Key Findings
- The Black-White imprisonment disparity in Colorado prisons fell 43%, from 11-to-1 to 6-to-1, during the period from 2000 to 2019. The largest disparity reduction occurred in imprisonment for drug offenses, with the rate for Black adults declining by 90% while the rate for White adults dropped by 47%.
- Changes in prison admissions were the primary drivers of the disparity reduction, while changes in length of stay also contributed. The overall admissions rates fell by 48% and 12% for Black and White adults, respectively, during the study period.
- Statutory changes to sentencing appeared to have had less effect on disparity. Analysis indicates that three statutes—one that adjusted penalties, distinctions, and class severities for drug-related offenses; one that created a new sentencing grid and alternative sentencing guidelines for drug-related offenses; and another that adjusted penalties for a second-degree assault offense—had statistically detectable but small effects.
Research by the Council on Criminal Justice Pushing Toward Parity project shows that the gap between Black and White state imprisonment rates nationwide has narrowed significantly since the start of the 21st century. To better understand the trends and identify policies and practices that may drive them, the Council chose 12 states for closer investigation.
This brief on Colorado outlines the key state disparity trends, summarizes the potential influences on them, and statistically assesses the impact of those influences on the trends.
Notes
Although this brief acknowledges trends and factors from the pre-study period of 2000 to 2009, the scope of the analyses is limited to circumstances present in the state between 2010 and 2019. This brief also acknowledges potential disparity trend factors that implicate variables beyond the scope of this brief. For more details on methodology, framing considerations, and limitations, see the supplemental methodology report.
Click here for an overview of Colorado's resident and prison population demographics.
GLOSSARY
- Disparity ratios are a measure that compares imprisonment rates across two groups of people. A Black-White imprisonment disparity ratio of 3-to-1, for example, means that Black adults are incarcerated at three times the rate of White adults. A ratio of one indicates no difference between the two groups, or “parity.” A disparity ratio lower than one means that Black adults are less likely to experience imprisonment than White adults.
- New court commitments refer to prison admissions that result from a conviction for a new crime rather than for violations of community supervision.
- Rates are calculated per 100,000 respective adults. For example, the Black imprisonment rate is calculated per 100,000 Black adults. All rates refer to adult state prison populations; those in federal prisons and local jails are excluded.
- Parity refers to a disparity ratio of 1 (1-to-1).
Racial Disparities in Colorado
Between 2000 and 2019, the overall Black-White imprisonment rate disparity1 in Colorado fell by 43%, from 11-to-1 to 6-to-1. Black-White imprisonment rate disparity fell by 23% during the study period (2010-2019), continuing the 22% decline in disparity that occurred between 2000-2009 (Figure 1). This decrease was led by a 64% drop in the drug offense disparity ratio that occurred between 2010 and 2019. For violent and property offenses, the disparity ratios for each offense category fell by 7% between 2010 and 2019.
Figure 1: Black and White Imprisonment Rate Disparity Ratios by Major Offense Category, 2000–2020
Overall and within each major offense category, Black imprisonment rates fell more rapidly than did White rates (Figure 2). The overall Black imprisonment rate declined by 47%, compared to a 6% decrease in the White imprisonment rate. While decreases in drug offense imprisonment rates were the largest among crime categories for both populations, the Black drug offense imprisonment rate declined by 90% while the White drug offense imprisonment rate fell by 47%.
Figure 2: Black and White Imprisonment Rates by Major Offense Category, 2000–2020
Because of these differential growth rates, the race-specific composition of the prison population changed. The share of the Black incarcerated population serving prison terms for violent crime rose from 41% to 68% while the shares of incarcerated Black people in prison for property crime and drug offenses fell; for example, the share of the Black incarcerated population sentenced for drug offenses fell from 32% to 6% (Figure 3). For the White incarcerated population, the share of those held for violent crimes rose slightly (45% to 53%) while the share serving time for drug offenses decreased from 14% to 8%.
