% 0 .00% •FY l O •FYn Diversi on and tran sition offenders were d ischarged for drug related reasons at sim i lar rates. For both Diversi on and Transition offenders, alcohol was the primary substance used and amphetamine was the secondary substance used resulting in terminat ion. Although the rate of the other/unknown category is significant , li mited i nformation prevents a discussion of thi s data . In addition, some offenders tested positive for more than one sub stance . During FYll, the rapidly growing onset of synthetic cannabinoids and other synthetic drugs was a prom i nent factor in drug-related term i nations from community corrections. Thi s could partially explain the use of the Other/Unknown category in the CCIB data set which lacks a specific category for synthetic drugs. Employment at Termination Figures 33 and 34 outli ne offender employment status by terminat ion reason . Employed includes full and part time offenders and unemployed includes any offender who i s di sabled and unable to work. The data shows that employed offenders are more likely to terminate from a community corrections program successfully while unemployed offenders are more l ikely to receive technical violations and esca pe. 28 70 .00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0 .00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0 .00% Figure 33 Employment at Termination FYlO Successful Technical Escape Transfer New Old Other Reject violation Crim e warrant After Figure 34 Employment at Termination FY11 Accept -Successful Technical Escape Transfer New Old Other Rej ect v iolation Crime warrant After Accept •Employed • Unemployed •Employed • Unemployed 29 length of Stay The mean length of stay for all offenders in all discharge categories was 173 days in FY10 and 191 days in FY11, both of which are just under 6 months. Figure 35 outlines the variations in length of stay in days by termination reason. The data demonstrates that as the length of stay increases, the likelihood that an offender will complete the program successfully also increases. This trend is apparent in both fiscal years . Figure 35 I I I I I I I R ej ec t I S uccc s ~ful Tl'chnical Old i'i e w Al'h.•r Len!!lh o f Sta~· C omple tion Violation Es cape Transfer Warrant C rime Acn•pl Other 30 Days or Less 22 .2% 29.4% 28.0% 10.7% 2.2% 2.4% 2.2% 3.0% 1-3 Months 30.1% 36.9% 21.1% 5.6% 1.2% 1.8% 1.1% 2 .3 % 3-6 Months 54 .1 % 29.1% 9.3% 2.2% 0.9% 1.4% 0.7% 2.3% 6-12 Months 71.5% 17.1% 3.7% 1.2% 0.5% 0 .7% 0.1% 5.2% FY10 12-18 Months 78.3% 16 .2% 2.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 2.3% 18-24 Months 77.2% 15.8% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 2 Years or More 89.5% 5.3% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% I llcj, ... I I Sucm;ful I Tcchnk"l I I I Old I Nc" Afte r Lrngth of Stay C omple tion Violation F:5oc apC' Trnm.fer \\'nrrant C rim l' AccC'pt Other 30 Days or Less 17.4% 24.9% 30.6% 13.3% 5 .2% 1.8% 3.5% 3.3% 1-3 Months 27.4% 36.9% 22.8% 5.6% 1.7% 1.6% 2 .1 % 1.9% 3-6 Months 5 1.2% 29.6% 10.6% 12.1% 1.3% 1.7% 1.0% 1.7% FY11 6-12 Months 69.1% 21.1% 4.5% 1.9% 0.7% 1.0% 0.2% 1.5% 12-18 Months 78.4% 17 .0% 0.6% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 20 .0% 0.8% 18-24 Months 76.7% 17.1% 4.7% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2 Years or More 94.6% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% All percentaces are rounded to the nearest t enth Each row represents 100% of offenders who dlsdlar,ed durin& ttutt time frame 30 The average length of stay for diversion clients was 179 days in FY10 and 197 days in FY11. For transition clients, the average length of stay was 167 in FY10 and 186 days in FYll. Figure 36 shows the average length of stay, in days, for certain termination groups. Figure 36 Average length of Stay in Days ~~ Successful 207 .2 232.6 Technical Violation 138.8 158.2 Escape 87.3 91.8 New Crime 123.1 144.7 The average length of sentence for a diversion offender was 4.4 years in both FY10 and FYll. Once an offender is successfully discharged from the residential phase of community corrections, the remainder of the sentence is typically completed under different types and levels of non-residential supervision . This i s generally determined by the length of the sentence or the adjustment of the offender. A Transition offender might be granted parole or transferred to the Intensive Supervision Program (ISP). Figures 37 and 38 reveal that more than eighty percent (80%) of all offenders discharged from community corrections, in both fiscal years, were released with further supervision. Other types of discharges are also indicated . Probation ISP 1% Figure 37 Discharge Destination FY10 Ot her (hospital, sentence ______ reconsi deralion, etc) 1% To Olher Co mmuni ty Correcti ons Program 4% 3 1 Figure 38 Discharge Destination FYll Other (hospi tal, sentence reconsiderat ion, etc) 1% To Other Community Correcti ons Program 4% 32 Section II Non-Residential Community Corrections The non-residential phase of community corrections is designed to assist in the transition of stabilized residential Diversion offenders back into the community with a gradual decrease in supervision . These offenders have conducted themselves well in a highly structured residential setting. They have obtained a su itable independent living arrangement, managed their finances appropriately and have progressed in treatment. While in non -residential placement, offenders are required to meet with case management staff, retain employment, participate in mandatory treatment, honor their financial responsibilities and remain drug and alcohol free. Non-residential offenders are also subject to random monitoring of their living situations and employment verifications. Depending on supervision and treatment needs, an offender may be transferred back to a residential community corrections program for additional services. One of the added community safety benefits of non -residential placement is the ease with which an offender can be transferred back to residential placement until he or she is re-stabilized . For this reason , an offender may be counted more than once in this data. Demographics During FYlO , 1459 non-residential discharges resulted from thirty (30) separate non -residential facilities . During FYll, 1069 non-residential discharges resulted from twenty-nine (29) separate non-residential facilities . The demographics of these non-residential offenders are similar to those of the residential offenders. The majority of offenders were male (73.6-80%), Caucasian (65-67 .4%), had a high school diploma or GED (61.5-62%), and were serving time for a lower class felony (77.3-81.6%). Not surpri singly, most offenders were employed (84.2-86.2%} when discharged from non -residential supervision . 33 Figure 39 NON RESIDENTIAl OFFENDER DEMOGRAPHICS FYlO AND FYll Geilcler Male 73.6% 80.0 % Female 24.6% 20.0% _Are 18-20 0.1% 0 .2% 21-25 9.3% 9.4% 26-30 17.0% 16.6% 31-35 14.8% 14.9% 36-40 11.2% 12.8% 41+ 31.9% 34 .1% Ethnlclty Caucasian 67 .4% 65 .0% African Ame rican 10.2% 8 .1% Hispanic 20 .5% 24.2% Asian American/Pacif ic Is l ander 0 .5% 1.1% Native American/ Alaskan Native 0 .9% 0.9% Other/Unknown 0 .5% 0.6% EducatiOn l.eWIIIt Entry 81 " Grade or less 1.9% 2.8% 91 " thr ough 11111 Grade 15.0% 15.2% 121h Grade o r GED 61.5% 6 2.0% Vocat ional/Some College 14.7% 14.1% College or Above 2 .5% 4.1% Unknown 4.5% 1.8% Ccurrtnt Qtme Felony aass F1-F3 19.7% 18.1% F4-F6 77.3% 81.6% Em-·· -~- Full Time Employment 84.2% 86.2% Part Time Empl oyment 2.9% 4 .0 % Unemp loyed 7 .0% 6 .8% Unemployed due t o Disability 2.9% 2.5% Non-Residential Community Corrections Services Many residential programs strive to promote positive re lationships betwee n offende r s and community resou r ces to enhance the likelihood that they will utilize these reso urces after se ntence completion. Exam p les of critica l community resources may include ad d iction support groups, educational/vocational rehabilitation services and treatment programs. 34 Prior to non-residential community corrections placement, eighty-five percent (85%) of offenders in both FYlO and FYll received some level of treatment for substance use. Figures 40 and 41 illustrate the percentage of offenders who received substance use treatment prior to non-residential community cor rections placement. 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5 .00% 0 .00% •FYlO 50.00% 4 5.00% 40.00% 35 .00% 30.00% 25 .00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5 .00% 0 .00% Figure 40 Prior Substance Use Treatment FYlO Outpati ent Only Inpati ent Only No Treatment 45.80% 20.00% 14.40% Figure 41 Inpatient and Outpatient 12.70% Educat ion Only 7 .00% Prior Substance Use Treatment FY11 No Treatment Inpatient Only 17.90% 15.00% 11.70% Offenders in non-residential community corrections programs are required to participate, or continue to participate, in a variety of treatment oriented services. These services include employment assistance, life skills 35 t raining, cognitive restructu r ing, alcohol and drug treatment, anger management, etc. Non -resident ial offenders are often requ i red to access these services in the commun ity and are financially res p onsible f or them. Figure 42 reports the percentage of offenders who participated in specific services wh i le in a non-residential program. 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0 .00% Figure 42 Treatment Services Received •FYlO •FYll Of those individua ls who received treatment services while under non-r esidential communit y corr ections su pervis ion, the average number of sessions received varied co nsi d erably. Figure 43 illustrates the average n umber of treatment sessio n s received by offenders in n on -resi d entia l comm un ity co rrection s p rograms. Figure 43 Average Number Average Number of Sessions for of Sessions for FYlO FYll Se)( Offender 28.6 25 .9 Sub stance Use 21.1 23.6 Domesti c Violence 20.9 16.2 Education 26.5 15.7 Cognitive Restructuring 14.0 13.2 Mental Health 13.8 12.7 Anger Management 1 5.9 11.9 Life Skills 8.2 7.9 Employment/Vocati onal 5.8 3 .7 36 Employ m ent Most offenders in community corrections are required to obtain gainful employment prior to being eligible for non -re sidential statu s. The data i llu strates that more than eighty-five percent (85 %) of offenders were employed when they transferred to non -re sidential status in both FYlO and FY11. Figure 44 demonstrate this t r end. 100.00% 9 0 .00% 80 .00% 70 .00% 60.00% 50 .00% 40.00% 30 .00% 20 .00% 10 .00% 0.00% Full Time •FYlO 86.70% 1•FY 11 86.60% --- Figure 44 Employment At Entry -Unemployed 7.20% 6 .90% Part Time 3 .00% 4 .00% Unemployed Due To Disability 3.00% I 2 .50% ==:J 37 Discharges The average non-residential length of stay for all offenders was 295 days in FYlO and 325 days in FYll. Figure 45 depicts the average length of stay for successful and non successful offenders in non -residential community corrections programs . FYlO FYll r • N on Successrul • Successrul Figure 45 Average Length of Stay for Terminations 0 50 100 150 FYll 219 4 52 200 250 F 300 350 400 FYlO 193 4 26 4 50 500 38 Forty-one percent (41%) of offenders in FYlO and forty-s ix percent (46%) of offenders in FYll discharged from non-residential placement successfully. This type of discharge generally involves sentence completion or sentence reconsideration . Overall, discharges due to the commission of a new crime or an escape make up less than seven percent (7%) of terminations in both fiscal years. 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30 .00 % 25 .00% 20 .00% 15.00% 10.00% S.OO % 0 .00% Success fu I Completi on i•FYlO f 41 .30% • FY11 47 .60% Tech n ical Violation (punitive) 21.70% 27.30% Figure 46 Discharge Reason New r:c Outstand1 Crime to other ng program Warrant 1 to Residenti Conti nuo aiStatus us Stay (non- punitive) 12.70% 3.20% 0 .40% 1.20% 0.80% 11.40% 4 .30% 2.80% L 2 .40% L 1.90% J.. 1.200-' 1.00% 39 Section Ill Intensive Residential Treatment Intensive Residential Treatment (IRT ) is a correctional treatment program for individuals with serious substance use problems and is structured to accommodate persons with disorders related to prolonged su bstance use . Additionally, IRT programs treat individuals who lack a positive support system, experience denial and exhibit an inability to sustain independent functioning outside of a controlled environment. IRT programs last 90 days and offenders participate in forty hours of therapeutic treatment per week. The purpose of IRT is to provide a brief, intense treatment intervention. Treatment is aimed at increasing positive coping and relapse prevention skills and identifying negative thinking errors that have resulted in prior substance use and criminal behavior. Due to the intensive nature of IRT, offenders do not leave the facility, seek employment, or address other community needs while in the program, their focus is primarily on substance use and any mental health of physical health concerns that must be addressed in order for them to be successful in future community placements . IRT programs are also equipped to address many mental health or medical issues that contribute to an offender's inability to function in the community. IRT programs receive a differential per diem of $17.78 per day to offset the costs of treatment and subsistence fees . During FYlO and FYll, there were two IRT programs in the Colorado community corrections system. There were 204 offender discharges in FYlO and 294 offender discharge s in FYll. The female IRT population decreased from twenty-one percent (21%) of the discharged population in FYlO to sixteen percent (16%) in FYll. The demographics of offenders in IRT are similar to that of offenders in residential community corrections programs . legal Status Offenders in need of IRT treatment are assessed and referred from seve ral sources. Referrals can come from probation, DOC or if a residential community corrections program determines that an offender is in need of intensive treatment, the program can refer an offender directly to an IRT program . Offenders may be referred to IRT programs as a condition of their supervision or for failure to progress in a residential program, often as the result of a technical violation for drug use . After successful completion, the offender will transfer to a residential community corrections program, or return to their original su pervisory agency, and is referred to outpatient continuing care . In both fiscal years , DOC offenders represented over eighty percent (80%) of IRT clients in both fiscal years , as shown in figure 47 . 40 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10 .0 % 0.0% Proba t ion •FV10 0.0% •FVll 2.4% Previous Su bstance Use and Treatment Figure 47 IRT Referral Source Diversion Transi t ion DO C Parole 10.8% _± 55.4% 9 .2% 56 .0% 3 3 .3% 32.1% OOCIS P 0 .5% 0 .3% Eighty-nine percent (89%) of IRT offend ers in FY lO and eigh t y-three p erce nt (83%) o f IRT offend er s in FYll ha d participated in some form of prior substance use treatment. Approxi mately si xty per ce nt (60%) of offend ers in both fi scal years had attended prio r inpatient su bstance use t r eatment. IRT offenders reporte d that, on average, their f i r st drug use wa s between the ages of 14 an d 15. 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20 .00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0 .00% Fi gure 48 Prior Substance Use Treatment None Educat ion Only Out pattent Only lnpattent Only Bot h Ou t patient (I RT and/or TC) and Inpatient •FYlO •FY l l 41 Drug of Ch oice Twenty-nine percent (29%) of IRT offenders in FYlO and thirty-two percent (32 %) in FYll reported that their primary drug of choice was amphetamines (which include methamphetamines). This increase in preference for amphetamines coincides with a decrease in preference for cocaine from FYlO to FYll. In both fiscal years, approximately one quarter of all IRT offenders reported alcohol as their drug of choice. Figure 49 illustrates the primary drug of choice reported by IRT offenders for both fiscal years. Figure 49 Primary Drug of Choice 35 .0% 25 .0% ± -===::::::'_j Amphetam me 28 .7% 24 .3% 21.8 % 20 .3% -.-F-Y1-1+---3-2-.1-%-~25_._2 % __ -_-~+---~_14_._1 % __ ~---------~~--5_.2 % 2.8% St andard ized Offe nder Assess m e nt a nd Tr eatment The SOA-R consists of a battery of instruments that measures an offender's risk of recidivism, relapse risk, and other criminogenic needs which are used to develop a supervision and treatment plan for offenders. Figure SO shows the SOA -R subscales, the possible score ranges, and the domains that are measured by each scale, with the mean SOA -R subscale scores for male, female, and aiiiRT clients in FYlO and FYll. In FYlO, female IRT clients reported less lifetime involvement with alcoh ol and other drugs (AOD); perceived lower consequences with AOD use; report slightly less perceived benefits of AOD use; have lower reported degrees of antisocial thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs and more reported emotional problems. Interestingly, some of these results changed in FYll with female IRT clients reporting more lifetime involvement with AOD than their male counterparts, significantly higher consequences with AOD use, reported more perceived benefits of AOD use, and higher degrees of antisocial thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs; lower defensiveness; and more motivation to change. Female IRT clients in FYll continued to report more emotional problems, and overall have higher risk scores, more biomedical problems, and similar perceived strengths to their male counterparts. 42 2.2 2.2 1.5 1.3 2 2 TxRW -Recovery Environment 0-4 Recovery Environment Problems 43 Continuing care Upon successful completion of an IRT program, clients are reassessed for their AOO treatment needs and a recommendation for continuing care is made. Continuing care is de signe d as after care AOO treatment to provide additional support and treatment for community corrections clients while in the community. Most recommendations for continuing care are in the form of weekly outpatient therapy (WOP) or intensive outpatient therapy (lOP) as shown in figure 51. 45 .00% 40.00% 35 .00% 30.00% 25 .00 % 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5 .00% 0 .00% Figure 51 Recommended Continuing Care ~Jt ~Ill~ ~~~··· ~Ill~·· ~~·· ~1;/ (:;0 ~~ ~e~"/ ~~/;, ~ ~~-,(;$-tt; .~~'li ,(;$-e<J> ~l' ~ i;.tt; ~~-~~ ~~ ~\tt; ~ 0..., ~ 1/!j,_e~ ~~ 1;-~ ~\tt; cY'' e~ (S-~e "'-';\.e~ .s.e.... ~~ ~<J ~ Ill ~~ ~ ~'lj (.,((;' ~ ,..~ (.,0 -~(/;' ,...,.., -\,§ e'li ~c; ~-..;; ~~ ~.S ~rc-· .. ,(., ~~· (.,(.," -"'.,... ".. ~ 0 <c,~ 0 ,~ ~.... ~ "'.::> r.:-"' ~o ~~ W.~ , ~~e t;.<-' ~tt; ~e'li '>~ ~tt; ... ,: <;;> ..\.ett; ~ti-~ e~ t;: e<!> ~1;-o\ # ~ '\.' ~~ ~tt; .'~ .....,c ~ e~ ~'i'-~., .....,~ e~~ ,i" .....,e ~ t;.b t... -~ ~o -v .....,e ~t> }i qp .....,e-.....,e ~ v Mental Illness •FY10 •FYll Rates of mental illness among IRT offenders in Colorado are generally higher than those of other re si dential offenders. Thi s is re presented in figure 52 which illustrates the rates of mental illness diagnoses amongst IRT clients for FY10 and FYll. While the percentage of clients with a mental i llness diagnosi s decreased sig nificantly in FYll, the number of IRT clients who entered the program without information r ega rding their mental health history significantly increased. 44 60.00% 50.0 0 % 40.00% 30.00% 20 .00% 10.00% 0 .00% Discharges Figure 52 Mental Health Diagnoses for IRT Clients Yes No Unknow n 8 FV10 •FVU Seventy-five p ercent (75%) of IRT offenders in FY l O an d sixty-nine p er cent (69%) of IRT offend ers in FYll were r eported as completing the program successfu lly. Co n sidering t h at clients are n ot all owed to l eave I RT p rograms without staff escorts, it is not surprising that none of the technical violations t hat r esu lted in disch arge in either fiscal year was d r ug related. In addition, only 3 client s in FYlO and 1 client in FYll were d i scharged d ue to escape . Figure 53 outlines the r ea sons for discharge for IRT offenders. 80.0 0% 70.0 0% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0 .00% Figure 53 IRT Discharge Reasons FY10 and FY11 -- 4 5 Figure 54 illustrates that more than fifty percent (SO%) of all IRT clients were discharged back to a residential community corrections programs in both fiscal years while almost thirty percent (30%) returned successfully to parole. Figure 54 Discharge Destination for FYlO and FY11 6000% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0 .00% Commumty Corrections ~ •FYlO 54 .90% .FYll 53 .70% DOC/Jail/ Off Probation Supervtston/ DOC Parole (Uns~~cessf S~s~::,e,l/e DOC ISi P Other ~xplred 29 .90%J_;l .30% 2.90% 0 .50% 0 .50% 28.90% 14.60% 0.30% 0 .70% 0 .70% _ __.. ___ ___. Probatton/ JudiciaiiSP ~ 0 .00% 1.00% 46 Section IV Residential Dual Diagnosis Treatment The population of offenders with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders is dramatically increasing in the Colorado prison system . These persons require extensive psychiatric and mental health services as well as community based substance use treatment in order to manage their risk to public safety. Residential Dual Diagnosis Treatment (ROOT) is a program designed for these individuals in order to address co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders while building positive support systems and increasing overall ability to function in the community. These programs are structured to accommodate persons i n need of additional supervi sion and treatment services in order to successfully reintegrate into the community. ROOT programs are professionally supervised therapeutic environments geared toward drug and alcohol abstinence, improved mental health and desistence from continued criminal conduct. Generally, the treatment program is aimed at offenders with both significant substance use and mental illness, Including those whose previous treatment failures necessitate more intensive measures. ROOT programs receive a differential per diem of $33 .02 per day in order to fund some of the costs of therapeutic and enhanced supervision services. During FYlO and FYll, there were five ROOT programs in the Colorado community corrections system . There were 249 offender discharges in FYlO and 298 offender discharges in FYll. Compared to residential offenders, there are higher percentages of females, Caucasians, and offenders with either no prior convictions or more than three prior convictions amongst the ROOT population. The demographics for the ROOT population in FYlO and FYll are shown In figure 55 . 47 Figure 55 ROOT OFFENDER DEMOGRAPHICS FY10 AND FYll ...... Male 74.3% 69.5% Female 25.7% 30.5% ... 18-20 4.0% 3.4% 21-25 12.9% 12.4% 26-30 22.5% 20.8% 31-35 18.1% 14.1% 36-40 14.5% 12.4% 41+ 28.1% 36.9% caucasian 71.9% 74.5% African American 7.6% 10.4% Hispanic 18.1% 10.7% Asian American/Pacific Islander 0.0% 0 .3% Native American/Alaskan Native 2.4% 4.0% Other/Unknown 0.0% 0.0% Mutt~~ StltUI Si ng l e 53.4% 46.3% Married/Common Law 20.1% 19.1% Separated/Divorced/Widowed 26.1% 32.9% Unknown 0.4% 1 .7% !due .... Lawl atEnby 81 h Grade or Less 7.2% 6.7% 91h through 11th Grade 18.8% 1 5.8% 12'" Grade or GED 59.4% 60.0% Vocational/Some College 11.6% 11.7% College or A bove 1.6% 2.7% Unknown 1.2% 3 .0% c..r.tatme ,.._a. Fl-F3 14.5% 15.5% F4-F6 85.5% 84.5% Prior Milt:-;.... .