DOC STATEMENT
Uploaded by
9newsDOC STATEMENT
Uploaded by
9newsThe Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) uses multiple evidence-based
tools to guide decisions related to supervision and risk. While these assessments
play an important role, they are not predictive of specific offenses and are always
interpreted in context, alongside professional judgment and real-world insight
gained through Community Parole Officer supervision and case review.
DOC Quality Assurance
CDOC maintains quality assurance practices to ensure assessments are
completed correctly and consistently. Audits are being completed approximately
every six months. In October 2023, CDOC established a dedicated assessment
audit team, initially focusing on facility-based assessments. We are currently
expanding the audit team’s scope to include parole assessments, strengthening
quality assurance through more frequent audits, direct staff support, and
targeted coaching where needed.
Moscoso & Romero
In the case of Moscoso, a review confirmed that six individual items were scored
inconsistently with UCCI guidance. However, a rigorous review found that had
the assessment been scored in perfect compliance with UCCI scoring criteria, it
would have recommended the same level of supervision. Additionally, the community
parole officer exercised caution and supervised this individual at a high-risk level.
The issue identified above in the screenshot for the CST for Vinchenzo Moscoso is
reflective of a limitation in how historical notes are displayed within DOC’s CST
system. Notes from prior assessments carry forward and are not visually
distinguishable from current notes, which can create confusion in interpreting
the rationale behind a given score. In the above instance, the note referencing
prior substance use is a historical note, not an entry made by the officer
conducting the 2023 CST assessment. The lack of time-stamping can create
confusion during review, but it would have been apparent to the officer
conducting the interview that the particular note came from a prior assessment.
While we are limited in our ability to disclose the specific criteria used in these
assessments, it is important to note that each assessment covers a specific period
of time and that this question was scored in compliance with UCCI guidelines.
This is a technology issue, and we are actively working on a fix with our vendor
and the Office of Information Technology to ensure that notes are clearly
timestamped to provide clarity for reviewers on when notes have been entered.
A review of Romero’s file shows that he has answered several historical questions
differently across various interviews, both within and outside of CDOC. Anyone
administering the assessment is expected to question and clarify discrepancies
during the interview. However, unless there is official documentation to verify
the correct information, we must rely on the responses provided at the time to
score the assessments.
Assessment Tools
Domain 7 of the Community Supervision Tool (CST), which relates to attitude
and orientation, focuses on nuanced aspects of behavior and mindset. Without
observing the interview firsthand or having corroborating evidence, it is
extremely difficult to retroactively assess the fidelity of scoring in this domain.
Regarding training and certification, CDOC began implementing CSTs through
the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute (UCCI) in 2021. CDOC staff are
required to complete initial certification through UCCI to administer CSTs.
CDOC is actively developing additional training resources to reinforce
consistency and support staff.
It's also worth noting that CDOC uses multiple validated assessment tools,
including the LSI, CARAS, and CTAP. Each measures different factors and serves
a different purpose. Differences in results across tools do not necessarily reflect
inconsistency but rather variation in what each tool is designed to assess.
Ultimately, we view risk assessments as helpful guidance in supervision, but not
a final determination. These tools are interpreted in context and are one
component of a broader decision-making process that incorporates professional
judgement and real-time case information.
Community Parole Officers
Understanding caseload management requires acknowledging several influencing
factors. In practice, the size of the caseload for Community Parole Officers can
vary across regions due to staffing levels, geographic locations, supervision
intensity, and the individual needs of those under supervision.
For the Community Parole Officer (CPOs) series, we currently have 5926 parolees
and 119 CPOs. As of April 2025, this results in an average statewide caseload of
approximately 50 parolees per community parole officer. While this is an average
and individual caseloads can vary based on factors such as region, risk level, and
supervision type, it is worth noting that these figures align closely with national
standards for community supervision ratios.
We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of accuracy and
transparency, and we are actively taking steps to ensure ongoing improvement.