Figure 3: Shares of Incarcerated Population by Race, 2000 and 2019
Disparity in Prison Admissions and Length of Stay
For both Black and White incarcerated populations, admissions growth had the most substantial impact on changes in imprisonment rates between 2000 and 2019. During this period, a decrease in admissions growth accounted for more of the change in Black and White imprisonment rates than did a change in the expected length of stay. For Black people, the overall admission rate (per population) decreased by 48%, 24 times faster (in absolute value) than the increase in expected length of stay (2%) (Figure 4). The largest difference between growth rates in admission rates and length of stay for Black people occurred for drug offenses, where the 85% decrease in the admission rate was 2.4 times larger (in absolute value) than the 35% decrease in the expected length of stay. For White people, the largest absolute gaps, or mathematical differences, in admissions versus length of stay growth rates occurred with violent offenses. The White violent crime admission rate decreased by 2.7%, while length of stay fell by 1.1%.
Figure 4: Change in Admission Rates and Length of Stay by Race and Offense Category, 2000–2019
Overall, change in prison admissions contributed more significantly to change in Black and White imprisonment rates—and, by inference, to change in disparity—than did the change in length of stay. By implication, if statutory reforms had any effect on disparity, those that affected admission rates were more likely to have an impact than those affecting sentence length.
Potential Disparity Trend Factors
During the 2010 to 2020 study period, Colorado legislators initiated several statutory changes to sentencing and release policies, efforts that focused largely on drug policy and parole decision-making. Colorado lawmakers also established a commission and a task force to examine data, policies, and practices in the criminal justice system and to make recommendations to improve the administration of justice. The commission established a pathway for change and cross-sector decision-making, which continues today.
Political Context
Politically, Colorado has been relatively consistent over the first 20 years of the century, with Democrats holding the governor’s office since Republican Bill Owens completed his term in 2007. Democrats have held narrow control of both chambers of the state legislature, except from 2015 to 2018, when the state Senate had a slight Republican advantage.
Practice Reforms
Against that political backdrop, cultural shifts within criminal justice agencies began occurring during the study period, particularly in the later years. With the establishment of intermediate sanctions in probation and parole via SB-124, internal department policies also began to shift, from punitive surveillance practices to individual case management. By 2016, the probation and parole department began regular staff training to focus more on case management. Over the study period, the use of data and validated tools to guide decision-making increased significantly. For example, in 2012, the Colorado State Board of Parole began using a release instrument that created a matrix for parole consideration which accounted for a person’s risk of recidivism and their readiness for parole. In 2015, the governor signed a bill that requires annual data analysis and reporting by law enforcement, the judiciary, and the parole board, including information related to race and ethnicity.
Additional Contextual Factors
Stakeholders said that several non-legislative and non-practice factors had influenced the system, particularly corrections, during the study period. These include sudden shocks to the corrections system administration, such as the 2013 murder of Corrections Director Tom Clements by a parolee, as well as changes directed by Colorado voters at the ballot box, such as the regulation of marijuana like alcohol through the passage of Amendment 64. While lawmakers made no specific statutory response to the murder of Director Clements that directly impacted the use of parole or parole supervision policies, Colorado stakeholders suggested that reactions by corrections and parole officials led to reduced use of parole and increased efforts to identify violators and sanction them. Despite that input, the study team’s analysis found no significant long-term change in the use of parole or revocations to prison associated with the death of Director Clements. Stakeholders reported that as Coloradans made legislative changes to criminal justice policies and practices, there was little analysis of how such changes might affect racial disparity. In 2017, however, Denver District Attorney Beth McCann launched a race and justice study to examine charging decisions in her office. Although the study found no significant bias, stakeholders say it led to greater awareness and additional training for prosecutors in the state’s largest city.
Statutory Reforms
Colorado lawmakers made efforts to use prison resources for people convicted of more serious crimes by creating alternatives to incarceration through specialty courts and restricting sentence lengths for those charged with drug and property offenses. This was intended to reduce the use of incarceration for those who violate conditions of their probation or parole supervision. Between 2010 and 2020, Colorado passed or implemented more than 70 bills, including changes to criminal sentencing. These bills were reviewed for inclusion in this analysis based on targeted populations, scope, and content, yielding 23 reforms for further study.2 A review of the 23 candidate bills produced six themes that characterized sentencing reform in Colorado during the study period. Based solely on the frequency of the themes, sentencing reforms in Colorado were dominated by those that focused on:
- increasing or decreasing sentencing severity (16 laws)
- expanding or restricting the discretion of criminal justice agency actors (14 laws)
Less prevalent were reforms that focused on:
- treatment programming (nine laws)
- repeat offenders (two laws)
- bail/pretrial release (two laws)
- good time or early release (two laws)
Eleven of the 23 bills focused on specific offense classes, while 12 broadly applied to justice-involved groups, such as probationers and parolees. Of those focused on specific offenses, five statutes targeted violent crime, four dealt with drug offenses, one focused on escapes, and one addressed felony theft thresholds. Many of the provisions in the 23 candidate bills were beyond the scope of the study data. Because of this, the following analysis only addresses subsets of reforms whose elements could be measured:
- HB 10-1352 (August 2010), a bill that adjusted penalties for various controlled substance offenses; created distinctions between drug use and possession, and between drug manufacturing and distribution; and lowered the crime severity classification for use.