• ~ Zero 27.3% 29 .2% One t o Two 26.1% 33.5% Th ree or More 46.6% 37.3% 48 Current Felony Offen se Similar to residential community corrections offenders, most ROOT offenders in both FYlO and FYll were serving sentences for non violent, mid-level felony offenses. The most common types of offenses for this population of offenders were drug related offenses, burglary and theft. Interestingly, ROOT offenders serving time for escape represent a higher percentage (6.8% in FYlO and 5.0% in FYll) t han residential offenders (4 .0% in FYlO an d 4.8% in FYll). Figure 56 shows the breakdown of current fe lony convictions amongst ROOT offender s. re 56 I1TII :rarm~•J • llll Ill ••nllll FYl O FYU Offense Ty pe N Percen t N Per cent Controlled Substance 75 30.1 76 25.5 Burg lary/Criminal Tre spass 3 1 12.4 34 11.4 Theft 30 12.0 46 15.4 Assault/Menacing 20 8.0 36 12.1 Escape 17 6.8 15 5.0 Motor Vehicle Theft 13 5.2 7 2.3 r. 12 4.8 10 3.4 I VJ!5>"''/ Dri vin g Related 8 3.2 10 3.4 l dc~nti~y Theft 8 3.2 8 2.7 Robbery 7 2.8 I I 3.7 Crimes Again st Children 6 2.4 2 .7 Other 5 2.0 0 3.0 Se x assault 4 1.6 13 4.4 Crim inaJ Mischief 4 1.6 5 1.7 Homicide 3 1.2 2 .7 Fraud 2 .8 3 1.0 Weapon s I .4 3 1.0 Kidnappin g I .4 2 .7 Arson I .4 I .3 Habitual Criminal I .4 I .3 Ufi:;4111LII;u Crime 0 .0 2 .7 Int imidation 0 .0 2 .7 49 Assessments Figure 57 provides the mean SOA-R scores for ROOT offenders in FYlO and FYll. In comparison to residential offenders, ROOT offenders have higher mean assessment scores on the initial LSI, the update LSI, the SSI -R, and on the disruption scale of the ASUS -R. Figure 57 l pdal(' SSI -n ,\S l S-It \Sl S -1{ Initi a l LSI LSI Sl·on· Oi ,ruptio n l)cfl•n,h e (\l ('n fl ) (\lean) ( \ll'll n ) (\lea n ) (\l e 11n ) ..... Males 33.7 29.8 10.9 3 19 11.7 Females 29.3 24.3 8.4 28 .9 14.3 FYU Males 33.4 28 .9 9.4 35.9 12 .7 FemA les 32.2 26.9 8.3 29.1 8.78 Despite having higher overall risk scores compared to other residential community corrections offenders, both male and female ROOT offenders had lower LSI scores at the time of their last updated LSI while under community corrections supervision (at least 6 months of time in the program). Thi s indicates a reduction in the risk of recidivism from time of entry to discharge . 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Figure 58 LSI Risk Reduction for ROOT Offenders Males Females Males FYlO Females FYll •1nit1allSI (Mean) • Update LSI (Mean) Addressing co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders is the primary purpose of ROOT program s and offenders who are placed in these programs often have long histories of disruption as a result of these disorders. Over ninety percent {900-') of ROOT offenders had previous mental health treatment in both FYlO and FYll, with sixty-nine percent (69%) of ROOT offenders in FYlO and seventy-five percent (75%) in FYll receiving some form of mental health treatment in the last six months. Over ninety percent (9 0%) of ROOT offenders had been prescribed psychiatric medications in their lifetime, with sixty-two percent (62%) to sixty-nine percent (69%) having a current prescription for psychiatric medications upon entry to the ROOT program in FYlO and FYll respectively. Thirteen 50 percent (13%) of ROOT offenders in FYlO and twenty percent (20%) in FYll had been hospitalized for mental health reasons in the last two years. Risk of harm and suicide is a concern for individuals suffering from mental illness. Just over half of all ROOT offenders in both fiscal years reported they had never tried to harm or kill themselves, leaving more than forty percent (40%) of ROOT clients with a history of at least one self-ha rming or suicide attempt episode in their lifetime . These figures are represented in figure 59. Figure 59 Self Harm or Suicidal Ideation Histories for ROOT Clients 1\ ~~,-.1,_.-"" ~:ll ,[_,: .).1.." Client never tried to harm or kill self in past 59.4% 53 .4% Client tried to harm or kill se lf in past In last 6 months 2.8% 3.7% Client tried to harm or kill self in past 6 mo-2yrs 7.6% 10.7% Client tried to harm or kill se lf In over 2 years 21.3% 23.3% Client tried to harm or kill self unknown 8.8% 9.1% ROOT clients are also assessed for their level of psychiatric need upon entry to the program . The vast majority of ROOT offenders (80-85%) enter the program with moderate psychiatric needs. Figure 60 reports the percentage of offenders in ROOT programs who were assessed at each level of psychiatric need. Figure 60 Psychiatric Need Level for ROOT Clients --~· ..... ~.,-CL .. -- .,.;;c., -, ~,:. &.·, • •I No Mental Health Needs 0 .7% 2.0% Low Psychiatric Needs 6.8% 4.7% Moderate Psychiatric Needs 80.8% 85.9% High Psychiatric Needs 9.6% 6.1% Extreme Psychiatric Needs 0.0% 0.0% Unknown 2.1% 1.3% 51 Drug of Ch oice Thirty~seven percent (37 %) of ROOT offenders in both fiscal years reported that their primary drug of choice was amphetamines. In FYlO marijuana was reported as a primary drug of choice with twenty percent (20%) of ROOT offenders and alcohol represented seventeen percent {17%). These percentages switched in FYll with twenty ~ two percent {22 %) of ROOT offenders reporting alcohol as their primary drug of choice and only twelve percent {12%} reporting marijuana . Figure 61 illustrates the primary drug of choice reported by ROOT offenders for both fi scal years. Figure 61 Primary Drug of Choice 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% None Other 2 .0 % 1.3% 52 Substance Use Treatment Compared to residential offenders, a higher percentage of ROOT offenders were assessed as needing enhanced substance use treatment services (level 4A and above) in both fiscal years. In addition, the proportion of in dividua ls who were in need of a mental health or medical referral prior to being able to be assessed for need of substa nce use treatment services is substantially higher than the residential population . Fig ure 62 reports the percentage of ROOT offenders who are assessed at each level of su bstance use t reatment. 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0 .00% Figure 62 Substance Use Treatment Needs •FYlO •FYll 53 Treatment Se rvices Received ROOT offenders receive a wide array of services while in the program . These services include mental health and psychiatric services, cognitive behavioral therapy, vocational and educational services, and offense specific treatment. Figure 63 represents the percentage of ROOT offenders who received each type of treatment service while in the ROOT program for both fiscal years. 54 Discharges Thirty-five percent (35%) of ROOT offenders were discharged from the program successfully in both fiscal years . In addition, almost twenty percent {20%) of ROOT offenders were transferred to other community corrections programs . Technical violations represented twenty-eight percent (28%) and thirty-four percent (34%) of discharges from ROOT programs in FY10 and FY11 respectively. Of these technical violations, approximately thirty percent (300-') were drug related in both fiscal years . Length of Stay 40.00% 35.00% 3 0 .0 0% 25.00% 20.0 0% 15.0 0% 10.0 0% 5.00% 0 .00% Figure 64 ROOT Discharge Reasons FY10 and FY11 --------- The mean length of stay for all ROOT offenders in all discharge categories was 158 days in FY10 and 169 days in FY11 . Figure 65 outlines the variations in length of stay in days by termination reason . New Crime 47 60 55 Sect i on V Short-Term, Jail -Based Resident i al Programs There are currently two short-term, jail -based residential community corrections programs in Colorado : Phase I at the Denver County Jail and Gateway : Through the Rockies at the El Paso County Jail. Short-term, jail -based programs are designed to serve as a short-term stabilization for offenders in a highly structured and secure environment. Upon completion of the program offenders can make a progressive movement into a traditional community corrections program . During short-term residential programming offenders are able to be evaluated for medical and psychological treatment needs, receive assistance with accessing documentation required for employment such as an ID or birth certificate, and reacquaint themselves with the community after being in prison. Offenders are required to seek employment and participate in select treatment groups offered through the jail program . The programs also contain, within them, some specialized programming such as the Denver Homeless Transition Program (DHTP) and the Long-Term Offender Program (LTOP) which serve high risk/high need offenders who are in transition from the DOC. These programs are also designed to operate as an intermediate sanction in lieu of prison for offenders who receive technical violations during their community corrections placement. Offenders can be placed in remediation as a final recourse before full regression to the Department of Corrections. If the offender completes the remediation period successfully, a recommendation will be made to return to community corrections placement. There were 557 discharges from a short-term program in FYlO and 608 in FYll. The number of discharges (N) and average length of stay (Avg LOS) by program can be seen in figure 66 . 56 The profile of the short-term, jail-based offender is similar to that of a traditional community corrections offender in that the majority are male, single, have a high school diploma or GED, and are in community corrections for a class 4 , 5 or 6 felony. Demographics for this population are shown in figure 67. Figure 67 SHORT TERM JAIL BASED OFFENDER DEMOGRAPHICS FY10 AND FYll Gender Male 82 .2% 88.2% Female 17.8% 11.8% A l e 18-20 1.4% 2.0% 21-2 5 20.1% 16.8% 26-3 0 23.0% 20.3% 31-35 12.6% 15.8% 36-40 13.3% 11.4% 41+ 29.5% 33.8% Ethnldty Caucasian 29.8% 31.4% African American 39.0% 38.3% Hispanic 28.5% 27.1% Asian American/Pacific Islander 1.1% 1.5% Native American/Alaskan Native 1.6% 1.5% Other/Unknown 0.0% 0.2% Marital Status Single 60 .0% 58 .3% Married/Common Law 26 .2% 26.4% Separated/Divorced/Widowed 12.7% 14.9% Unknown 1.1% 0 .5% Eduwlon Level at Entry 8th Grade or less 2.1% 3.0% 9th through 11th Grade 24.2% 21.1% 12th Grade or GED 57 .4% 59.8% Vocational/Some College 11.7% 12.0% College or Above 2.5% 2.1% Unknown 2.0% 2.0% Current Crime Felony Class Fl-F3 14.0% 17.1% F4-F6 86.0% 82 .9% 57 Tran sition a nd Diversion clients make up the vast ma j ority of the offender population in short-term, j ail -ba sed re sidential programs. Clients represented in f igure 68 may be in the program either becau se they are awai ting a bed in a community correct ion s facility or as a remediation due to program violation (s). 70.00% 60.00% 50 .0 0% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10 .00% 0.00% Figure 68 Short Term Jail Based Residential Program Legal Status FY10 and FY11 --DOC Tra nsition Diversion DOC Parole OOC ISP Employment and Education •FYlO •FYl l Upon entry, seven percent (7%} of the offenders were employed in FYlO and four percent (4%} were employed In FYll. Upon termination from the program twenty percent (20%) were employed at least part time. Due to the short-term nature of the program, most offenders are unable to make significant subsistence, restitution or treatment payments and often times an offender is transferred to another community corrections program prior to the receipt of their first paycheck. Offenders are ab le to work towards obtain ing the i r GED while in short-term, jail-based residential programs however due to the ir lim ited length of stay, many must complete their educationa l goals once they have been transferred to another community correct ions program . Even so, three offenders in FYlO and four in FYll were able to succes sfully obtain their GED while in the program. Discharges Successful termination from a short-term, jail-based res idential program can be for two rea son s. Most commonly, succes sful term ination mean s that the offender was able to move on to a residential community correction s program . More than fifty percent (SO%} of all offenders participating in a short-term program were transferred su cce ss fully to a commun ity corrections program for the rema i nder of their community placement in both FYlO and FYll. Succe ss can al so i ndicate that the offender completed their sentence and were released from 5 8 community corrections placement either on to probation, parole , or without further supervision . Approximately ten percent (1 0%) of offenders fell into this category in both FYlO and FYll. Less than 7 percent (7%) of offenders escaped in either year and only 2 offenders in both fiscal years, making up less than one percent (1%), committed a new crime . In addition, less than seven percent (7%) of short term residential offenders in FYlO and FYll were terminated for a technical violation. These figures are shown in figure 69 . 59 Section VI Finances in Community Corrections While in residential and non-residential community corrections facilities, offende r s are expected to work full- time, pay room and board, state and federal taxes and, when ordered, pay child support, restitution and court costs . Most the offenders pay for their own treatment costs while in community corrections. Many program s provide in -house treatment services at a no cost or low cost alternative to the offender. State Pe r Die m Rates The state rate is established annually through the budget process. The state contracts with local community corrections boards, providing an allocation for a specific number of beds at the established per diem rate . In FY10 and FYll, the per diem rates were $37.74 for residential clients and $5 .12 (average) for non -residential clients. Differential per diem rates were also established for IRT at $17.78 and for the seriously mentally ill at $33 .02, and for Therapeutic Communities at $14.34. The differential rate is paid in add ition to the residential rate to provide add it ional treatment services for the specified populations. Residential programs can charge offenders up to $17 per day in subsistence fees and $3 per day for non -residential fee s. Actual collections are based on earnings and the offender's ability to pay. Offenders in IRT programs do not work while participating in intensive treatment, so no financial information for IRT offenders is included in this section . In addition, offenders in TC programs are not able to work when they first arrive to the program and may not be eligible to work for up to nine months. Because many of these offenders do end up working they were included in this sample . Figures reported here are estimates based on reported figures i n CCIB . The DCJ removes any significant outliers from each category to account for errors and to avoid skewing or otherwise misrepresenting the data. Even still, this data should be considered as an estimate of the community corrections offender population for each fiscal year and should not be understood as an exact figure . Subs is t e nce The overall amount of subsistence paid by all types of offenders, including non residential supervision fees, while in community corrections in FY10 was $10,472,410 and was $11,711,687 in FYll. Figure 70 shows the breakdown of total subsistence payments made by Diversion, Transition, male and female offenders. 60 Figure 71 outlines the average amount of subsistence collected from residential community corrections offenders each day. Although programs can charge up to $17 a day for residential services, they may not be able to collect this amount when the offender is unable to work, or has other expenses such as court-ordered child support, treatment costs, restitution and medication. The figures above include offenders from specialty residential community corrections programs such as ROOT and TC who may not be eligible to search for employment for a considerable amount of time after entering the program. Excluding these individuals, the average amount of subsistence paid by traditional residential community corrections clients was $12.68 in FYlO and $11.14 in FYll. Income As discussed in earlier sections of this report, many community corrections offenders are able to obtain employment while under supervision and it is believed that employment plays a major role in an offender's ability to successfully reintegrate into the community. As shown in Figure 72, the median monthly income for employed Diversion offenders was $600.58 in FY10 and $587.64 in FYll. Transition offenders on average earned less than Diversion offenders, with a median monthly income of $422.69 in FY10 and $387.25 in FYll. This data along with the mean monthly income and total earnings for Diversion and Transition are also represented in figure 72. Figure 72 Monthly Income for Commun1ty Correct1ons Offenders Diversion Transition --------$704.42 r- $691.78 $557.83 $529.15 Mean Median $600.58 $587.64 $422.69 $387.25 N 4179 3849 3600 3630 OVerall $27,380,868.00 $25,903,127 .oo $13,821,314.00 $14,831,334.00 Figure 73 provides the same monthly income data for male and female community corrections offenders in FY10 and FYll. Figure 73 Monthly Income for Male and Female Offenders Males Femal es _____ ....._ $656.63 $630.55 r- $531.89 Mean $565.22 Median $527.00 $496.55 $467.74 $427.37 N 6073 6137 1706 1342 Overall $32,969,609.00 $34,204,386.00 $8,232,573.00 $6,530,075.00 61 Taxes Figures 74 through 77 report the mean, median, and number of Diversion, Transition, male and female offenders who pa id state (figure 74 and 75) and federal (figure 76 and 77) taxes while participating in community corrections programs in both FYlO and FYll. Figure 74 State Taxes Withheld for Di version and Transition Offenders Diversion Tran si t i on IEmiiii-IEmllll-Mean $159.59 $155 .00 $80.20 $77.74 Median $13.00 $15.00 $0.00 $0.00 N 4179 3849 3600 3630 SUM $666,918.00 $596,576.00 $288,734.00 $282,202.00 Figure 75 State Taxes W ith held for Male and Female Offenders Mal es Female s --IEmllll-Mean $127.63 $122 .52 $105.83 $94.5 3 Median $5.00 $3.00 $4.00 $1.00 N 6073 6137 1706 1342 SUM $775,100.00 $751,917.00 $180,552.00 $126,861.00 Figure 76 Federal Taxes Withheld For Diversion and Transition Offenders Di ver si o n Transi t i on --IEmllll-Mean $344.64 $327.30 $155.69 $153.07 Media n $8.00 $13 .00 $0.00 $0.00 N 4179 3849 3600 3630 SUM $1,440,268.00 $1,259,890.00 $560,484.00 $555,648 .00 Figure 77 Federal Taxes Withheld For Male and Female Offenders Males Fem al es --IEmllll-Mean $272 .31 $254.23 $203.41 $190.25 Median $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 N 6073 6137 1706 1342 SUM $1,653,733.00 $1,560,222 .00 $347,019.00 $255,316.00 62 Fees Owed to Program at Termi n ation Some programs provide assistance to offenders in the form of subsistence fees, treatment fees, medical costs and transportation. Once employed, offenders are expected to reimburse the program for these costs; however, offenders sometimes terminate without repaying the program . In FY11, programs provided financial assistance to 6149 male offenders totaling $4,047,508 in funds that were still owed to the program upon discha rge. Figures 78 and 79 outline the financial burden that programs assume to assist offenders in receiving treatment, medical costs, and subsistence assistance in order to succeed in the community. Ch ild Su p po rt In addition to various treatment and living costs, offenders are responsible for fulfilling court-ordered child support obligations. Figures 80 and 81 show the sum totals of child support paid by offenders while in a community corrections program for both fiscal years. 6 3 Treatment When po ss ible, offenders are respons i ble for paying for the ir own treatment while in community corrections . Treatment may be for substance use, mental health, anger management, ed ucational services, etc. Offenders paid a total of $1,747,585 .00 in treatment costs in FYlO and $1,732,064 in FY11. The breakdown of sum s are presented in figures 82 and 83 . Re stitution and Other Court Costs Many offenders in community correction s owe restitution and other court costs associated with their criminal cases . Amounts owed range from less than one hundred dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Despite the removal of outlying values in the data set, due to some offenders who have very large amounts of restitution, the median figure is the best indication of what the average offender owes in restitution. In FYlO, Divers ion offenders owed $1,899 .50 at the median and Transition offenders owed $2,0 44.00 at the median . In FYll, Diversion offenders owed $2,013 .00 at the median and Transit ion offenders owed $1,925 .00 at the median . Figure 84 and 85 report the mean, median and sum total of restitution owed by offenders in community corrections. Figure 84 Res titutio n Owed by Di versio n and Tra nsi tion Offen de r s Diversion Transition -..m:..-..m:.. Mean $6,524.42 $7,232 .00 $9,482 .64 $7,299.00 Median $1,899.50 $2,013.00 $2,044.00 $1,925 .00 N 4336 3957 3641 3695 SUM $28,289,884.00 $28,618,755 .00 $34,526,307.00 $26,970,619 .00 Figu re 85 Res titutio n Owed by M al e and Fe m a l e Offende r s Males Females -..m:..-..m:.. Mean $7,153 .31 $6,806.95 $10,441.44 $9,376 .72 Median $1,857 .00 $1,864 .00 $2 ,469.00 $2,606.00 N 6227 6289 1750 1363 SUM $44,543,667 .00 $42,808,899.00 $18,272,524.00 $12,780,475 .00 64 The vast m ajo rity of community corrections o ffenders made rest itution payments while in a commun ity corrections program . The se payments can be seen in figures 86 and 87 . Fi gure 86 Restitution Paid by Diversion and Transition Offenders Diver sion Tran siti on --~----Mean $402.64 $429.10 $245 .83 $259.3 2 M edian $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 .00 N 4312 3936 3631 368 7 SUM $1,736,19LOO $1,688,949 .00 $892,603.00 $956,131.00 Figure 87 Restitution Paid by Male and Female Offenders Males Fe m al es --~----Mean $323.72 $332 .56 $356 .87 $41 3.40 Median $1,856.00 $0 .00 $2,447 .00 $0.00 N 6209 62 63 1734 1360 SUM $2,009,978.00 $2,082,853 .00 $618,816.00 $562,227.00 65 Sect ion VII Program Audits The DCJ has a statutory responsibility to audit Community Corrections programs. Residential , non-residential, Intensive Residential Treatment, and Residential Dual Diagnosis programs funded by the DCJ are subject to audits. Local community corrections boards, programs and referral agencies are notified two weeks in advance that an audit will be conducted . The audit team is generally on-site for 3 to 5 days. The audit team primarily consists of members of the DCJ Office of Community Corrections staff. Members of the local community corrections board/or board staff members, representatives of the Department of Corrections, and local probation officers are also invited to assist with the on-site work. Audits measure compliance with the statutes govern ing commun ity corrections, with the Colorado Community Corrections Standards and with contracts between the state and the program s to provide community corrections services. The audit team performs a variety of tasks, including: • A review of program policies and procedures; • A review of personnel fi les, client files and treatment files; and • Interviews with program staff and clients . Following the audit, a draft report is sent to the program for comment prior to r elease to the local Community Corrections Board and referral agenc ies. This report details all Standards reviewed and discusses areas in which the program is not in compliance with the Standards, with Colorado statutes or with contracts between the program and DCJ. The program is then required to submit a corrective action plan that describes how it will come into compliance. An unannounced follow-up audit is conducted within a one-year pe r iod following the release of the initial audit report. Follow-up audits ar e more limited in scope than initial audits. Documentation is reviewed to ensure corrective actions have been taken on all of the recommendations or findings from the initial audit. If a program desires to contest the findings of the DCJ Community Corrections Auditor, the program may appeal to the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice. If the findings are sustained by the Division Di r ector, the program may appeal to the Executive Director of the Department of Public Safety. The decision of the Executive Director is final from the state's perspective. The Office of Community Corrections conducted fieldwork (on -site audit activities) for 15 audits in FYlO and 15 in FYll. 66 Technical Assistance The Division of Criminal Justice is considered a resource by the local community corrections boards and programs. The Office of Community Corrections staff is available to provide training on issues related directly to community corrections, such as billing, Standards compliance, time credit statutes, completion of Client Termination Forms and the basic Standardized Offender Assessment process. The Office of Community Corrections staff is familiar with all of the community corrections programs statewide and may be able to offer suggestions to improve the operation of a program. In addition, the OCJ has a professional staff with a wide-ranging knowledge of the criminal justice system, including victim's issues, sex offender management, domestic violence management and the availability of grants. 67 Section VIII Noteworthy Accomplishments Each year the DCJ staff recognizes an exceptional community corrections program. Thi s year, we recognize the Denver Homeless Transition Program . The Denve r Homeless Transition Progra m The Denver Homeless Transition Program (DHTP) is a collaborative project between the Department of Corrections, Division of Criminal Justice, Denver Sheriff Department and the Denver Community Corrections Board (DCCB) that provides improved transition and discharge planning for individuals who would otherwise parole homeless to the City and Co unty of Denver. The beginning ....... After significant planning in 2008 in which representatives from the various stakeholder agencies met to discuss strategies concerning the number of individuals paroling homeless to Denver County, the DHTP was formed with the following guiding statement: To provide the offender who is paroling homeless an opportunity to establish employment and residence prior to parole release. The program ........ is located at the Denver County Jail and is housed in the Phase !/Mountain Parks Community Corrections Program and participants will remain on inmate status until paroled. Participants will have the assistance of the DOC Re -entry and Phase I staff for seeking and securing employment and housing along with the basic needs such as ID, referrals for clothing, and financial management classes. Classes offered include: Orientation Group : • Housing • Transportation • Clothing • T reatment Referrals • Personal Hygiene Items • Identification Resource s • Education and Training Resources • Referra ls to Support Services (i.e. CICP enrollment, Fatherhood Initiative, Colorado Legal Services) GED Prep and Te sting Computer Class • Rapid Typ ing • Money Smart Budget Program 68 Employment I and II • Where to Start • Resume Preparation • Employment for Ex Offenders • Career Assessment and Planning • Job Coaching and Job Placement Assistance • Job Search Tools and Techniques • Current Job listings and Job Referrals • Information on Federal Bonding and Tax Credit Information • Interviewing Workshop with Mock Interviews • Key Train and O*net Program Criteria • Male and Female Inmates who are identified homeless and within 9 months of their MRD and/or Parole Discharge date . If they are beyond 9 months to MRD/Discharge they can be referred at 12 months to MRD and placed at 9 months. • Must have active conviction out of Denver County • P-3's and a.bove prescribed and taking mediations will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis . • Violent offenders will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • Sex offenders will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Who is NOT eligible for the program: • No offenders with serious medical issues. • Offenders who have detainers • Offenders identified as Sexually Violent Predators/lifetime supervision offenders • Offenders that have refused Sex Offender Treatment • No 180 day turnarounds parole violators Referral Process The case manager needs to submit a Community Referral. Include DHTP in the Residence Section to identify this offender for the program and the fact that they would likely be paroling homeless otherwise. Referrals can be made 12 months prior to their MRD/Parole discharge date. The DCCB will continue to screen these and all DHTP applicants as per standard processes. Key Outcomes • DHTP began accepting placements in January 2009. To date, approximately 75% of those placed successfully completed the program and transferred to parole supervision. 69 Section IX Performance Measurement for Community Corrections In 1993, the Office of the State Auditor recommended that the Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) "improve its ability to measure program performance by ensuring that stated goals link to measurable objectives and that objectives tie to quantifiable performance measures." It was also recommended that DCJ shou ld "continue to identify and utilize methods to measure provider and offender success in community corrections. This includes identifyi ng mutually agreed-upon success measur es, es t ablishing reporting mechanisms, and conducting audits to ensure reported performance data are valid." Co n sisten t with the 1993 r eco mmen d ations, in 200 1, the State Audito r 's office recommended that DCJ "improve its ability to collect and report data tha t demonstrate results within the community corrections system." In FY 01-02, House Bill 02 -1077 r eq uired the Division to create a classification of community corrections pr ograms that is based on certain risk factors. This legislation allows the Division to audit lower performing community corrections programs more freq uently than higher performing p rograms. Program Characteristics -Community Correcti ons Risk Factor Analysis The Community Corrections Program Risk Factor Analysis is an annual measurement of p rogram cha r acteristics and performance against st ate sta n dards, contract requirements and several important performance measures used in corr ectional progr amming. The Division of Criminal Justice completed a baseline measurement of program risk factors in 2003 . Subsequently, follow-up analyses were conducted in 2004, 2006, and 2007 . After revisions to t h e Ri sk Factor Analysis model in 2008, analyses were con d ucted in 2009 , 2010, and most recently in 2011. The risk factor analysis is a multi-dimensional measure of p rogram performance in 25 ar eas . These performance measures fall into four ca t egories : outcome f actors, performance factors, staff stability factors, reporting factors. The outcome factor category consists of two performance measures that consi d er the r ates of escape and reci d ivism within eac h pr ogram. The measure also consi d ers the risk level of eac h progr am's offen der pop ulation, as d efined by average scores on t h e LSI. Th e performance f actor category cons ists of a series of performance measures use d to ca pture eac h program's level of compliance with the Color ado Community Corrections Standards . Eig hteen cr itica l sta nd ar ds have been selected by the Div ision of Cr iminal Justice an d a number of su bject matter ex perts to com p rise a multi- dimensio nal analysis of program performance. The dat a used for these pe rformance meas ures i ncludes the most recent DCJ p ublished audits. The staff stability factor ca t egory consists of t h ree perfo rm ance measures that ca p ture data r ega r ding t h e average length of employment f or essential staff positio ns in each community correction s progra m. Staff r etention an d turn ove r rates have been identified as problem areas in community corrections pr ogra m s as high turnover and lower staff r etention r ates may un dermine correctio nal p rogram m ing . The reporting f acto r ca t egory consists of two performance meas u res use d to captu re each p rogram 's level of compliance with entering data into the Community Corrections Information and Billing data management system . 70 Risk Factor Score A program's total Risk Factor Score is calculated by adding the individual scores from each performance measure. Programs are scored and subsequently placed into one of four risk factor categories . Programs that scored at or above the statewide median score were placed in level 1 or 2. Generally, programs in these lower performing categories are audited at intervals not to exceed three years . Programs in the higher performing categories (level 3 and 4) are audited at intervals not to exceed five years . Improved compliance with the Colorado Community Corrections Standards has resulted in an improvement in the overall risk factor sc ores . Figures 80 and 81 show the percentage of programs in each performance level between the Year 5 baseline report (RFA-2 Model) and the Year 7 analysis. It is encouraging that the percentage of program s in the higher performing levels has improved steadily over time. These changes demonstrate that higher performing programs continue to im prove their performance scores over the last several years. There still remain, however, a small number of programs that need improvement to have more standardization or consistency in program performance statewide. Overall, of the 12 program s with new or follow-up audits published since the Year 6 report, 8 showed a reduction in the overall risk factor score. A total of 15 programs reduced their scores from Year 6 to Year 7, with 5 program s moving to a higher performance level category. 71 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% SO% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 81 Distribution of Programs in Each Performance level Category Risk Factor Analysis Years 5 through 7 YearS Year6 Year7 72 Section X Governor's Community Corrections Advisory Council The Governor's Community Corrections Advisory Council is established by the Executive Order of the Governor. The Council wa s created to advise and assist the Division of Criminal Justice in analyzing and identifying problems or needs and recommending policy modifications or procedural changes in community corrections . The Council also develops strategie s, serves as a forum to address issues in community corrections and participates in planning efforts. The members of the Council represent various units of government and private interests that must work together for community corrections to effectively serve the citizens . Members are appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the Governor and receive no compensation for their participation. To address the purpose of the Advisory Council, the following objectives were identified: • To promote improved cooperation and coordination between criminal justice agencie s, community corrections boards and community corrections service providers. • To advise and assist the Division of Criminal Justice, the Judicial Department and the Department of Corrections in the areas of offender employment needs, substance use, risk management, and sentencing and placement alternatives. • To identify and promote strategies for legislation to achieve more effective offender management and thereby reduce crowding in state and county facilities . • To provide a mechanism for continuing education for Council members and legislators on current correctional issues . • To address is sues identified by the Governor and Colorado legislature for state needs and community corrections services. Subcommittee Functions and Accomplishments In order to meet these objectives, the Governor's Community Corrections Advi sory Council forms subcommittees to address various areas. Subcommittees include members of the Council, DCJ staff, and volunteers from specialized areas. Awards Subcommittee The Awards Subcommittee was created in 2001 to recognize the exceptional contributions of an individual in the arena of community corrections . The Adv isory Council presents this award at a meeting of the Colorado Associat ion of Community Corrections Board s. The exemplary efforts of these individuals have made a significant difference in community corrections. Past award recipients include: 73 2001 Jean Carlberg Citizen member, 1811l JD 2002 Stephen Schapanski 81h Judicial District Community Corrections Board member, representing the courts 2003 Norm Garneau 18 year member of the 21 51 Judicial District Community Corrections Board 2004 Dave Cutler 2005 Paul Cooper 2006 Edward Camp 2007 Cindy Talkington 2008 Paullsenstadt 2009 John Schmier 2010 Tom Giacinti and Tom Moore 2011 Dennis Berry Executive Director of the Arapahoe Community Treatment Center Chief Probation Officer, grn Judicial District Director, Office of Community Corrections, DCJ Director, Correctional Alternative Placement Services Director, ComCor, Inc. Director, Hilltop House l n Judicial District Board Staff 2 nd Judicial District Board Staff Di rector, Mesa County Community Corrections In April 2007 , the Distinguished Service Award was renamed the John Kuenhold Award in honor of Judge John Kuenhold , the Chair of the Governor's Community Corrections Advisory Council and Chief District Court Judge in the 12th Judicial District. Governor Richard Lamm appointed Judge Kuenhold to the Council in 1986. Judge Kuenhold has been the Chair of Advisory Council since that time. Judge Kuenhold is a strong advocate for community corrections in Colorado and remains an active member of the Community Corrections Board in the 12th Judicial District. Standards Subcommittee This subcommittee periodically reviews and recommends changes or modifications to the Colorado Community Corrections Standards. Throughout FYlO, this subcommittee worked tirelessly to develop revised Standards which were ultimately published in August 2010. The revised Standards contain many minor modifications as well as a few major additions. The table below outlines the Advisory Council membership for FYlO and FYll. 74 Governor's Fifth Community Corrections Advisory Counci l Membership Council Members Honorable 0 . John Kuenhold (Chairperson) 12th Judicial District, Ju<!&_e Senator Unda Newell Representative Uane Mcfayden Colorado General Assembly Colorado General Assembly Ch arles Garcia Paullsenstadt Deputy State Public Defender, Retired ComCor, Inc., Director Diane Tramutola-Lawson Kathryn Otten Colorado Cure, Chair Colorado Dept of Labor and Employment, Manager Harri et Hall Thomas A . Gia ci nti Jefferson Center for Mental Health, CEO Jefferson County Justice Services, Director Jeaneene Miller John Riley Adult Parole/Community Corrections DOC, Director Citizen M ember Jeffrey Mannix Honorable Christopher Cross Citizen Member 18th Judicial District, Judge Joseph Ferrando Arlstedes Zavaras Larimer County Community Corrections, Director Colorado Dept of Corrections, Executive Director Kallash Jaltley, PhD. Peter Weir Marriage and Family Treatment Center, Psychologist Colorado Dept of Public Safety, Executive Director Honorable Larry Abrahamson Thomas Quinn District Attorney Probation Services, Director Cecelia Mascarenas David Michaud Colorado Board of Parole, Retired Member Colorado Parole Board, Chairman Rich Batten Ernest Marquez Colorado Department of Human Services Attorney Philip Baca Alex Marquez Commerce City Chief of Police, Ret ired San luis Valley Community Corrections, Supervisor Frank Dubofsky Retired Judge, Mediator, Arbitrator, JAMS 75 Section XI Summary Community corrections in Colorado serves as a cost effective, quality sentencing alternative to prison for select offenders. Residential community corrections programs monitor offenders while delivering structured criminal justice services. These services help to modify behavior, deter criminal activity, and prepare offenders for successful reintegration into the community. The Office of Community Corrections (OCC/DCJ) is part of the Division of Criminal Justice in the Colorado Department of Public Safety. OCC/DCJ allocates money for community corrections to the state's local community corrections boards in 22 Judicial Districts. DCJ is al so charged with establishing state standards for community corrections programs, which may be operated by local government or nongovernmental entities. Individual community corrections programs are audited to determine levels of compliance with state standards. The audit schedule is partially determined by the risk level and performance of the programs. Technical assistance and training are also provided to community corrections boards, programs and referring agencies. The profile of the "typical" residential community corrections offender has been consistent for many years . Most community corrections offenders in FYlO and FYll were serving sentences for non-violent, mid-level felony offenses. The most common types of offenses committed by both Diversion and Transition offenders were drug- related crimes, theft, and burglary. Almost twenty percent (20%) of residential community corrections offenders had no prior convictions in both fiscal years. All offenders under community corrections superv1s1on are screened and assessed upon intake with the Standardized Offender Assessment Revised (SOA-R) process. The SOA -R process measures each offender's level of recidivism risk and his/her criminogenic needs, and detects and measures the severity of substance use. The SOA -R process then provides a treatment recommendation. According to two separate measure of criminal risk (the LSI and the Criminal History Score) the risk levels of the Colorado community corrections population have been increasing over the last decade. Both male and female offenders had lower risk-level scores after at least 6 months of community corrections supervision, which indicate a lower risk of recidivism prior to or upon termination. Female offenders make up approximately twenty percent (20 %) of the overall community corrections population. Females tended to have higher risk leve l s, higher substance use disruption and higher criminogenic needs. As a result, females comprise a higher proportion of those in need of the most intensive levels of substance use treatment. In addition, female offenders have higher rates of mental illness and therefore represent a higher proportion of those in need of mental health services. In addition to female offender populations, IRT and ROOT offenders also had higher risk levels, more identified criminogenic needs, and higher rates of mental illness. IRT and ROOT offenders are offered a number of additional services while in specialized treatment programs and, overall, showed improvements in their risk scores after time in the program. Success for short-term, jail-based residential program offenders is demonstrated by over 70% successfully completing the program or being transferred to another community corrections program . 76 Community corrections offenders in Colorado contributed financially to their placement, programming and to the community while under supervision . Overall, community corrections offenders earned over 40 million dollars in both FYlO and FYll. These earnings led to almost 1 million dollars in state taxes and over 1.8 million dollars in federal taxes In both fiscal years . Offenders contributed to over 1.5 million dollars of treatment costs, and more than 1 million dollars in child support in both fiscal years. In addition, community corrections offenders paid over 10 million dollars in subsistence payments to programs in FY10 and over 11 million dollars in FY11 . Despite these numbers, offenders owed programs over 4 million dollars in both fiscal years. Colorado community corrections programs have had to be creative in finding ways to meet the growing needs of their clients given constant per diem levels for the last several years and previous decreases . De spite these challenges, the statewide average Risk Factor Analysi s score has improved steadily over time. The highest scores have also improved steadily over time. These findings demonstrate that most programs, including the highest and lowest risk, have improved performance over the last several years. 77 I) September 2012 Department of Public Safety James H. Davis-Executive Director Division of Criminal Justice Jeanne Smith -Director Office of Community Corrections Glenn A, Tapia -Director Alexandra Walker, Project Manager 700 l<lpllng Street, Suit~ 1000 Lakewood, co 80215 The Community Corrections Risk Factor Analysis is a project undertaken by the Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Community Corrections. Each staff member of the OffiCe of Community Corrections made significant contributions to the analysis and provided Input Into Its design . The contributing staff In the Office of Community Corrections are as follows : Glenn A. Tapia Program Director Alexandra Walker Interagency Criminal Justice Specialist Mindy Miklos Community Corrections Speoiarist Christine Schmid Commun ity Coi'T&Ctions Aud itor Vatarle Schamper Community Corrections Auditor Arlene Duran Community Corrections Anandal Officer Laura Attobelll Community Corrections Technician JJrn Pyle Community Corrections Auditor OFFICE OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS 700 Kipling Street. Suite 3000 Denver, CO 60215 (303) 239-4442 Fax: (303) 2394411 Ttl& Division Qf Criminal Justice would also like to J~cknowledge the members of the following organizations for their p~rtlclpatlon and contfibl!Uon Jo the Community COill3Ctlons Risk Factor Anatysts : The Governor's Community Correction• AdvJaory Council The CoiOfado Departmeot of Correction• TJM Colorado Aaaoclation of Communtty Correction• Board• The Colorado CommunitY Conectiona Oo.litiOI\ Table of Contents Introduction and Overview......................................................................................... 1 Perfonnance Measures ................................... . .. . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. 3 Outcome Factors ..................................................................................................... 4 Program Perfonnance Factors ................................................................................... 6 Staff Stability Factors ............................................................................................... 12 Reporting Factors ......................... . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . ... .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . 14 Total Risk Factor Scores .......................................................................................... 15 Observations , Recommendations , lmpfications to Audit Process ....................................... 18 R.isk Factor Analys is Worksheet.............................................................................. 