- SB 13-250 (May 2013), which created a new sentencing grid for drug offenses and set new qualifying amounts for felony, misdemeanor, and petty offenses; established a new option enabling those charged with drug offenses to avoid a felony conviction; and instructed courts to exhaust all remedies before sentencing some people arrested for drug crimes to the Colorado Department of Corrections.
- HB 15-1303 (September 2015), a bill that modified penalties for second-degree assault against emergency personnel, making prison the presumptive sentence for such an offense.
- HB 11-1064 (May 2011), which allowed people sentenced under earlier law to be treated more like those sentenced under HB 10-1352. HB 11-1064 also required that people granted parole under the statute participate in substance use disorder treatment consistent with their needs.
- SB 15-124 (May 2015) and HB 17-1326 (July 2017), bills that addressed people committing parole violations. SB 15-124 required parole officers to consider intermediate sanctions for technical violations; HB 17-1326 changed the length of time to be served for parole violations.
- SB 16-051 (April 2016), which provided judges with increased discretion in implementing consecutive (vs. concurrent) sentences for violent offenses.
Analysis
Table 1 summarizes the findings of Black-White differences in preexisting trends and patterns, shifts in preexisting levels associated with the implementation of reforms, and post-reform trends. Analyses are detailed in the supplemental methodology report.3 All estimates in Table 1 are differences between the Black and White regression parameters (the degree to which a line slopes upward or downward). A positive post-reform trend difference indicates that the population outcome grew faster for Black people than for White people; if that difference is negative, that means a population outcome either grew more slowly or declined more rapidly for Black people than White people.
Table 1: Summary of Statistical Analysis of Racial Differences in Effects of Colorado Reforms
Three statutes were associated with statistically significant Black-White differences in post-reform trends: HB 10-1352, SB 13-250, and HB 15-1303.
HB 10-1352
The broad effects of HB 10-1352 were twofold:
- New court commitments for drug possession and for drug trafficking fell, both for Black people and White people.
- The White proportion of drug possession and trafficking admissions increased by very small amounts that can be interpreted as indicating no difference in proportions; the Black proportions for possession and trafficking admissions each fell by about 3.3 percentage points.
The statistical analysis reveals different pre- and post-patterns for White people and Black people in both drug possession and drug trafficking new court commitments. For drug possession offenses pre-reform, White admissions fell faster than Black admissions; but for post-reform trends, Black admissions fell faster than White admissions and the White trend was comparatively flat (Figure 5a). The Black rate of decrease pre-reform was the same as the rate of decrease post-reform.
Figure 5a: Monthly New Court Commitments for Drug Possession Offenses, by Race
For drug trafficking, pre-reform Black admissions were increasing slightly as White admissions were on the decline; but post-reform, the trend increased for White people while leveling off for Black people (Figure 5b).
Figure 5b: Monthly New Court Commitments for Drug Trafficking Offenses, by Race
Although the reforms adopted under HB 10-1352 were associated with a change in disparity, the magnitude of the effects was comparatively small. For example, with the leveling off of White admissions post-reform and continued decline of Black admissions, by 60 months (or five years) after the reform, the Black-White difference in drug possession admissions accounted for 3% of the gap in Black-White drug offense admissions.
SB 13-250
SB 13-250 was associated with a 10-percentage point increase in the proportion of White people admitted for drug trafficking during the initial three years of implementation, as well as a 3.5 percentage point decrease in the share of Black admissions for this crime (Figure 6a). Similarly, during the three years following its implementation, the new law was associated with a 6.5 percentage point increase in the White share of drug possession admissions and a four-percentage point reduction in the Black share. Controlling for the preexisting downward trends in White and Black drug trafficking new court commitments, SB 13-250 led to a one-time shift up in admissions for both Black and White people, where the upward shift was larger for White people than Black people (about four more White than Black drug trafficking admits). This was the only statistically significant effect identified through the analysis, and its modest contribution to disparity amounted to less than one percent of the Black-White difference in drug admissions in 2013.