23 INTRODUCllON AND OVERVIEW Pursuant to state statute, the Division of Criminal Justice completed a baseline measurement of program risk factors in 2003. Subsequently, follow -up analyses were conducted in 2004,2006, and 2007 . After revisions to the Risk Factor Analysis model in 2008, analyses were conducted in 2009,20 10 and 2011 . The cWTCilt report is based on data from fiscal year 2012. The risk factor analysis, as revised, is a mu lti-dimensional review of program performance on 25 independent measures . For each program. a total risk factor score is calculated by adding up the scores from each of the 25 performance measures. Programs placed in the Level 1 category are either new programs (for which DCJ has no data) or Lhose that have accrued more points than programs in the other categories . Therefore, the accumulation of risk factor points ultimately results in being placed into a lower perfonnance level. This report summariz.es the risk facto r analysis scores for 33 community corrections programs. The overall results are indicated below and are explained in greater detail in the body of this report. Commurut y Cur 1 cdrun~ Progr .un lul.tl Rt'>"-1-dLIUr Per for Jll.IIICC Pntnh Act rued Level (Perc enlil£Jf') -----Crossroads Turning Point 44.4% Level2 Minnequa Community Corrections 33 .0% Williams Street Center 23 .0% CMI -Columbine 22.0% Lonemont Community Treatment Center (CMD 22.0% CMI -Ulster 22.0% Independence House -Fillmore 22.0% Phoenix Centa-20.0% Level3 San Luis Valley Community CoTTeCtions 19.00/o Advantage Treatment Center-Sterling• 18 .00/o Correctional Alternative Placement Services 18.0% Independence House -Pecos 18.0% Tooley Hall 17.0% Intervention Community Corrections Services -Weld 16 .7% CMI-Dahlia 15 .00/o Community Alternatives ofEl Paso County, Inc. 15 .00/c, Larimer County Community Corrections 15.0% Pueblo Community Corrections Services, Inc . • 15.0% Centennial Corrections Transitions Center" 14.0% Time to Change -Commerce City 13 .3% Garfield County Community Corrections 12 .0% Arapahoe County Res idential CeoteT 11 .0% Southwest Colorado Community Corrections Center (Hilltop House) 11.0% Arapahoe Community Treatment Center 10.0% Le\el4 Mesa County Community Corrections 10.0% COMCOR. Inc 9.0% Boulder Community Treatment Centa (CMI)• 8.0% CMI -Fox 7.0% Peer 1-The Haven 7.0% Time to Cbanee 4.0% Intervention Community Corrections Services -Jefferson County 3 .0% Peer I 3.0% ThiJ JI"'8JUD lw a lUll or follow up audit report pcnc1inJ Sec the Pc:rfonnancc Facton aectwo lor m..o: cktall~. Pursuant to C.R.S. 17-27-108 (l)(B), the Division of Criminal Justice bas completed its seventh measurement of program risk factors. This project was undertaken in response to House Bill 02-1077, which stated, in part: The Division of Criminal Justice shall implement a schedule for audit ing community comxtions programs thaJ is based on risk factors such that ccmmunity co"ections programs with low risk factors shall be audited less frequently than community corrections programs with higher risk factors... The Division of Criminal Justice shall create classifications of community co"ections programs that are based on risk factors as those factors are established by standards of the Division ofCriminal Justice. Furth eon ore, in 2001, the Office of the State Auditor recommended that the Division of Criminal Justice should improve the performance of local community corrections programs by "incorporating measurable performa.ooe expectations and a systematic process for monitoring and enforcing compliance with those expectations ." The risk factor analysis is a multi-dimensional review of program performance on 25 independent performance measures . These pe:rfonnance measures fall into four categories of factors including: Outcome, Performance, Staff Stability and R eporting. This report sum.m.arizes the scores fo r each community corrections program by each of these categories. For each program, the total risk factor score is calculated by adding up the scores from each of the 25 performance measures. As indicated previously, pro~ placed in the Level 1 category are either new programs or those that have accrued more points than programs in the Leve14 category. Therefore, the accumulation of risk factor points ultimately results in being placed into a lower level performance category. The distnbution of the total risk factor score is broken down as fo llows: ( .... :.;•01 \ '\nlltl••• "ll '.lllll ll l.llhl 1 .. I\ • Ill "' I ul.tl \J. .• , .. ,,, ,,01\ O utcom~ factors 2 20% Performance Factors 18 61% Staff Stability Factors 3 15% Reporting Factors 2 4% TOTAL (OveraU) 15 100,. J. This report summ arizes the risk factor analysis scores for 32 community corrections programs . Intervention Community Corrections Services -West is a new program and therefore does not have data available to report. Three (3) other programs were not included in the analysis. Independence House-South Federal bas reorganized and accepts primarily Federal clients and supervises very few state clients. Gateway: Through the Rockies and Phase l are unique jail-based programs that operate on performance standards different than traditional community corrections programs. Both programs have waivers on numerous state standards. which minimize tbe data available to complete a risk factor analysis fo r these programs. Table A reports each perfonnance measure, the maximum points possible for each measure, and the statewide average score for each measure. Table A ( .I I ' :.; II ' \ .... , ... ,. •.• ,." \h .• , ... ' " Ill" 11!. • \ I l'r ~~~ 1 1111' r ,, •\ltl !lli ''' J ' ' I'•Hlll-- O trrCOME Es l. cape Factor 10 1.8 FACfORS 2. Recidivism Factor 10 1.0 3 . Background Check (2..040) -Exhibit A Audit 5 0 .1 4 . Staff Annual Training (2-110) s 0.6 PE RFORMANCE S. Case Manaaer Education_(2-l40) 4 0 .0 FACI'ORS 6. Monthl_y Staff Meetings{3..020) 2 0 .2 7. Self Audits of Program Operations (3-190) s 0 .6 (Based on State 8 . Offender Advisement (4-010) 2 0 .0 Community 9. Medications (4-040) 2 0 .1 CoJTCCtions 10 . UAComp llance(Ava. of4-tOO,llO, 120, 130) 4 0.1 Standards) 11 . Random Off Site Monitorin.a ( 4-160) 6 1.5 12 . J ob Seareh Accountability (4-161) 4 1.6 13 . Random Headcounts (4-200) 2 0.1 14 . Recording Authorized Absences (4 -210) 2 0.2 15 . W eekly Meetin~ (6...070) 2 0 .0 16. Chronoloaical/Pro~ Notes (6...080) 2 0.1 17. Assessment~! (6-090) 2 0.2 18 . Supervisjon Plan (6-100) 4 1.3 19 . Structured Proaress Feedback (6-110) 4 0.7 20. Refen:als to Qualified Treatment Providers (6·160) 4 0 .7 STAFF 2 1. Security Stafr 5 1.3 STABWTY 22. Case Manatcment Staff s 1.3 FACfORS 23. Program Admirustratlon s 1.4 REPORTING 24. CCIB Comp Uance -E ntnr_Reeords 2 0 .3 FACfORS 25. CCW Comp hance .... Tennmahon R ecords 2 0 .5 J Oytmme Factprs The Outcome Factor category consists of two performance measures that consider the rates of escape and recidivism within each program. The measures also consider the risk level of each program's offender population as meas~ by the average scores on the LeveJ of Supervision Inventory (LSI). The use of this control measure is based on supported knowledge that higher risk offender populations have higher rates of recidivism and higher rates of escape. Programs with disproportionately high rates of escape and recidivism will accrue more risk factor points than programs with lower rates . The Escape Factor measure is calculated by dividing each program's escape percentage from CY 2011 by the average LSI score of their offender population during that same year. The Recidivism Factor measure is calculated by dividing each program 's 12-month recidivism percentage by the average LSI score oftheir offender population. Item scores in t.his category are waived when escape or ~divism data arc not available from programs . The recidivism data were derived from a research project undertaken by the DCJ. The Office of Research and Statistics recently completed a recidivism analysis for community corrections in Colorado. Specific recidivism data used in this report were derived from offender terminations between fiscal years 2005 through 2008. The DC1 defines recidivism as new misdemeanor or felony filings within 12 months of successful termination from residential supervision. Due to limitations regarding the availability of Denver County Court data, the data used for the analysis consider district court filings only. Therefore, county court tilings are not constdered in the recidivism figures used for the analysis . The worksheet for the risk factor analysis shows the values 8lld cut-offs used to assign points to the items in this category. The Outcome Factor section of the wor1csbcet is included below as a frame of reference. Ouh.ullrt: f'co~lur" Dolo lru111 C llt:llllul ulluollull Fu1111 orrli!JCJ Rt:o..I~IVI~III ~tully 1. Esc1pe Factor. ~sc. RA* I A~tg . flop RIM Score <0> less then .35 (lJ Greeter tl'lan/equal to .35 but tess than .50 «: Greater than/equal to .50 but less than 65 $1 Gr eater than/equal to .65 but less than 80 <ll Gr eater than/equal to .80 but less than 90 4'> Greater or ua l to 90 2 . Recacttvtam fiC10r: Rec RMe 1 Avg Pop Rltk Scort C ~ess than .45 ~ Greeter than or equal to .46 but leas than .56 ® Greate r then or equal to .55 but less than .65 $ Greater than or equal to .65 but less than 70 $ Greate r than or equal to .70 but less then .76 ~ Greater than o r e ua l to .75 4 Table B reports the scores for each community corrections program in the Outcome Factor Category. Table B Program Performana: faciDrs The Perfonn.ance Factor category consists of a series of perfonnance measures used to address each program's level of compliance with certain standards within the Colorado Community Corrections Standards (C.C.C.S). Several critical standards have been selected by the Division of Criminal Justice to comprise a multi- dimensional analysis of program performance. These factors were also rated by community corrections subject matter experts as having a substantial impact on public safety, offender management. and offender treatment Programs that perform below state standard on these measures will accrue more risk factor points than prognml.S that meet or exceed these standards. The data used for these performance measures were derived from the most recent DCJ audit of each program. including the last follow-up audjt, if applicable. Full Jmd follow up audit reports that were fina1ized after June lOih, 2011, will be considered in future risk factor analyses. Item scores are waived in cases where programs have an authorized waiver from DCJ for that particular standard. The worksheet for the risk factor analysis shows the values and cut-offs used to assign points to the items in this category. The Program Perfonnance section of the worksheet is included below as a frame ofrcfercmce. P~r1urrnant.t: F.1Ltur~ Rcrtrrry~ l ru111 Mo~t Rt>ct•nt Audit IJI t-olluw Up Audrt 3. Ba~ Chedc: (2-o40)-Exhlbft A Audit C SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) (3) Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) ~ Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 4. Staff Anndl Training (2·110) C SatisfactO{}'Nery Satisfactory (>=85%) (3) Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) $ Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 5. Case Manager Education (2·140) C SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) ® Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) ® Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 6. Monthly St.tf Meettnge (3-020) Cl SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) (!) Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) (2) Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 7 .Self Audita of Program Operations (S-180) C SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) G> Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) ~ Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 8. Offender AdviHment (4-010) C SatlsfactoryNery Satisfactory {>=85%) <D Needs lmprovement ·(70% to 84%) CZ> Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 8. MedlcatloM (4-040) @ SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>:;85%) CD Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) ® Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 10. UA Compliance (Avg of-4-100, 1'10, 120,130) C SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) Q;) Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) ® Unsatisfactory (69% or petow) 11. Random Oft Site Monitoring (4-160) ~ SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) Q> Needs lmproveme11t (70% to 84%) (I) Unsatisfacto 69% or belo 2 Name of 10tandard changed i,!l2009 with the revisiop of~ u .. t:S 5 Name of standard changed in 2009 with the revision of the CCCS 12. Job 6Nrch Accountabfl~(-4-161) ~ SatlsfactoryNery Satisfactory (>:85%) CZ> Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) ® Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 13. Random Hudcounta (4-200) $ SatlsfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) CD Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) CZ> Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 14. Reconllng Authorized Abe•nc. (..._210) t1» SatlsfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) <D Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) CZ> Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 15. Weekly Meetlnge (6-470) ~ SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) <D Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) qJ Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 16. Chronologlcei/Prograa Not• (6..o&O) @ SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>;:85%) <D Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) <2> Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 17. Aa .... ments (e.oiO} ~ SatlsfactoryNery Sati$factory (>=85%) <D Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) (b Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 18. Supervt.ton Plan (6-iOO) ® SatlsfactoryNery Satisfactory {>=85%) ® Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) ® Unsatisfactory (69% or below} 19. StrUctured ProgNM Feedbllck (6-110f' $ SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) a> Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) ® Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 20. Offender Trubnent Monltot'tng (6-1to)J ~ SatlsfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) a> Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) ® Unsatisfactofi 69% or belo 6 Tables Cl through C4 report the scores for each community corrections program in the Performance Factor Category. Table Cl reports the scores for each community corrections program for the following sections of the Colorado Community Corrections Standards (C.C.C.S): C.C.C.S. 2-040 -Background Check C.C.C.S. 2-110 -Staff Annual Training C.C.C.S. 2-140 -Case Manager Education C.C.C.S. 3-020 -Monthly Staff Meetings C.C.C.S. 3-190 -Self-Audits ofProgram Operations Table C2 reports the scores for each community corrections program for the following sections of the Colorado Community Corrections Standards (C.C.C.S): C.C.C.S. 4-010 -Offender Advisement C.C.C.S. 4-040 -Medications C.C.C.S. 4-100,4-110, 4-UO. 4-130 -UA Compliance (AVG of 4-100, 110, 120, and 130) C.C.C.S. 4-160 -Random OfT-Site Monitoring C.C.C.S • .f-.161 -Job Searoh Accountability Table C3 reports the scores for each community corrections program for the following sections of the Colorado Community Corrections Standards (C.C.C.S): C.C.C.S. 4-100 -Random Headcounts C.C.C.S • .f-.210 -Recording Authorized Absences C.C.C.S. 6-070 -Weekly Meetings C.C.C.S. &-080 -ChronologicaJ/Progress Notes C.C.C.S. '-090 -Assessments Table C4 reports the scores for each community corrections program for the following sections of the Colorado Community Corrections Standards (C.C.C.S): C.C.C.S. 6-100 -Supervision Plan C.C.C.S. 6-110-Review of Offender Progress C.C.C.S. 6-160-Ref~ls to Qualified Treatment Providers Programs matked in tables Cl through C4 with an asterisk~ those that had an audit with a pending report that was not published between the cutoff date of 6/10/2012 and the publication of this report. Therefore the performance measure scores listed below may not reflect that of the most recent DCJ audit fmding.s. Scores in the pctfonnance measure section may be higher or lower, and in some cases significantly so, depending on DCJ audit findings. Consequently. a program may move from one performance level to another should their perfonnance measure scores change significantly. In cases where program performance has either improved or declined substantially, the impact on the performance level can be significant. 7 :Table C1 8 Table C2 I CCCS 4-161 (JOb Scilmhh-oe•"'uy}\n ~ ~~y.DOJ llll dlla 1*11)' 011 progams~hll have been .udited since lntqllion of the llandard. 9 Table C3 10 Table C4 11 Staff Stability Factprs Staff retention and turnover rates have been identified as problem areas in community corrections programs (Gonzales-Woodburn, Suzanne and English. Kim. 2002). High twnover and lower staff retention rates may undermine effective correctional programming. This category of th e risk factor analysis consists of~ performance measures that include data regarding the average Length of empl oyment fo r essential staff positions in each community corrections program . Programs with disproportionately short lengths of staff employment will accrue more risk factor points than programs with longer lengths of employment in these positions. The data used for these performance measures were derived from the 2012 'Exhibit N staff rosters. The worksheet for the rislc factor analysis shows the values and cut~ffs used to assign points to the items in this category. The Staff Stability section of the woricsheet is inc luded below as a frame of reference. S!dll St..stJtllly Fr..~ctot:::. Avt:rdyl' Lcnyth ur Em~luyllt~rtt 21 . 8tab1Hty Pac;:tor A : Secu1ty $ Greater tha n 30 mos (j) 22 to 30 months t2l 17 tf.l 22 months ~ 12 to 17 months ® 7 to 12 months {I! 0 to 7 months 2 2. Stability Factor IS : Case Mgt 1l) Greater than 48 mo$ G) 38 to 48 months ftl ?R tn ~1\ mnnth~ ~ 1 8 to 28 months $ 8 to 18 months (S) 0 to 1 0 months Mtttydlllly hH.I015 23. Stability factor C : Prg . Adm in (1) Greeter th a n 100 mos <D 80 to 1 00 months (?) 60 to 80 months 11' 40 to 60 months 20 to 40 months G 0 to 20 month$ Fo r program s that ex pand more than 33% of ortglnat bed capacity [2 Year Eligibility onlY) -Q) Progr.m Expansion -~ Program Exp•l'l&ion Oeductton Deduction For New Programs [2 Yur Ellalbltity OntvJ ~ Waiver of Program ·~ WaiVer of Program \&! Waiver of Prog ram Stability Potnts Stability Points Stability Poi nts 12 TableD reports the scores for each community corrections program in the Staff Stability Factor Category . TableD Reporting Factpq The Reporting Factor category consists of tw o performance measures used to address each program's level of compliance with reporting data into the Community Corrections Information and Billing (CCIB) system . Programs that do not meet the requirements on these measures will accrue more risk factor points than programs that meet or exceed the requirements . The data used for these performance measures reflect CCIB data from FY12. The worksheet for the risk factor analysis shows the values and cut-offs used to assign points to the items in this category. The Reporting Factor section of the worksheet is included below as a frame of reference. Table E reports the scores for each community corrections program in the Reporting Factors Category . Rt> orllll\.1 Fdctor~ 24. CCIB Compllence-!ntry 25. CCIB Compliance • Tenwln.tton 0 Satl sfactoryN ery Satisfactory (>:86o/o) 0 SetlsfactoryN ery Setisfectory (>•86%) (i) Needs Improvement (70 % to 84%) (j) Needs Improvement (70% to 84 %) ¢ Unsetl sfacto 89% o r bel ow 0 UnsatJsfacto 69% or below Table E 14 Total Risk Factpr Smre A program 's Total Risk Factor Score is calculated by adding the individual scores from each performance measure. It does not consider points waived by DCJ. Scores are then converted to a percentage scale of 0% to 100% based on the number of points accrued divided by the maximum number of points possible. Programs were then ranked according to the percentage of possible points accrued and were subsequently placed into one of four (4) performance categories. These categories are explained below: Le"els 1 and 2 -Programs that scored more than 50% (Percentage Score) are placed into the Levell category. The Level 1 category is also used for new programs for which DCJ bas no performance data. Programs that scored between 30% and 50% (Percentage Score) were placed into the Level2 category. Generally, programs in these two categories will be audited at intervals not to exceed three years . Effecti ve July 1, 201l ,local community corrections boards will not disburse DCJ community col'l"CCtions funds for services rendered by any community corrections program or provider at any location that has been designated as a Level 1 program or provider pursuant to the two most recently revised Risk Factor Aoalysis publications . The exceptions are: • New programs, defined as a program or provider that has been operating at its current location for les s than 24 months, or • A program or provider that has not had at least one fuU performance audit or at least one follow-up perfonnance audit within the 12 months preceding the publication of the most recently revised Risk Factor Analysis. or • The local board b.as received wrinen consent from DCJ to continue to disburse funds to the Level 1 program or provider. Levels3 and 4 -Programs that scored between 15% and 30% (Percentage Score) were placed into the Level 3 category. Programs that scored 15% (Percentage Score) or less were placed into the Levcl4 category . Generally. programs in these two categories will be audited at intervals not to exceed five years. The worksheet for the risk. factor analysis shows the values and cut-offs used to assign categories to the programs based on their percentage score. The .final scoring section of the woJtsb_eet is included below as a frame of reference . l-'r1Lrlllt1\1~"" !:.Lulc 1-'clfullltOIIlC L~:vcl AuJt: C~Lit Rang ~: 15%.30% Level 3 Progr•m ..)U",, ::IU"/" I cvcl ~ 1-'cv~toou J ~coo 50'/o to 100% Level 1 Program or New Program Table F reports the overall scores for each Community Corrections program and their respective risk. factor rating . This is also reported graphically in Figure F . Table F Colltlllurllty Correc t 1ons Pro~Jr.lm Tot,JI R1'-k t-.11 tor Perl or m,mce Po nl~ Ac cr ucd Level I Pt>rt t'lll.19e I ----Crossroads Turning Point 44.4% Level2 Minnequa Community Corrections 33.0% Williams Street Center 23.0% CMI -Columbine 22.0% Longmont Community Treatment Center (CMI) 22.0% CMJ-U lster 22.0% Independence House -Fillmore 22.0% Phoenix Center 20.0%, L-=vd 3 San Luis Val ley Community Corrections 19.0% Advantage Treatment Center -Sterling 18 .0% Com:ctionaJ Alternative Placement Services 18.0% Independence House Pecos 18.0% Tooley Hall 17.0% Intervention Commun ity Corrections Services -Weld 16.7% CMI-Dahlia 15.0% Community Alternatives of E1 Paso County. Inc. 15.0% Larimer Couruy Community Corrections 15.0% Pueblo Community Corrections Services. Inc. 15.0% Centennial Corrections Transitions Center 14.0% Time to Chan~ -Commerce City 13.3% Garfield County Community Corrections 12 .0% Arapahoe County Residential Center 11.0% Southwest Colorado Community Corrections Center (Hilltop House) 11.0% l~nl4 ~oe Community Treatment Center 10.0% Mesa County Community Corrections 10.0% COMCOR, Inc 9.0% Boulder Community Treatment Center (CMI) 8.0% CMI-Folt 7.0% Peer J-The Haven 7.0% Time to Change 4.0% Intervention Community Corrections Services -Jefferson County 3.0% Peer I 3.0% to ------., Oblemtions Bsel'dlng Eighth-Year Analysis The performance measures used in the Community Corrections Risk Factor analyses are dynamic measures that are sensitive to change in program performance and program characteristics. The performance factors, in particular, may change with new audit scores or follow-up audit scores. Reductions in overall scores demonstrate an improvement in performance over time. Although reductions in overal l risk factor scores may be impacted by factors in the other three categories, the Performance Factor category comprises nearly two.. thirds of the overall risk factor score and has a strong impact on the overall rating. Stat ewide Performance In the eighth year of the risk factor analysis, 12 of the 32 progmms had either a full or follow up audit report completed which can impact their overall risk factor score and perfonnance level ratings. Improving compliance with state standards results in a decrease in the overall risk factor scores for a particular program. Compared to Year 7. the DCJ also has new data for the Escape Factor, Staff Stability Factors, and Reporting Fac tors. Changes in these areas will also result in changes to program scores and ratings. Table G shows the lowest, average, and highest statewide scores between the Year 5 baseline report, the Year 6 and 7 analyses, and the current Year 8 analysis. AlthouJ}l propam perfonnaoce is seemingly improving in places throughout the system, there still exists a wide gap between the highest performing and lowest perfonning programs. Despite this, the distance between the highest and lowest 5COres of the Risk Factor Analysis bas decreased for the first time since the Year 5 baseline. It would be advantageous to have more standardization or consistency in program performance statewide. TableG "1.111 \\ Jd. '' ...... 1 1.1" 11 11\ \ \ ... " \ \ oi l \ \ ... ;'\ Lowest Score 5.2% 2.lWo 3.0% 3 .0% Average Score 20.5% 18.1% 18.1% 15.5% Highest Score 39.6% 43.0% 53 .3% 44.4% GAP (Lowest to 34.4 Pacentage 41 .0 Percentage 50.3 Percentage 41 .4 Percentage ffiahest) Points Points Points Points 18 Table H shows the percentage of programs, by year, placed into each performance level ca tegory as a result of the Risk Factor Analysis. This is displayed graphically in Figure H. lW,.. 9Cffl. 80% IC!Yo bCJK 50% 4 ()% :3 0% JU'KI 10% 0% Table H Figure H Distribution of Programs in Each Performance Level Category Risk Factor Analysis Year 5 through 8 I C:"C , ve .. r~ Year b ve .. r 1 Ye a r!:! uc:-~plle the gap wluch eAJsLs b<:twt:eu the hlgh~l ~d lowest pcdonniu~ prognuu!), u as nott:worth)' lh.atliLU\..e the Year S Baseline Analysis there has been an increase in the number of programs that fall in higher performmg categories. 19 lndivid u1l Program Performance Table I shows each program's scores over the course o f the last 2 years o f Risk Factor Anal ysis. It also show s the risk factor category in which each program was placed for both years. A decrease in score from Year 7 to Year 8 (indicated in shaded and bold print) indicates an overall improvement in performance. More than 50% of programs ( 17 programs overall) decreased their score from Year 7, with another 3 programs maintaining their total score and remaining in level4. In some cases (6 programs overall), the improvements resulted in being placed into a higher performance level category. Table I 1"1\llo.l< \\1 '\\I I I'• I Ito! Ill IIH 1 1\ tlllllll.ilht 4 II j •• _, \ I '' ••• t ' r ,, lq \ 'f ' -I, ,,1 I , 'II '" ' I ~ CI'P 53-lnt ~...ft.~ I 44M% IAWI1 -I.JI% MINN .M.el%~· Lewl2 33..11% lAwll ·I .II% wsc 21M% Lewl3 U.GI% 1Aw13 -5M% CMI.vlller 31.11% IA¥el3 21M% Lt¥113 .a.lt% -Lewl3 -f~ IH·FL 29.10% 22.11% lAwl3 _,...,. CMI.COUJM 1?.80% Lcvol 3 11.00% Level 3 2.200Ao LCTC 12.00% Level4 22.00% l..evel 3 10.00% -· . --r-w-.00% . PHOENIX CT R 1 7.800~ Levcl 3 Levc.l 3 2.20% 'Srvcc 17.00% Level 3 19.00% Levd 3 2.000/e IH -P 36.18% 1Aw12 11.11% -1Aw13 -liM% ~· --~.11%~~ ATC-smttaa 21.11% Lnel 3 liM% 1Aw13 CAPS 17.00% Level 3 18.00% Level3 1.00% TOOLEY 15.000/e Level4 17.000/e Level 3 2 .00'/t - ICCS.Weld 27.10% Levell 16.11% l..ewl3 ·I I .UWe LCCC U_..4 Lewel 3 15.11% Le*4 -1.11% CCSI 22.11% Leftll 15.11% Ln eU -7.10% CMI-Dahl ia 14.60% Leve14 IS.OO% Level4 0.40-1. CAE 14.00'/o Level4 I S.OOO/e Level4 1.00'/e CCTC 14.000.4 Levcl4 14 .00% Level4 0.00% TIC -CC --~3 .3"0% Levei4 13.00% Levd4 0.300.4 occc 25.80% Lewel3 12.11% Lnel 4 ·13.11% HTH 16.ot% Levell liM% IAMU -5.10% ACRC u.oe•~e Lewl4 I-IUMt% c-· Lnet4 -U I% ACTC 9.000/e Level4 10.00% Level 4 1.00% MCCC 3.00% Level4 10.000/e Level4 7.00% -. COMCOR, lm. 9.00% Level4 9.00% Level4 0.000/o sere 8.00% Levd4 8.00% Level 4 0.00% CMI..fOX ll..GI% ......... 7.W4 t.n.l 4 -5.11% HAVE N 6.00% Levd4 7.000/o Level4 1.00% TTC·Ada~aa 1M% Lewl4 4.01% Uwl4 -JM% ICCS-.Itfte• 11.10% IAWI4 3.11% Lewl4 -7.11% ..... -..... ,_-~~ Lewl4 r-ill% ·-Lnel 4 ·l .tl% -· Table J shows each prog.~m ·s scores since ll t~ baseline Rlsk Factor Anal y ~i s in Year~-h also show s ~ nsk factor category in which each program was placed for the past four years. A decrease in score from YearS to Year 8 (indicated in s haded and bold print) indicates an overall improvement in performance over the four years . A total of20 programs decreased their score from their baseline score in Year 5. For 13 programs the improvements resulted in being placed into a higher perfonnance level category. ._.._.,_..,,,...._...,..,.. .. ~ _,.,.,,,,...,., ••• •-••••• ••• ••·-• ••••• • ~ ,,,.,._.,,, t tnt t o",,,,.,,,.,. •• ,., 1, •"'•••••, • 20 Tabte J 21 Umltatigos of tfle Risk faclpr Analysis The statutory intent of the Risk Factor Analysis is to examine factors that could adversely affect elements of public safety and offender management. The analysis is not designed to acknowledge -nor does its scoring system reward -the superior work done by many programs in specific areas of treabnent or offender reintegration. Some programs have had an audit and have a pending full or follow-up report that was not published between the cutoff date of 6 /1 0/2012 and the publication of this report. Therefore the pcrfonnance measure scores listed in the Year 8 Risk Factor Analysis may not reflect that of the most recent OCJ audit findings. Scores in the performance measu.re section may be higher or lower, and in some cases significantly so, depending oo OCJ audit findings . Consequently, a program may move from one level to another should their performance measure scores change. In cases where program perfonnance has either improved or declined substantially, the impact on the performance level can be significant The OCJ strongly recommends that the Risk Factor Analysis scores principally be used as an important tool for internal programmatic analysis and improvement in the measured areas related to public safety and offender management. OCJ strongly urges local community corm:tions boards and other observers to recognize that the Risk Factor Analysis is not intended to thorou.lthJy assess the value of each program to the community, which be expressed through the richness or breadth of programming that is not measured in the analysis . future Risk fadpr Anabcas It is important to note that the C\Ul"Cnl report represents the fourth measurement after a new baseline analysis of program performance was set in 2008 . Due to this report being based oo a revised analysis model, caution and discernment should be exercised when comparing this report to any reports prior to 2008 . It is the intention of the Division of Criminal Justice to analyze the program risk factors on 81\ annual basis and to report the scores accordingly. Each perfonnance measure is dynamic and can change as each program's performance changes in these areas. This means that scores can increase or decrease depending on how practices change within each program. Recommendations The data from tbe risk factor analysis should be used for planning purposes in order to improve sub-standard performance and to maintain positjvc perfo(1Dance . If programs desire to lower their risk factor score and change their overall rating, it is recommended that they focus m.anagcm~t control efforts on the perfonnance measures in which risk factor points were accrued. lt should also be noted that in areas where no risk factor points were accrued. programs should make every effort to maintain that level of performance . lmolicaUoos to the AU(IIt PI'P?" Pursuant to the Colomdo Revised Statutes, the Division of Criminal Justice will schedule pro~ audits based on the outcomes of this risk factor analysis . Generally, Levell and Levell programs will be placed on an audit schedule such that no mo(e than ) years wiU expire between audits . Level3 and Level4 programs will be scheduled for audit so thal no more than S y~ will expire between audits. It is important to note, however, that circumstances may arise that could result in DCJ conducting an audit ~ frequently than what is compulsory by the risk factor analysis. The Division of Crimina\ Justice shall maintain the flexibility to audit more frequently than the risk factor guidelines if circumstances and resoW"CeS should so WIUTaJlt. Questions , concems, or comments regarding the risk factor analysis should be directed to Alexandra Walker at the Colorado Department of Public Safety, Divjsion of Criminal Justice. JVexandra can be reached a1 303 .239.4690 or via electronic mail at alexandra .walkcr@cdps.statc.co.us. 22 Program Risk Factor Analysis (Version 2) COLORADO COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS C.R.S. 17-27-108 Program l._....,j.._ ______ .. l Outcome Facto r s O.Jt.J from Client I nform ation Form and DCJ Rec•d•v•sm StL1dy 1. Escllpe Factor: Esc. Rate I Avg . Pop Risk Score C Less than .35 ~ Greater than/equal to .35 but less than .50 ® Greater than/equal to .50 but less than .65 <6> Greater than/equal to .65 but less than .80 <!> Greater than/equal to .80 but less than .90 <D Greater ore ual to .90 2. Recidivism Factor: Rec Rate I Avg. Pop Risk Score C Less than .45 ~ Greater than or equal to .45 but less than .55 ® Greater than or equal to .55 but less than .65 ® Greater than or equal to .65 but less than . 70 ® Greater than or equal to . 70 but less than . 75 ~ Greater than or ual to . 75 Pcrform<Hl<.e Fact or::> Ratmy~ from Mo~t R~;~~,;~;:n t Aucl1t or f-ollow Up Aud i t 3 . Background Check (2..o40) -Exhibit A Audit 0 SatfsfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) CD Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) ~ Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 4. Staff Annual Training (2-110) 0 SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) Q) Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) C!l UnsaUsfactory (69% or below) 5. c ... M•nager Education (2-140) Ill> Satisfactory Nary Satisfactory (?=85%) (2) Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) ® Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 6. Monthly Staff Meetinga (3-020) C SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory {>=85%) a> Needs Improvement (70% to 64%) (1) Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 7.Self Audits of Program Operations (3-190) «1l SEttlsfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=8~o/o) <JI Neetds Improvement (70% to 84%) Gl Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 8 .~ender~~nt(~10) lUl SatJsfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) <D Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) <Z> Unsatisfactory («'9% or below) 8. Medlcdona ('-040) C SatlsfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) <D Needs Improvement {70% to 84%) (%) Unsatisfactory {69% or below) 10. UA Compliance (Avp of •100, 110, 120, 130) ~ SatlsfactofYNery Satisfactory (.>=85%) (Z) Needs lmprpvement (70o/o to 84%) (t) u,satisfaqory (69% or below) 11. Random Off Site .-onltoring (._160) @ SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) ~ Needs Jmprovement (70% to 84%) ® Unsatlsfacto 69% or below 1 Name of s1andard changed in 2009 wilh the revisio n of ~llc LL.~~ a Name of standard changed in 2009 \\'ith the revis.ion of me CCCS ··-·-·-----······----·-··· 12. Job Search Accountability (.t-161) C SatfsfactoryNary Satisfactory (>=85%) a> Needs Improvement {70% to 84%) ® Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 13. Random Headcounta (.t-200) C SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) CD Needs Improvement (70% to 84%} a> Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 14. Recording Authorized Absences (.t-210) C SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>:86%} a> Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) ~ Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 15. WHkly Mettlnga (&-070) C SatlsfactoryNary Satisfactory {>=85%) a> Needs Improvement (70o/o to 84%) a> Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 16. Chrof)Qtoglcai/Progreu Notn (6-080) C SatlsfqctoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) <D Needs Improvement {70% to 84%} <Z> Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 17. Aaaeaamenta (6-080) C SatlsfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) CD Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) a> Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 18~ Supervision Pial\ (6-100) 0 Satisfactory/Very Satisfactory (>=85%) <Z> ""eeds Improvement (10% to 8-4%) G) Unsatisfactory (69% or below) 19. Structured ProgreH feedback (1-110)1 $ SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=8§%) ~ Need~ Improvement (70% to 84%) ® Ul')satisfact.ory (69% or below) 20. Offender Treatment Monitoring (6-110)2 t9> SatisfactoryNery SaUsfactory (>=85%) (%) Needs lmprovemel')t (TO% to ~4%) ® Unsatisfacto 69cyo or belo Page 2 of 2 I Staff Stabilit y Factors Average Length of Employment 21. Stabllltj Factor A; Secooty <D> Greater than 30 mos <D 22 to 30 months <7> 17 to 22 months ~ 12 to 17 months ® 7 to 12 months ~ 0 to 7 months 22. Stability Factor B : Case Mgt @ Greater than 48 mos CD 38 to 48 months <l) 28 to 38 months G> 18 to 28 months ® 8 to 1 8 months ~ 0 to 10 months Mltlydliii!::J 1-.tl.(UI ~ 23. Stelltty Factor C: Prg. Admin <D> Greater than 100 mos <D 80 to 1 00 months ~ 60 to 80 months <l> 40 to 60 months ® 20 to 40 months ~ 0 to 20 months For programa that expand more than 33% of original bed capa~ctty [2 Year Eligibility Only] -a> Program Expansion -Q) Program Expansion Deduction Deduction For New Program• [2 Year Eligibility Only) ~ Waiver of Program ~ Waiver of P re>Qram ~ Waiver of Program Stability Points Stability Points Stability Points C SatisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) @ Sa tisfactoryNery Satisfactory (>=85%) a> Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) (]) Needs Improvement (70% to 84%) a> %or ng""'•" ~ or l-'1u~lcllll ~l.Uit:::> Percent<t~t:: ~l.ur t:: 1-'cr fur 11\<~lll.t: l L vLI Audit L. Y'-''-' T ot~l Score Range Walved/Deduc tc:;d Poin ts 0%-15% L.ev.a 4 Program Maximum Score 15%-30~ Level 3 Progf'M'I (100-Waived Pts} Fmal score .JUu;.. ~U"'u l c:vt::l l. l""•u~lc:a lll ,j )'t::dl (Total Score/Max Sc9re) Performance Level 50% t o 100% Level 1 P rogram or New Program Jefferson County ®Board of County Commissioners Faye Griftin District 1 Casey Tighe Olstrlct 2 Don Roalcr Distnct3 Jefferson County Commissioners Olstric:IS '---:::"---- C ·-- 11/13/2013 1 ® Jefferson County Community Corrections JCRS Campus New York Building 1651 Kendall Street Lakewood , CO ®community Corrections : What is it? • The interim step between prison and community or community and prison • Mandates public safety and accountability, and promotes self-sufficiency • Provides a safe, secure and controlled environment to offenders accepting the opportunities and challenges associated with freedom • Clients work, pay taxes, child support and restitution • Specialized Treatment, employment, education, housing services 11/1 3/20 13 2 u'fr~ J-~ Community Corrections: Why? Economic Impact-2012 Cost savings using CC $1,945,732 Client income earned $2,710,939 Child Support paid $125,157 Restitution paid $324,257 Taxes paid by residents -Fed. $889,928 2009-2012 State $397,531 Client/Offender Investment in Jefferson County -«rf\ ~ Community Corrections : Why? Public Safety • Without Community Corrections, some offenders would be living in the community, anonymously and without intensive supervision. • Offenders living in Community Corrections are carefully monitored, held accountable for their actions and intensely supervised. • Short-term public safety is our first and foremost goal, long-term public safety is vita l to preventing future victimization and incarceration costs. 11/13/2013 3 .. .~ Community Corrections: Standards Public Safety • Not only are offenders held to high accountability standards, so is the community corrections provider, Intervention Community Corrections Services (ICCS) • ICCS is audited by the Colorado Department of Public Safety, as well as behavioral health on over 100 elements and is rated on their performance, public safety, programming and risk . • ICCS is rated number one in the state with a risk factor of 3 . The highest risk factor i n Colorado is 44 . • ICCS works with local law enforcement to ensure public safety ®' Community Corrections: How? • Not everyone referred to Community Corrections is accepted • Stringent process • Screened by Intervention Community Correction Services (ICCS) • Screened by the weekly screening committee • Screened by the Full Jefferson County Corrections Board • Sentencing option for the Judge 11 /13 /2013 4 ~ ~Community Corrections: Total Cases Reviewed ~~ ~Community Corrections: Who? • County/Citizens decide who is accepted into the Jefferson County Community Corrections Centers . • Felons -Diverted from pri son (Diversion) -Trans ition from prison to community -Parole/Probation -Short-term stabilization -Specialized treatment 11 /13/2013 5 Community Corrections: What does it look like? • Apartment building: Dormitory style • No bars on the windows: Not like a Department of Corrections Facility • Families entering • People coming and going: Similar to apartment residences ... except: -People are NOT hanging around outside because they have a curfew -Relatively quiet -Engaging in pro-social activities Community Corrections: Life? • Average daily population of 226 residents • Supervised by ski lled, professional staff 24/7 • Case management ratio: 1:15-22 treatment need • 14 headcounts per day to ensure accountability • Busiest time-3:00p.m. to 10:00 p.m. • Rule driven, strict, and violations are not tolerated • Calls for service: Lakewood Police Department -45% of calls for services in 2012 were transport s to jail, and their types are not all that different than one might expect from any high-density housing complex. -Just because a crime was reported, doesn't mean there was an associated arrest. 11/13/2013 6 The New York Building Lakewood, CO ®New York Building History • Known as the Jewish Consumptive Relief Society (JCRS) • Built in the early 1900's • State's histori c property register • p t Community Corrections provider started in 1977 • ICCS wa s awarded the contact -December 1, 2002 11/13/2013 7 ~) .. current Challenges with the $' New York Building • The building needs significant work • Updates needed are cost prohibitive • Some parts of the building are not up to code • Space is not conducive for treatment, education and/or employment services • Difficult to divide and provide specialized services ~j New York Building: Change in ~~ Circumstance • Lakewood has a higher and better use plan • Opportunity to sell • Gentrification of the JCRS Campus • Selling the New York building presents a great opportunity for Jefferson County residents (Costs) • Development of an Art's District 11/13/2013 8 Community Corrections: Relocation • Relocation process for 3 years • Investigated over 50 possible sites • Thought we had a great site -Business area -Bus line -Near necessities -In compliance • Tried to move on our own without success -Fell through because of community disapproval -Needed support from others Q Community Corrections: What are the requirements for the site? • New building -land that will accommodate a 50,000 to 58,000 square foot building or two building of equal space • Retrofit-50,000 to 58,000 square foot space • Building may be one or more stories 11/13/2013 9 ~ Community Corrections Relocation : · Support • What do you need from us in order to help us relocate the community corrections center? • If you were to support us in relocating the community corrections center, what does support look like to you? -Find a location -Willingness to stand side -by-side -Funding Jefferson County Residents: Support • Supporting the relocation of the Jefferson County Community Corrections Center is supporting the residents of your community and Jefferson County • Offenders living in Community Corrections are releasing back to your neighborhoods and communities 11/13/2013 10 ® Community Corrections Questions, Suggestions or Comments? Thank you I 11/13/2013 11 . . ~ .... .. City of r?."WheatRi_dge ~P UBLIC WORK S TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Patrick Goff, City Manager~ Scott Brink, Director ofPublic Works Mark Westberg, Project Supervisor Steve Nguyen, Engineering Manager November 8, 2013 (for Study Session of Nov. I 8) Proposed Flood Plain Ordinance Amendment BACKGROUND: :(+ervt 2 . Staff is proposing several revisions to the existing floodplain ordinance for the City. These changes involve adopting new state regulations and new flo odplain maps and updating the language to match current industry standard s. Staff was aware of the need to adopt the new state regulations but was wailing for FEMA to adopt the new floodplain maps so a single, comprehensive update on floodplain issues could be completed. Staff originally expected the new maps to be adopted as early as June 2011. However , the adoption of the maps was delayed by the conversion of the mappi11g to a digital fonnat by FEMA. The following is a summary of the new state regulations and other proposed changes. New State Regulations In late 20 10, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) adopted revised Rules and Regulations for F loodplains in Colorado (Rules), effective January 14 , 2011. The Rules provide stricter floodplain management standards to help communities reduce the risks to people and property caused by flooding. A three-year transition period was established and Colorado communities have until January 14, 20 I 4 to adopt floodplain regulations consistent with the Rul es. It is staffs understanding that failure to adopt floodplain regulations consistent with the Rules, as well as any updates necessary to bring local regulations into compliance with minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) criteria, could lead to severe sanctions as outlined below. The City is currently in compliance with the NFIP criteria. Non-compliance with the Rules may result in e ither NFIP suspension or probation and a reclassification under the Community Rating System (CRS). Certain CWCB flood and watershed grant funding would also be at ri s k . Floodplain Amendment Memo November 18, 2013 Page 2 If the City \vere placed on NFIP probation, a $50 surcharge would be added to property owners' flood insurance policy rates. The community would then need to correct the identified deficiencies and adopt the new Rules, or be subject to NFIP suspension. In addition, the City participates in the CRS. which provides flood in surance premium discounts for communities exceeding the NFlP mimmum standards. Currently Wheat Ridge property owners receive a 20% discount. If the City is suspended from the NFIP, federally-backed flood insurance policies and discounts would no longer be available to property owners and existing policies would not be renewed. Federally-backed loans, grants, and other financial assistance for acth ities within the floodplain would not be available. If a presidential disaster declaration is made, due to flooding. property owners would be ineligible for most forms of disaster assistance. Below is the framework detailing the changes and s taff-a ssessed potential impact s to the City: I. The freeboard requirement. which is the minimum height above the flood elevation tbr most buildings, was raised to one foot. The City has already been using this standard , so no change is required. 2. The freeboard requirement for critical facilities has been set at two feet. Critical facilities include: o Essential facilities • Public sa fety -police, lire, and emergency stations, storage or centers • Emergency medical facilities • Emergency s helters • Communications-equipment areas, excludes overhead & underground transmission lines • Public utility plants -excludes waste water treatment plants • Air transportation facilities o Facilit ies lhat house hazardous materials that are above certain minimum thresholds that are regulated by the state • Chemical and pharmaceuticaJ plants • Labs with highly vo latile, flammable, explosive, toxic, or water reactive matelial s • Refinelies • Hazardo us waste and disposal sites • Above-ground gasoline o r propane storage or saJes areas o Facilities for at-risk populations • Nursing homes • Day care and assisted living with 12 or more persons • Schools with 12 or more persons o Vita l facilit ies to restore normal services • Essential government operations • Essential pub lic colleges There could be some impact to businesses or group facilities that are located in lhe I 00- year floodplain . However, since the City does not have elevation certificates or a good understanding of what may be happening at various businesses, this is difficult to evaluate. Floodplain Amendment Memo November 18, 2013 Page 3 3. Certain areas that are removed from the floodplain by using fill materials would stilJ be regulated as if they are still in a floodplain with respect to freeboard. This basically means that basements would not be allowed in those areas. 