Figure 6a: Monthly New Court Commitments for Drug Trafficking Offenses, by Race
SB 13-250 also stopped or slowed the downward trend in admissions for drug possession (Figure 6b). For White people, after decreasing in the five years prior to SB 13-250 drug possession admissions increased by about four-tenths of a person per month (or by 24 persons by month 60 following the intervention). For Black people, the downward trend in admissions for drug possession was halted, and the post-SB 13-250 trend was relatively flat. Because the increase in the post-reform White trend was double that of the Black trend, there was a statistically significant difference in post-reform trends for Black people and White people. The Black-White gap in drug possession admissions stood at 15 at the start of the reform and had increased to 26 by month 60 after the reform.
Figure 6b: Monthly New Court Commitments for Drug Possession Offenses, by Race
HB 15-1303
The primary results of the impact analysis of HB 15-1303, which focused on second-degree assault against emergency personnel, are illustrated in Figure 7. The red lines in each graph illustrate the trends in the pre- and post-reform number of admissions of Whites and Blacks for this offense. Pre-reform, admission trends for both were flat. Post-reform, admissions for both groups increased but increased faster for White people than Black people.4 Specifically, post-reform, White admissions increased by about 0.29 admissions per month, and Black admissions increased by about 0.05 admissions per month. This explains why the post-reform White share increased while the post-reform Black share decreased. Figure 5 shows that at the time of implementation, there was not an immediate break in series; rather, the reform led to linear increases in this category of admissions for both White people and Black people.
Figure 7: Monthly Admissions for 2nd Degree Assault Offenses, by Race
The analysis then estimated the magnitude of the difference in trends for White and Black people admitted into prison on a new court commitment following the implementation of HB 15-1303. It found that at the time HB 15-1303 took effect, White admissions averaged 15 per month; by December 2019, 51 months later, White admissions had reached about 30 per month. Black admissions, which averaged 5.5 per month at the time HB 15-1303 took effect, reached eight per month by December 2019 (or 51 months later). The difference in the Black-White estimated number of admissions at the start of the reform (-9.3) minus the difference at the end of the reform (-21.3) indicates that the net effect of the reforms was 12 fewer Black admissions than the number expected if the trend for Black people mirrored that of White people. This analysis points to two conclusions. First, the reform increased admissions of both White and Black people to prison for second-degree assault. Second, the racial difference in post-reform trends is very small; over the 51-month post-reform period, a total of 12 fewer Black people were admitted to prison than would have been expected if the Black was the same as the White trend.
Discussion
Because disparity in admissions accounted for most of the change in Black and White imprisonment rates in Colorado, this analysis of statutory reforms focused primarily on prison admissions. While lawmakers passed several statutory reforms affecting violent crime, drug offenses, and parole populations, the analysis found little to no evidence of racial differences in outcomes following their implementation. Where racial differences were detected, the magnitude of those differences were too small to have had a meaningful impact on the observed overall changes in racial disparities, suggesting that the legislative reforms did not contribute significantly to a change in disparity. Given that the effects of the analyzed reforms resulted in outcomes consistent with intended outcomes, and the fact that there were no observable racial differences associated with admissions for drug and violent offenses, it is possible that much of what caused a change in disparity occurred outside of Colorado’s sentencing system, including front-end changes in arrests and new court commitments per arrest. It is plausible that reforms outside the scope of this research contributed to the fall in disparity. For example, the diversion of drug possession offenses from prison could have minimized the effects of the reforms that were analyzed. Alternatively, shifts in types of drugs associated with race (such as more methamphetamine and prescription drugs used and sold by White people) could have increased the White ratio of new court commitments per arrest for drug trafficking. These possible factors, neither of which was included in this analysis, could have contributed to the change in imprisonment disparity for drug crimes. For other offense categories, such as violent and property, the overall change in imprisonment disparity was small, and the analysis did not attempt to disentangle potential underlying factors.
Colorado, like any state, has a distinct political and demographic history that influences the discussion of what does or does not work when addressing disparity in the criminal justice system. This state brief is one of 12 in the Pushing Toward Parity project, all of which seek to identify, what, if any, policy changes are associated with shifts in racial disparity and can serve as examples for states pursuing equity in their criminal justice system.