4. State regulation s require that any new flood studies that were or will be done after January 14, 20 II , are required to be done with a half-foot floodway (rather than the one- foot floodway that we currently regulate), resu lting in a wider floodway . This regulation needs to be adopted; however, it would only apply to future mapping, s ince both our drainageways were mapped in 2007. The implementation of this regulation is optionaJ until new mapping is done. Preliminary analysis indicates very little impact along Lena Gulch because of the improvements that were previously done by Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) and the City. Also because mos t of the Clear Creek floodplain west of Kipling Street is in open space, very little impact is expected there. However. the impacts between Kipling Street and Wadsworth Boulevard, in particular downstream of 441h Avenue, would likel y be substantial, bringing several more houses into the more restrictive floodway. New Floo d p lain Map Ad option FEMA finaJiy issued their Letter of Final Detennination, (LFD) on August 5, 2013, with an effective date ofFebruary 5, 2014, for the new floodplain maps that were completed in 2007 by UDFCD, and the City. The City has been using these maps for several years as their regulatory documents. The City Council adopted the maps soon after they were completed. With the issuance of the LFD, FEMA has finally adopted the maps as the official Flood In s urance Rate Map (FIRM). This has the following impacts: • Eighty-two parcels, not buildings, are being removed from the floodplain. • Two hundred an sixty-seven parcels. not buildings, are being added to the floodplain. • Any buildings that have mortgages and are added to the floodplain will be required to get flood insurance. Buildings that are removed from the floodplain would no longer be required to have flood insurance. but could keep their policies. • Because of the Biggert-Waters Act, a ll new policies will be required to obtain elevation certificates and their flood insurance will be based on their actual elevation, above or below the flood elevation. AdditionaJ discussion on the Biggert-Waters Act is included below. The City must adopt these new maps in order to be in compliance with the NFIP and to participate in the CRS. Updat ed Community R ating Syste m Manual The Community Rating System (CRS) Manual was revised la st year, so staff is reviewing the City's current program to see if the City's Class 6 rating can be maintained. This results in a 20% discount for residents with floodplain insurance. Preliminary analysis indicates that not only will the City keep its Class 6 rating, but that with some additional effort, it may be raised to a Class 5. which has a 25% discount. Only three other communities in Colorado are currently rated as a Class 5 or above. During its review of the new CRS Manual staff identified the following minor change to our ordinance that could be adopted: Floodplain Amendment Memo November 18, 2013 Page 4 Lot surveys must show the floodplain 011 the survey. 11zis would allow belter planning on1he part ofproper~v owners with relalion to potential.floodplain impacts. Because of the mapping system the Ci(~' has developed and resources available through F£MA, this ;,!formation u:ould be readi~v ami/able to those that prepare lot surveys. Adopting the above changes would help improve the City's rating and the discount received, but more importantly, the changes would help alert future tenants and property owners of their flood risk. Congress approved the Biggert-Waters Act in 2012 in an attempt to make the National Flood Insurance Program (NF IP) whole aga in after the impact ofhUITicanes Katrina and Sandy. The biggest impact is that many rates could be going up s ub stantially, so keeping o r improving the discount is seen as critica l by staff. In addition, the City may need to prioritize floodplain projects in order to remove residents from the floodplain or to help reduce their floodplain insurance rates. Staff conducted public outreach with a public meeting on October 23. 2013 to convey these changes to the residents , especially those in the floodplain. Staff mailed notices of the meeting to all property owners who are currently in, as well as those that will be added to the floodplain. Thi s meeting was similar to the one that was held o n April 9, 2008, when the City was in the process of adopting the new maps as its regulatory document. The meeting was well attended with around I 00 property owners present. Other public outreach efforts were also conducted using various media resources such as the Denver Post, FOX 31 News, Wheat Ridge T ranscript, Wheat Ridge Connections and Mayor's Matters. Scheduling Since the process requires a series of legislative stages, staff is proposing the following schedule for making revisions to the floodplain ord inance to meet the compliance date: • November 18, 2013 -CC SLudy Session -Present draft o rdinance • November 21, 2013 -Planning Commission -Present ordinance for recommendation for approval • December 9, 2013 -CC Meeting-1'1 reading • January 13, 2014 -CC Meeting -2"d reading • January 14, 2014 -Deadline to adopt state law • February 5. 20 14 -New floodplain maps become effective SUMMARY : Staff is looking forward to discussing this matter with the City Counci l and is seeking consensu s on moving forward with the adoption of the new state regulations and the new floodplain maps. ATTACHMENT: I. Article VIII, Chapter 26, Code ofLaws PART II-CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26-ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLA IN CONTROL ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL Sec 26-801 Authonzat1on : findings obJeCtives . Sec 26-802 Defm111ons . Sec 26-803 . General prov1sions Sec. 26-804 . Flood Regulatory D•stnct. Sec 26-805 Ftoodway D1stnct Sec 26-806 Flood Storage D1strict. Sec 26-807 Nonconforming uses and structures Sec 26-808 . Admm1strat1on . Sec 26-809 Certificate of compliance Sec 26-810 Enforcement and penalties Sees 26-811-26-900 Reserved . Sec. 26-801 . Authorization; findings, objectives. A Statutory authorization. The Legislature of the State of Colorado has in C.R.S. § 31-23-301 , delegated the responsibility to local governmental units to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry. Therefore, the city council of Wheat Ridge, Colorado , act1ng pursuant to its powers and authorities granted and reserved in Title 29, of the Colorado Revised Statues under Article 20 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado and the Home Rule Charter adopted thereunder, does hereby ordain following as its floodplain zoning provis1ons . B . Findings of fact . The city council hereby finds that: 1 . The flood hazard areas of Wheat Ridge are subject to periodic inundation wh ich results in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services , extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health , safety and general welfare . 2 . These flood losses are caused by the cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of special flood hazards which increase flood heights and/or velocities and when Inadequately anchored damage uses m other areas. Flood losses are also caused by uses that are inadequately floodproofed, inadequately elevated or otherwise protected from flood damage. C . Public objectives to be achieved. The city council hereby finds it in the public interest , and in the furtherance of the public health , safety and welfare , that the following objectives be fulfilled : 1 . To promote the public health, safety and general welfare , to minimize flood losses in areas subject to flood hazards , and to promote wise use of the special flood hazard area by: a . Prohibiting certain uses which are dangerous to life or property m time of flood . b. Restricting uses which would be hazardous to the public health in time of flood. c . Restricting uses which are so particularly susceptible to flood damage, so as to alleviate hardship and reduce demands for pubhc expenditures for relief and protection . Wheat Ridge , Colorado, Code of Ord inances Attachment 1 Page 1 PART II -CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26-ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL d. Restri cting permitted special flood hazard area uses , including public facilities which serve such uses , to be protected against floods by providing floodproofing and general flood protection at the time of initial construct1on . 2 To protect occupants of the special flood hazard area from a flood wh1ch 1s or may be caused by the ir own , or other, land use and wh1ch IS or may be undertaken w1thout full realization of the danger through · a. Regulating the manner in which structures des1gned for human occupancy may be constructed so as to prevent danger to human life within such structures . b. Regulating the method of construction of water supply and sanitation systems so as to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions. c . Delineating and describing areas that could be inundated by floods so as to protect individuals from purchasing lands for purposes which are not in fact suitable d. Ensuring that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard e. Ensuring that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazards assume responsrb1hty for their act1ons . 3. To protect the public from the burden of extraordinary financial expenditures for flood control and relief a . Regulating all uses within the special flood hazard area so as to produce a method of construction and a pattern of development which will minimize the probability of damage to property and loss of life or injury to the inhabitants of the flood hazard areas . b Minim1z1ng the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding which are generally undertaken at the expense of the general public. c . Minimizing prolonged business interruptions. d . Minimizing damage to public facilities and ut1lrtres , such as water and gas ma1ns ; electric, telephone and sewer lines; streets and brrdges located 1n areas of special flood hazard. e . Helping maintain a stable tax base by providing for sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood-blight areas. f. Participating in the Nat ional Flood Insurance Program to assist property owners rn obtaining adequate Insurance coverage. 4. To protect the hydraulic characteristics and storage capacity of the spec1al flood hazard area and small watercourses, including the gulches , sloughs , and artificial water channels , used for conveying floodwaters so as to promote retention of sufficient floodway area to convey flood flows which can reasonably be expected to occur by: a . Regulat1ng filling, dumping, dredging, and alteration of channels by deepening , widening or relocating, so as to maintain natural storage capacity and slow flow characteristics. b. Prohibiting unnecessary encroachments . c . Encourag1ng uses such as agriculture , open space , recreation , greenbelt, tra1ls , and intermittent parking . d . Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas. Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 2 PART II ·CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26 ·ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL e. Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health , safety and property due to water or erosion hazards or which result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities . f . Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, includmg facilities which serve such uses, be protected agamst flood damage at the t1me of imtial construction (Ord . No. 2001-1215. § 1, 2-26-01) Sec. 26-802. Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in these regulations shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage, so as to be consistent with the definition given the term in other portions of this zoning code, and to give these regulations their most reasonable application. 100-year flood. A flood that has a statistical frequency of occurring once in one hundred years. This 1s determined from an analysis of floods on a particular watercourse and other watercourses in the same general region. It has about a one (1) percent chance of being equaled or exceeded during any given year. 100-year floodplain . The area of land susceptible to being inundated as a result of the occurrence of a 100-year flood . Appeal. A request for a review by the board of adjustment of any interpretation made by the floodplain administrator (or his representative) of any provision of these regulations . Area of shallow flooding . A des1gnated AO or AH zone on the current digital flood Insurance rate map (DFIRM} with a one percent chance or greater annual chance of flooding . The base flood depths range from one (1} to three (3} feet; a clearly defined channel does not exist: the path of flooding IS unpredictable and indeterminate ; and velocity flow may or may not be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow. Base flood . The flood having a one (1) percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any g1ven year. Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The elevation show on the current DFIRM for various A zones that indicates the water surface elevation resulting from a flood that has a one (1) percent chance of equaling or exceeding that level in any given year. Basement. Any area of a building having its floor sub-grade (below ground level} on all sides. Channel. That area of a watercourse where water normally flows . Crawl space. An unfinished , enclosed area beneath a habitable floor or a building that is uninhabitable because of 1ts shallow height of four (4} feet or less. but can be utilized for storage. Critical Facility. A structure or related infrastructure, but not the land on which it is situated, as specified in Section 26-8??, that if flooded may result in significant hazards to public health and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any time before, during , and after a flood . Development. Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate , including, but not lim1ted to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredgmg, filling, grading, paving, excavation , or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials located within the special flood hazard area . Digital flood insurance rate map (DFIRM). FEMA digital floodplain map. These digital maps serve as "regulatory floodplain maps" for insurance and floodplain management purposes. Wheat Ridge , Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 3 PART II -CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26-ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL Equal degree of encroachment. Established by considering the effect of encroachments on the hydraulic efficiency of the floodplain along a Significant reach of the stream on both s1des . Elevated building. A non-basement building built to have the top of the elevated floor above the ground level by means of pilings , columns (posts and piers), shear walls parallel to the flow of the water, fill, or solid foundation penmeter walls with openings sufficient to facilitate the unimpeded movement of flood waters and adequately anchored so as not to 1mpa1r the structural integnty of the building dunng a flood of up to the magnitude of the base flood FEMA. Federal emergency management agency, the agency responsible for administenng the National Flood Insurance Program . Flood or flooding . A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from the unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff or surface waters from any source including the overflow of water from channels and reservoir spillways . Flood insurance rate map (FIRM). The offictal map on which FEMA has delineated both the spec1al flood hazards areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community Flood insurance study The official report provided by FEMA that tncludes flood profiles. the flood boundary-floodway map, and the water surface elevatton of the base flood . Floodplain . Any land area susceptible to being tnundated as the result of a flood , includtng the area of land over which floodwater would flow from the spillway of a reservoir . Floodpla in administrator. The director of public works or designee who is assigned the responsibility to coordinate and deal with all aspects of these regulations . Floodplain permit. A permit required before construction or development begins within any special flood hazard area (SFHA). Permits are required to ensure that proposed development projects meet the requirements of the NFIP and th1s section . Floodplain variance . A grant of relief from the requirements of these regulations, when approved by the board of adjustments under Section 26-808 . 0 when specific enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship, whtch permtts construction in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by these regulations . Flood profile. A graph or longitudinal profile showing the relationship of the water surface elevation of a flood event to existing ground surface along a stream or river. Floodproofing . A combtnatton of structural provisions , changes, or adjustments to properties and structures subject to floodtng primanly for the reduct1on or elimination of flood damages to properties, water and sanitary facilities , structures and contents of buildings . Flood protection elevation An elevation one (1) foot above the base flood elevation . Floodway. The portion of the SFHA reqUired for the reasonable passage or conveyance of the 1 00- year flood , which is characterized by hazardous and Significant depths and velocities , without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than than a designated height. The current height to be used in the city is one (1) foot ; however , the Colorado statewide standard for the designated hetght to be used for all newly studied reaches shall be one-half foot (six inches). Letters of Map Revision to existing floodway delineations may continue to use the floodway criteria in place at the time of the existing floodway delineation Lowest floor. The lowest enclosed area of a building including basement. However, a crawl space usable solely for storage IS not constdered a building's lowest floor: provided, that the crawl space is built 1n conformance w1th sectton 26-806F . Manufactured home. For the purposes of th1s Sectton , a structure that is transportable tn one (1) or more sections. built on a permanent chassis, and destgned to be used with or without a permanent Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page4 PART II -CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26-ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL foundation when connected to the required utilities. This term also includes park trailers, travel trailers and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days .. Manufactured home park or subdivision. A parcel or contiguous parcels of land divided Into two (2) or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. Mean sea level. For purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program , the National American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988 or other datum to which base flood elevations shown on the community's flood insurance rate map are referenced. New construction. Structures for which the start of construction commences on or after the effective date of these regulations . New manufactured home park or manufactured home subdivision. A parcel or contiguous parcels of land divided into two (2) or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lot (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities , final site grading, the construction of concrete pads , or the construction of streets) is completed on or after the effective date of these regulations. Special flood hazard area (SFHA). The land in the floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Start of construction. The date the building permit was issued for any improvement; provided, that the actual start of construction , repair, reconstruction , placement, or other improvement was within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the permit date. The actual start means the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns , or any work beyond the stage of excavation , or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation . Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling, installation of streets and/or walkways ; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings , such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. Structure. Anything constructed or erected , the use of which requires a more or less permanent location on or in the ground. Includes, but is not limited to, objects such as buildings , factories, sheds, cabins , manufactured housing, and fences. This term does not include signs , utility or light poles . Substantial improvement. Any addition , repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty (50) percent of the fair market value of the structure either before the improvement or repair is started or , if the structure has been damaged and is being restored , before the damage occurred . For the purposes of this definition, "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall , ceiling, floor or other structural part of the building commences . whether or not the alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include either: (a) Any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assume safe living conditions ; or (b) Any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a state inventory of historic places at the effective date of these regulations. VIolation . The failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with these regulations . Water surface elevation. The height above mean sea level of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplain . (Ord No 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01 ; Ord No 1431, § 1. 2-23-09) Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 5 PART II -CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26-ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL Sec. 26-803. General provisions . A. Jurisdiction . The provisions of this article shall apply to all lands within the SFHA as defined on the official maps and engineenng reports of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado and areas removed from the floodplain by the issuance of a LOMR-F . B Establishment of Floodplam Permit. A floodplain perm1t . either class I or class II shall be required to ensure conformance w1th the provisions of these regulat1ons . C Compliance. No structure or land shall hereafter be located , altered , or have its use changed with in the SFHA without full compliance with these regulations and other applicable regulations . Nothing herein shall prevent the City of Wheat Ridge from taking such lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation . These regulations meet the minimum requirements as set forth by the National Flood Insurance Program . D Boundanes. The boundaries of the SFHA have been def1ned by computing the 1 00-year flood limits under existing channel and floodplain conditions as shown on the official maps and engineering reports The boundaries of the SFHA shall be as they appear on the official maps and eng1neering reports kept on file in the office of the floodplain administrator . The boundary lines on the map shall be determined by the use of the scale and other surface features appearing on the map When there is a conflict between the boundary fines Illustrated on the map and the actual field conditions , the dispute shall be settled according to Section 26-808 . E. Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of these floodplain regulations , these provisions shall be held to be minimum requirements, shall be liberally construed in favor of the governing body, and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by Colorado Statutes or the Charter or ordinances of the City of Wheat Ridge . F Warning and disclaimer of llabiltty The degree of flood protection intended to be prov1ded by these floodplain regulations 1s considered reasonab le for regulatory purposes and is based on nationally recognized and/or published engineering and scientific methods of study. Larger floods may occur on occasions or the flood height may be increased by manmade or natural causes , such as ice Jams and bridge open ings restr icted by debris. These regula tions do not imply that areas outside SFHA boundaries or land uses permitted within such districts will always be totally free from flooding or flood damage. Anyone constructing new structures within the SFHA is accepting complete responsibility for non-regulated events . T hese regulations shall not create a liability on the part of or a cause of action against the City of Wheat Ridge or any official or employee thereof for any flood damages that may result from reliance on these regulations . G . Official maps and engineering reports . The location and boundaries of the SFHA shall be as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 1n "The Flood Insurance Study for Jefferson County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas," dated February 5, 2014 , and any amendments or revisions thereto are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of th1s article. The location and boundaries of the SFHA shall be as shown in the following engineering reports and accompanying maps: 1. Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) panels dated February 5 , 2014 for portions of the City of Wheat Ridge . The D FIRM constitute the current flood insurance study for the City of Wheat Ridge and is fully incorporated here1n by th1s The DFIRM which constitute the flood insurance study 1s on file at the Wheat Ridge Municipal Bu ilding, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat R idge , Colorado H Severability. These regulations and vanous parts thereof are hereby declared to be severable . Should any section of these regulations be declared by a court of competent )Urtsdict1on to be Wheat Rid ge, Colo rado, Code of Ordinances Page 6 PART II -CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26 -ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL unconstitutional or inval id , such decision shall not affect the validity of these regulations as a whole, or any portion thereof other than the section so declared to be unconstitutional or invalid. (Ord. No 2001 -1215 § 1 2-26-01; Ord No.1293, § 1, 6-9-03: Ord No 1411 , § 1 3-24-08· Ord No 1423, § 1 11 24 -08· Ord. No 1431 , § 2 2-23-09 : Ord No 1475, § 1, 1-24-11) Sec. 26-804. Special Flood Hazard Area. A. Application and description. 1 . The SFHA includes all lands that are inundated by the 1 00-year flood as shown on the official maps and engineering reports for the City of Wheat Ridge . (Insert figure from Colorado Quick Guide) Figure 26-804.1-Special Flood Hazard Area 2. Based upon the official maps and engineering reports for the City of Wheat Ridge, the SFHA contains several elements. (see Figure 26-804 .1 above). 3 . The respective regulations of section 26-805 and section 26-806 shall regulate all lands within the SFHA. (Ord No 2001-1215 § 1, 2-26-01) Sec. 26-805. Floodway Regulations. A . Application and description. These regulations shall apply to all properties designated as within the Floodway. Floodways are administrative limits and tools used to regulate existing and future floodplain development. The State of Colorado has adopted floodway standards that are more stringent than the FEMA minimum standard (see definition of floodway in Section 26-802). Located within SFHA established in Sec. 26-804, are areas designated as floodways . Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters which carry debris , potential projectiles and erosion potential , the following provisions shall apply: 1 . Encroachments are prohibited , including fill , new construction, substantial improvements and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed by a registered professional engineer and in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase (requires a No-Rise Certification) in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. 2. If Sec. 26-805. A . 1. above is satisfied , all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Section 26-806. 3. Under the provisions of 44 CFR Chapter 1, Section 65 .12, of the National Flood Insurance Regulations , a community may permit encroachments within the adopted regulatory floodway that would result in an increase in Base Flood Elevations , provided that the community first applies for a CLOMR and floodway revision through FEMA.B. Permitted uses. The following open uses shall be permitted within the floodway to the extent that they are not prohibited in a particular area by any Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 7 PART II -CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26-ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL underlying zoning and do not include any structures , filling or deposition of materials , and do not cause any increase in the base flood elevation of the floodway. 1. Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, forestry, and urban gardens; 2. Public and private recreational uses not requiring permanent or temporary structures such as parks. swimming areas . picnic grounds , wildlife and nature preserves, and fishing and hiking areas : 3. Utility facilities such as ditches. transmission lines, pipelines, water monitoring devices, roadways , and bridges : 4. Uses very similar in nature to these permitted uses may be allowed , provided that they are consistent with the provisions of these regulations . Except for the agricultural uses, the other uses shall require a class 1 floodplain permit in accordance with Section 26-808. C Special exceptions. The following uses are permitted in the floodway subject to special requirements as noted : 1. Structures for human occupancy which were in existence as of February 26, 2001 , subject to section 26-807 (nonconforming uses) and the requirements of section 26-806 .D .. E. and F., provided, however. that a floodplain permit shall not be required . D. Prohibited uses. 1. Structures , fill , or deposition of materials shall be prohibited in the floodway. 2. The storage or processing of materials that are buoyant. flammable , or explosive , or any hazardous liquid or soluble matter which in times of flooding could be injurious to human, animal or plant life shall be prohibited within the floodway. (Ord No 2001-1215 §1 2-26-01 Ord No 1482.§1 ,4-25-11) Sec. 26-806. Special Flood Hazard Area Regulations. A. Application and description . These regulations shall apply to all properties designated as within the SFHA. B . Permitted uses. The permitted uses in the SFHA are the same as those uses permitted in section 26-8058. However, in the SFHA, floodplain permits may be applied for as specified in paragraphs C. and D. C. Prohibited uses hazardous materials. The storage or processing of materials that are buoyant , flammable , or explosive , or any hazardous liquid or soluble matter which in times of flooding could be injurious to human , animal , or plant life shall be prohibited within the SFHA . D. Development standards. The following regulations shall apply to all permitted development and uses within the SFHA: 1. All new structures wh ich are walled and roofed and greater than one hundred twenty (120) square feet in size must be elevated one (1) foot above the base flood elevation . 2. All development shall be evaluated based on any analysis of an equal degree of encroachment based on conveyance of the 1 00-year flood extending for a significant reach on both sides . 3. No SFHA uses shall adversely affect the efficiency of or unduly restr ict the capacity of the channels or floodways of any tributaries to the ma in stream , drainage ditches, or any other drainage facilities or systems . Wheat Ridge , Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 8 PART II -CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26-ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL 4 . All new construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure and to withstand hydrodynamic loads. 5. All new construction , substantial improvements, and fences shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage 6 . All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed by methods and practices that mimmize flood damage. 7 . Electrical , heatmg , ventilation, plumb1ng, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding . 8 . All development proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage. 9 . All new and replacement water supply, sanitary sewage, or onsite disposal systems shall be des1gned and located so as to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into them and discharge from the systems into floodwaters. 10. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent w1th the need to m1nimize flood damage. 11 . All development proposals shall have public utilities and facilities , such as sewer , gas, electrical , and water systems, located and constructed to minimize flood damage. 12. All manufactured homes to be placed within the SHFA must be elevated and anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement and capable of resisting the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads created by the 1 00-year flood . Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top and frame ties to ground anchors. Specific requirements may be: a . Over-the-top ties shall be provided at each of the four (4) corners of the manufactured home, with two (2) additional ties per s1de at intermediate locations and manufactured homes less than frfty (50) feet long requiring one (1) additional tie per side; b. Frame ties shall be provided at each corner of the home, with five (5) additional ties per side at intermediate points and manufactured homes less than fifty (50) feet long requiring four ( 4) additional ties per side; c . All components of the anchoring system shall be capable of carrying a force of four thousand eight hundred (4,800) pounds ; and d. Any addit1ons to the manufactured home shall be similarly anchored. 13. Any fill or deposition of materials must be shown to have some beneficial purpose and the amount thereof will not be greater than is necessary to ach1eve that purpose, as demonstrated by a plan submitted by the owner showing the final dimensions of the proposed fill or other material and the use to which the filled land w1ll be put. 14. Any fill or deposition that does reduce hydraulic capacity shall require appropriate hydraulic studies including an equal degree of encroachment analysis and a review of the urban impact of such reduction . 15. Any fill or deposition will be protected against erosion by riprap , strong vegetative cover, bulkheading , or other accepted means of erosion protection. 16. Enclosures. New construction and substantial improvements, with fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement and which are subject to flooding shall be destgned to automatically Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 9 PART II-CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26-ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters . Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered Colorado Professional Eng1neer or architect or meet or exceed the following minimum cnteria: a A mimmum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be prov1ded b. The bottom of all openings shall be no h1gher than one foot above grade. c. Openings may be equipped w1th screens , louvers. valves, or other covenngs or devtces provided that they perm it the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters E Properties removed from the floodplain by fill. The following regulations shall apply to all permitted development and uses Within the properties that have been removed from the floodplain by the tssuance of a FEMA Letter of Map revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F) to at least one (1) foot above the base flood level that existed pnor to the placement of fill · 1 All new structures which are walled and roofed and greater than one hundred twenty (120) square feet in size must be elevated one (1) foot above the base flood elevation that existed prior to the placement of fill 2 . All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed w1th materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. 3 . All new construction and substantial Improvements shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage. 4 Electrical. heating, ventilation . plumb1ng , and a1r conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be des1gned and /or located so as to prevent water from entenng or accumulating within the components during conditions of flood1ng F Critical facilities. A critical facility is a structure or related Infrastructure, but not the land on which 1! 1s situated , as specified in Rule 6 of the Rules and RegulatiOns for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado, that if flooded may result in significant hazards to public health and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any t1me before, during and after a flood . 1 . CLASSIFICATION OF CRITICAL FACITILIES. It is the responsibility of the city council to identify and confirm that specific structures in their community meet the following criteria : Critical facil ities are classified under the following categories : (a) Essential Services : (b) Hazardous Materials ; (c) At-risk Populations, and (d) V1tal to Restoring Normal Services. a. Essential services facilities include public safety . emergency response, emergency medical . designated emergency shelters , communications , public utility plant facilities , and transportation lifelines . These facilities consist of: i. Public safety (police stations , fire and rescue stations . emergency vehicle and equipment storage , and , emergency operation centers): ii. Emergency medical (hospitals , ambulance service centers , urgent care centers having emergency treatment functions, and non-ambulatory surgical structures but excluding clinics , doctors offices, and non-urgent care medical structures that do not provide these funct ions), iii. Des1gnated emergency shelters; 1v Commun1cat10ns (main hubs for telephone , broadcasting equ1pment for cable systems , satellite dtsh systems, cellular systems, television , radio , and other emergency warning systems . but excluding towers , poles , lines , cables, and conduits): Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 10 b. PART II-CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26-ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL v . Public utility plant facilities for generation and distribution ( hubs, treatment plants , substations and pumping stations for water, power and gas, but not including towers, poles. power lines, buried pipelines, transmission lines , distribution lines , and service lines); and vi. Air Transportation lifelines (airports (municipal and larger), helicopter pads and structures serving emergency functions, and associated infrastructure (aviation control towers , air traffic control centers , and emergency equipment aircraft hangars). i. Specific exemptions to this category include wastewater treatment plants (WWTP). non- potable water treatment and distribution systems , and hydroelectric power generating plants and related appurtenances . Public utility plant facilities may be exempted if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the city council that the facility is an element of a redundant system for which service will not be interrupted during a flood. At a minimum , it shall be demonstrated that redundant facilities are available (either owned by the same utility or available through an intergovernmental agreement or other contract) and connected, the alternative facilities are either located outside of the 1 00-year floodplain or are compliant with the provisions of this Section, and an operations plan is in effect that states how redundant systems will provide service to the affected area in the event of a flood . Evidence of ongoing redundancy shall be provided to the city council on an as-needed basis upon request. Hazardous materials facilities include facilities that produce or store highly volatile , flammable , explosive, toxic and /or water-reactive materials. These facilities may include: ii. Chemical and pharmaceutical plants (chemical plant, pharmaceutical manufacturing); Laboratories containing highly volatile, flammable , explos ive , toxic and/or water-reactive materials; iii. iv . v. Refineries ; Hazardous waste storage and disposal sites ; and Above ground gasoline or propane storage or sales centers . Facilities shall be determ ined to be critical facilities if they produce or store materials in excess of threshold limits. If the owner of a facility is required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to keep a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on file for any chemicals stored or used in the work place and the chemical(s) is stored in quantities equal to or greater than the Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ) for that chemical , then that facility shall be cons idered to be a critical facility. The TPQ for these chemicals is : either 500 pounds or the TPQ listed (whichever is lower) for the 356 chemicals listed under 40 C.F.R. § 302 (2010), also known as Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS); or 10,000 pounds for any other chemical. Th is threshold is consistent with the requirements for reportable chemicals established by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. OSHA requirements for MSDS can be found in 29 C.F.R. § 1910 (2010). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation "Designation , Reportable Quantities, and Notification," 40 C.F.R. § 302 (2010) and OSHA regulation "Occupational Safety and Health Standards ,• 29 C.F .R. § 1910 (2010) are incorporated herein by reference and include the regulations in existence at the time of the promulgation this ordinance, but exclude later amendments to or editions of the regulations Specific exemptions to this category include: i. Finished consumer products within retail centers and households conta ining hazardous materials intended for household use, and agricultural products intended for agricultural use. Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 11 PART II-CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26-ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL ii. Buildings and other structures containing hazardous matenals for which it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local authority having jurisdiction· by hazard assessment and certification by a qualified professional (as determined by the local jurisdiction havmg land use authority) that a release of the subject hazardous material does not pose a major threat to the public. iii. Pharmaceutical sales, use, storage, and distribution centers that do not manufacture pharmaceutical products. These exemptions shall not apply to buildings or other structures that also function as critical facilities under another category outlined in this Section. c. At-risk population facilities include medical care , congregate care, and schools . These facilities consist of: i. Elder care (nursing homes); ii. Congregate care serving 12 or more individuals ( day care and assisted living); iii. Public and private schools (pre-schools. K-12 schools), before-school and after-school care serving 12 or more children); d . Facilities vital to restoring normal services including government operations . These facilities consist of: i. Essential government operations (public records , courts , jails , building permitting and inspection services , community admin istration and management, maintenance and equipment centers); ii. Essential structures for public colleges and universities (dormitories , offices , and classrooms only). These facilities may be exempted if it is demonstrated to the city council that the facility is an element of a redundant system for which service will not be interrupted during a flood . AI a minimum . it shall be demonstrated that redundant facilities are available (either owned by the same entity or available through an intergovernmental agreement or other contract), the alternative facilities are either located outside of the 1 00-year floodplain or are compliant with this ordinance, and an operations plan is in effect that states how redundant facilities will provide service to the affected area in the event of a flood . Evidence of ongoing redundancy shall be provided to the city council on an as-needed basis upon request. 2. PROTECTION FOR CRITICAL FACILITIES. All new and substantially improved critical facilities and new additions to critical facilities located within the SFHA shall be regulated to a higher standard than structures not determined to be critical facilities . For the purposes of this Section, protection shall include one of the following : a. Location outside the SFHA; or b. Elevation of the lowest floor or floodproofing of the structure, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities , to at least two feet above the base flood elevation . 3. INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR NEW CRITICAL FACILITIES New critical facilities shall , when practicable as determined by the city council, have continuous non-inundated access (ingress and egress for evacuation and emergency services) during a100-year flood event. (Ord. No . 2001 1215 , § 1, 2-26-01, Ord. No 1431 , § 3, 2-23-09) Wheat Ridge , Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 12 PART II -CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26-ZON ING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL Sec. 26-807. Nonconforming uses and structures. The existing lawful use of a structure or premises which is not in conformity with the provisions of these regulations may be continued subject to the following conditions : A. No such use shall expand or enlarge the nonconformity except in compliance with the provisions of these regulation s. B. No substantial improvement to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure shall be allowed unless the nonconforming structure is permanently changed to a conforming structure . C. If such use is discontinued for two (2) consecutive years , any future use of the building and premises shall conform to these regulations . D. Uses or adjuncts thereof which are nuisances shall not be permitted to continue as nonconforming uses. E. Any alteration, addition, or repair to any nonconforming structure permitted pursuant to subsection B., above , shall be protected by floodproofing measures pursuant to section 26- 808C.4.a . (Ord No 2001-1215, § 1. 2-26-01, Ord. No.1482, § 2, 4-25-11 ) Sec. 26-808. Administration. A. Floodplain administrator. The director of public works of the City of Wheat Ridge or designee shall be the floodplain administrator. The duties of the administrator shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Coordination between departments and divisions: a. Coordinate the application , permit, review, appeal, certification , and enforcement processes between the office of the floodplain administrator and other departments and divisions as appropriate to ensure compliance with these regulations and an efficient use of staff. b. All applications and certifications shall be submitted to the department of public works from which further routing to other departments and divisions and utility companies shall occur. c . All administrative decisions require the property to be posted for fifteen ( 15} days . If no protests are filed, the permit may be issued by the floodplain administrator. If a protest is filed , then a public hearing before the board of adjustment will be scheduled following the applicable noticing and other requirements of section 26-1 09. 2. Development permit review: a . Review all development permits, which include building permits, to determine whether a property is within the SFHA and that the applicable requirements of these regulations have been satisfied. b. Review all development permits to determine that all necessary permits have been obtained from federal , state , or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is required . 3 . Information to be obtained and maintained: a . Obtain certification from applicant's engineer and record the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures . Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 13 PART II -CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26 -ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL b. Maintatn for public Inspection all records pertammg to the provisions of these regulations . c All records reqwed by these regulations shall be ma inta ined w ith the assoc1ated development perm1ts 1n the department of public works . 4 . Use of other base flood data . When base flood elevation data has not been provided by the applicant or h1s representative, the floodplatn admintstrator may obta1n , review, and reasonably utilize any base flood and floodway elevation data ava1lable from federal , state , or other sources as criteria for requ iring that new construction, substantial improvements, or other development in the SFHA in order to admtnister subsections 26-806C ., D . and F. 5 . Alteration or relocation of watercourses : a . No alteration or relocation of a watercourse shall occur without the approval of the floodplain administrator . Consideration of gravel extractiOn operations shall be In accordance with state law (C .R.S . § 3-4-1-301). b. Upon rece1vmg approval , the applicant shall notify adjacent communities and the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alterat1on or relocation of a watercourse and submit ev1dence of such notification to FEMA. The applicant shall provide all data required by FEMA for a letter of map revision . c The carrying capacity of an altered or relocated watercourse shall be mainta1ned . 6. Interpretation of digital flood insurance rate map (DFIRM) boundanes The floodplatn administrator shall make interpretations , where needed . as to the exact location of the boundanes of the areas of special flood hazards (for example . where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions). Any person contesting the location of the boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the Interpretation as prov1ded tn subsect1on B .. below. B. Mapping disputes. The following procedure shall be used by the floodplain administrator in deciding contested cases in which the location of a district boundary is disputed : 1. In all cases, the person contesting the location of the district boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to submit his own technical evidence if he so desires. The floodplain administrator shall not allow deviations from the boundary line as mapped . If the evidence clearly and conclusively establishes that the mapped location of the line is incorrect , a FEMA letter of map revision must be completed by the applicant prior to the issuance of a development permit. 2 The administrator shall render a written opinion w1thin th1rty (30) days following receipt of the applicant's technical evidence setting forth the findings of fact and the reasons for the decision. 3 . Applicants shall have the right to appeal such decisions to the board of adJustment. Application for appeal must be made with1n thirty (30) days. C . Floodplain permits: Application. There shall be two (2) types of floodplatn perm1ts : Class I and Class II. The approval of either floodplain permit does not substitute for any other permit that may be required by city ord1nance , such as building permits . 2 Floodplain permit-Class I. Any use enumerated in this paragraph may be permitted only upon the issuance of a Class I floodplain permit by the floodplain administrator and in compliance with section 26-806 . D . a Structures for non-human occupancy. Fences , sheds , signs, and accessory buildings may be permitted only upon a finding that the structures do not create a negative impact on the base flood elevation or flow velocity. Wheat Ridge , Co lorado, Code of Ordinances Page 14 PART II -CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26 -ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL b. Structures for human occupancy. Improvements to existing structures may be permitted only upon a finding that the improvements proposed are not substantial improvements, as defined in section 26-802 c. Fill or deposition of material. Fills or deposition of materials may be permitted only upon a finding that the proposed plan will comply with section 26-806. D . 3. Floodplain permit-Class fl. Any use enumerated in this paragraph may be permitted only upon the issuance of a Class II floodplain permit by the board of adjustment after a public hearing and in compliance with section 26-806. D. a . Structures for human occupancy . New construction or substantial improvement of any residential , commercial, industrial , or other nonresidential structure may be perm itted only upon a certification by a registered professional engineer to the floodplain administrator that the lowest floor, including basement, is elevated to one (1) foot or more above the base flood elevation . b. Manufactured homes. New manufactured home parks and manufactured home subdivisions , expansions of existing manufactured home parks and manufactured home subdivisions , and existing manufactured home parks and manufactured home subdivisions where the repair , reconstruction or improvement of the street utilities exceeds fifty (50) percent of the fair market value of the streets , utilities , and pads before the repair, reconstruction , or improvement has commenced , and for manufactured homes not placed in a manufactured home park or manufactured home subdivision, may be permitted only upon a certification by a registered professional engineer to the floodplain administrator that: i. All manufactured homes or those to be substantially improved shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated one (1) foot or more above the base flood elevation and is securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system . Manufactured homes shall be anchored in accordance with subsection F.12. of this section; and ii. Adequate surface drainage and access for a hauler will be provided. 4. Submittal requirements. The applicant for a floodplain permit shall provide the following information as a part of the application , unless waived by the administrator: a. Completed application form and required application fee , b. A plan certified by a registered engineer, competent in open-channel hydraulics , which accurately locates the applicant's property with respect to the SFHA limits, channel of stream, existing developments. together with all pertinent information such as: the nature of the proposal ; legal description of the property; fill limits and elevations ; building's lowest floor elevations in relation to the datum used on the FEMA map and study; floodproofing measures and elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been floodproofed ; a report covering the effects of equal degree of encroachment of other nearby properties of the SFHA; and a description to the extent to which any watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of the proposed development. c. In addition , all subdivision proposals and other proposed new developments which are located in any SFHA shall include within such proposals base flood elevations. d . As much of the following additional information as is deemed necessary by the floodplain administrator for the evaluation of the effects of the proposal upon flood flows and the floodplain and to render a decision on the floodplain permit: Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 15 PART II -CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26 -ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL {1) A typical cross-section showing the channel of the stream , the floodplain adjo ining each side of the channel , cross-sectional area to be occupied by the proposed development, and high-water information. (2) Plan (surface view) showing elevations or contours of the ground; pertinent structure , f ill , or storage elevations ; size, location , and spatial arrangement of all proposed and existing structures on the site ; location and elevations of streets , water supply, and sanitary facilities ; soil types ; and other pertinent information. {3) Profile showing the slope of the 100-year flood and the bottom of the channel or thalweg of the stream . {4) Specifications for building construction and materials , floodproofing, filling , dredging, grading , channel improvement, storage of materials. water supply, and sanitary facilities . {5) Hydraulic calculations for all proposed channelization . 5. Factors upon which the de cision shall be based. The determination of the floodplain administrator or the board of adjustment on each floodplain permit shall be based on the effects of the proposed project with respect to the objectives and purpose of these regulations as stated in section 26-801 6. Conditions attached to floodplain permits. Upon consideration of the factors listed above and purposes of these regulations , the floodplain administrator or board of adjustment may attach such conditions as deemed necessary in furthering the purposes of these regulations A copy of these conditions shall be presented to the applicant and a copy of these conditions shall be transmitted to the chief building official , which shall be kept on file . Such conditions may include specifications for, without limitation because of specific enumeration , modification of sewage disposal and water supply facilities , modification of other waste disposal methods and facilities , landscaping periods of operation , operational controls , sureties , deed restrictions , and adequate floodproofing . a. Floodproofing: Floodplain permits requiring floodproofing measures such as the following shall be designed consistent with the flood protection elevation for the particular area and flood velocities, forces , and other factors associated with the flood protection elevation . The floodplain administrator shall require that the applicant submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer that the floodproofing measures are consistent with the flood protection elevation for the particular area . Floodproofing measures may include the following: ( 1) Anchorage to resist flotation and lateral movement. (2) Installation of watertight doors. bulkheads. and shutters . (3) Reinforcement of walls to resist water pressures . (4) Use of paints , membranes, or mortars to reduce seepage of water through walls . (5) Addition of mass or weight to structures to resist flotation . (6) Installation of pumps to lower water levels in structures . (7) Construction of water supply and waste treatment systems to prevent the entrance of floodwaters . (8} Pumping facilities for subsurface drainage systems for buildings to relieve external foundation wall and basement floor pressures . Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 16 PART II-CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26 -ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL (9) Construction to resist rupture or collapse caused by water pressure or floating debris . (10) Cutoff valves on sewer lines or the elimination of gravity flow basement drains. Furthermore , measures must be taken to ensure that the construction does not in any way cause the 1 00-year flood to become more damaging to other residents within the SHFA. 7. Class I floodplain permits; timeliness of decision. The floodplain administrator shall render a written decision granting or denying the floodplain permit application. If a denial is made, the decision shall set forth the floodplain administrator's findings of fact and reasons for the denial. Applicants shall have the right to appeal any adverse decision to the board of adjustment. Such appeal must be filed with the board of adjustmen1 within thirty (30) days from the date of the floodplain administrator's decision. D . Review by the board of adjustment. 1. The board of adjustment of the City of Wheat Ridge shall hear and decide appeals of Class I floodplain permits which have been denied or conditionally approved by the floodplain administrator and requests for Class II floodplain permits as provided within these regulations. 2. The board of adjustment shall hear and decide appeals of Class I floodplain permits when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement , decision , or determination made by the floodplain administrator in the enforcement or administration of these regulations . Any decision in favor of the applicant shall be considered a variance . 3 . Those aggrieved by the decision of the board of adjustment may appeal such decisions to the Jefferson County District Court, as provided by the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws . 4. In passing upon such application , the board of adjustment shall consider all technical evaluation, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of these regulations , and : a. The danger that materials may be swept into other lands to the injury of others ; b. The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; c. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; d. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community ; e. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable ; f . The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage; g. The compatibility of the proposed use with the existing and anticipated development; h. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive development plan and floodplain management program for the area; I. The safety of access to the property during times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; j. The expected heights , velocity, duration , rate of rise , and sediment transport of the floodwaters expected at the site ; k . The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas , electrical , and water systems , streets, and bridges . 5 . Upon consideration of the factors of subsection D.4 ., above, the board of adjustment shall affirm or reverse , in whole or in part, the decision of the floodplain administrator (with respect to Class Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 17 PART II -CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26-ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL I floodplain permits). and may attach such conditions to the granting of floodplain permits or variance as it deems necessary to further the purposes of these regulations. 6 . The floodp lain administrator shall maintain the records of all appeal actions, including technical information, and report any variance to FEMA, upon request. E. Conditions for class 1 floodplain permit variances . 1 . Variances may be issued for the reconstruction , rehabilitation , or restoration of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the state inventory of historic places , upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure .. 2. Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway . 3. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard , to afford relief. 4. Variances shall only be issued upon : a . A showing of good and sufficient cause; b. A determ ination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and c . A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights , additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, or create nuisances , cause fraud on , or victimization of the public as identified in section 26-801 (c), or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances . (Ord. No 2001-1215. § 1 2-26-01; Ord . No 1288. §§ 1. 2. 5-12-03. Ord No 1431. § 4 2-23-09) Sec. 26-809. Certificate of compliance. A . No vacant land shall be occupied or used, and no building hereafter erected , altered , or moved into the SFHA until a floodplain permit has been Issued by the floodplain administrator or the board of adjustment indicating that the use or proposed use or structure complies with the provisions herein . B. A certificate of compliance shall be requested for upon completion of any project , construction , or use for which a floodpla in permit was granted . The use permitted by the project shall not commence until a certificate of compliance is issued. C. Issuance of a certificate of compliance by the floodplain administrator shall be required before a certificate of occupancy or completion may be issued by the department of community development. The certificate of compliance shall indicate that there has been compliance with these SFHA regulations and any conditions attached to a floodplain permit. D. The floodplain administrator shall require the applicant, when required by Section 26-808. C. 2 ., to submit a certification by a registered professional engineer that the finished fill and building floor elevations . floodproofing measures, or other flood protection factors were accomplished in compliance w ith the provisions of these regulations and any conditions attached to a floodplain permit. The floodplain administrator shall within ten (1 0) days after receipt of such certification from the applicant issue a certificate of compliance only if the building or premises and the proposed use thereof conform with all the requirements of these regulations and any conditions attached to a floodplain permit. Said submitted certification , along with a copy of the certificate of compliance, shall be kept on record in the department of public works . (Ord No 2001 -1215, § 1 2-26·01) Wheat Ridge , Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 18 PART II -CODE OF LAWS Chapter 26-ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. FLOODPLAIN CONTROL Sec. 26-810. Enforcement and penalties . Every structure. building , fill, or development placed or maintained within the SFHA in violation of these regulations is a public nuisance and the creation thereof may be enjoined and maintenance thereof may be abated by action at suit of the City of Wheat Ridge. the state , or any citizen thereof. Any person who places or maintains any structure , building, fill, or development within the SFHA in violation of these regulations shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and , upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1 ,000.00) or imprisoned not more than one (1) year or both. Each day during which such violation exists is a separate offense. In the event it becomes necessary for the city to bring action to enjoin or abate any such violation of this section, the city shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any fine or penalty imposed hereby, its cost of bringing said action and/or abating any such structure, building , fill, or development placed or maintained within the SFHA, which costs shall include attorneys' fees as well as the actual costs incurred by the city. (Ord No 2001 1215. § 1, 2 26 01) Sees. 26-811-26-900. Reserved. Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Code of Ordinances Page 19 Ordinance Amendments • New State Regulations • State adopted on January 14, 2011 • City must adopt by January 14, 2014 • New Floodplain Maps -DFIRM • FEMA adopted on August s, 2013 • City must adopt by February s, 2014 • Updated Terminology • Special Flood Hazard Area • Floodplain Permit Ordinance Adoption • Tentative Schedule • Public Meeting -October 23, 2013 -Done • City Council Study Session-November 18, 2013 • Planning Commission -December s, 2013 • City Council -First reading -December g, 2013 • City Council -Second reading -January 13, 2014 • State Regs Adoption Deadline -January 14, 2014 • New Map Effective Date -February s, 2014 New State Regulations • Minimum freeboard of one foot • City already uses this standard • Minimum freeboard for critical facilities of two feet • Essential facilities • Hazardous materials sites • At-risk populations • Vital facilities • Removed from floodplain w I fill still has freeboard • No basements in those areas New Maps-Parcels in Floodplain • ss% of current floodplain is open space • Number of parcels, not necessarily houses • 603 in current floodplain • 788 in new floodplain • 82 removed from current floodplain • 267 added with new floodplain National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) • Community Rating System ( CRS) • City regulations and activities result in discount • Currently Class 6, try for Class 5 in 2014 • Only 8 other communities are Class 6 or above • 20% discount now, maybe 25% in 2014 • 2012 Citywide Participation • 177 flood insurance policies • $ 167,208 in annual NFIP premiums • $34,781 in annual CRS savings Biggert-Waters 2012 -BW-12 • Goal -make NFIP solvent • Insurance rate is more risk based • Lower elevations pay higher rate • Higher elevations pay lower rate • Congress may delay some of the implementation BW-12-Existing Policies • Pre-FIRM Properties • 6o% of our polices are pre-FIRM • Most receive a subsidized rate • New policy= full-risk rate • Post-FIRM Properties • Many are already paying full-risl< rate • Some annual rate increases BW-12-New Policies • All New Policies • Need Elevation Certificate-$400 to $8oo • Rate affected by: • Elevation above or below Base Flood Elevation, BFE • Amount of coverage, deductible, etc. • Current FIRM-Full-risk Rate • New DFIRM -Newly mapped area • Grandfathered rate • Previous zone rate -out of floodplain • Phased out starting in late 2014 What Can Be Done? • Property owners • Lower coverage or higher deductibles • Mitigation • Raise house • Add vents • Fill basement • City of Wheat Ridge • Increase CRS rating • Provide technical advice • Fund mitigation projects Current Floodplain Maps-FIRM • Original Mapping • Clear Creel<-November 1979 • Lena Gulch -June 1975 • Current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) • June 17, 2003, latest revision New Floodplain Maps-DFIRM • Updated Mapping • Clear Creek -April 2007 • Lena Gulch-October 2007 • Reasons for Update • Updated & Better Topography • Updated Calculations Methods • Sponsors • Urban Drainage & Flood Control District (UDFCD) • City of Wheat Ridge and other local agencies Q"W AVC" ·I 44th Avenue Bridge Clear Creek Floodplain Clearvale Subdivision q~•~ l ______ . ·:·~SONC=~=~----· _jl -- -----· t----- .... "' ! ~ I;; ~ ·~ ;&t)fll 1'1. i .. " ... ff .. .., I;, ~ "' <IHHAVt: ... ., .:5FH ~VL I 0" b m ~rnrot Mr".a_, "r),.&f: Current Map -Solid Blue Line New Map -Blue Shading ~· .._rNA~ .. ~~ ..... .,.,..I'£ ~ 1,; ·= ! ~ i . t; .. i' i . . . .... ~ 0 ---·-- IGJUAvt' I~Hir.tJI i&r-.J l'tt; g '" ~ ~r.rnP( Q) C) LL -c ·-~ ... Q) m Q) ... C) (.) r: ·--... c. cu ·-Q) ~ -(.) H';i:TI .;1 ~ " ... ~~ 1h:OOI\ 't . : ~ ' • ~ ~ I"' Jt("JSm;;r \: • JS 5llOOft lt3Bi'~P-1\1,. JS;i'tfl. JS.Irl"w : qn~ I; "' .. ~ ... .. • ~-- jJ- Q) c .....J C) Q) ::::J c ·-en "0 ro "0 .r:::. 0 (j) tl31:tn (j) Q) ::::J 'en a., ro ~ a. +J ro c ~ Q) L-~ It L- i!. ::::J Q) f! () z :::J<'rO ISJMI J$ ··rv l~ ..... o 1 " "'"\ i' ~ .. ~ M ,;: .. ~ J S'J!Ul!JiJ .. JS)IW) JS.'IrO ~ ~ " ~ J$ ~~·111';1 JS Bflt:/1 ~ ~ ::>,SIVIlS a .!<J,111$C1 ~ .lJHOINII Q) c ·-_J Q) 0) :::J .S c:o"'C co "'C ..c. ==(f) 0 (/) Q) I :::J a.Cll C0 I ~a. ...... co c~ Q) t: ~ :::J Q) OZ JSJ~ JS '1'110 J:)IIQ/11 r ~ I I I I I I I i ;: ~ I I i I I •g l o I ~ I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I i I i I L_ Q) c ·-_J Q) 0> :::3 .c c:o"O "'0 co .0 ~ (/)Q> I :::3 Q.c:o C0 I ~ 1 ~l l ~ ~ ~ ~· .., Q .-.: ;; ~ JEFFERSON COII,..-v t. ~ J l I i ; I 0 Lena Gulch 32nd Avenue Bridge ... .1.J ~ ~ ~ ~,jf Ao,/1· ·! ~ .. "' ~ \ "" ~ .;; "' :::: ~ru .... '" .. .., .. i 'il ~ t; @ "" ~ .,. Rtf"i'4'.CVL ... ~ .. ~ ;;; .,., ~ .. ., ~ .. "' ~ Lewis Meadows ri<t'J."vo~- . t WUl••< .--~ J - :rJ"':~J ~o•w ,.--'·------·---·--·---·-·-~:.~<1'1 · ~1ST Pt ct,._t~ tr' A+ "'.l• .,. "-:> i I I il-o''- t ".:P I :0 0:: ~ I I I .,... ! ~. LAKEWOOO f __________ -;_~n; -""<-----· ~'" 1'---•• ·------·--·---·---·----__! ~ Current Map -Solid Blue Line New Map -Blue Shading