Lawmakers were asked today to consider letting more inmates move out of prison and into community-corrections facilities—despite concerns the move could pre-empt local communities’ power to reject offenders deemed unacceptable.

Some 347 inmates already approved for placement in community-corrections programs–comprising 1.5 percent of the state’s total inmate population–are still awaiting placement. State budget analysts say allowing accelerated placement could relieve the backlog and ease pressure on the state’s strapped budget because inmates placed outside of prisons cost less than those in a prison.

In testimony before the Joint Budget Committee, budget staffer Patrick Brodhead said speeding up placement would involve changing the current system of locally governed, community-corrections boards, but he acknowledged the idea could hit resistance from the communities themselves.

“It’s not going to be popular, I can tell you that,” Brodhead said.

Community corrections facilities provide an alternative to incarceration in prison for individuals convicted of less severe offenses and individuals in transition between prison and parole  in order to aid reintegration of offenders back into the community.

Under current policy, inmates must meet the criteria set forth by the community board in the locale where the inmates will be paroled—assuming beds are available in that jurisdiction. Local community-corrections boards currently have the authority to accept or reject any offender referred for placement, giving them the ability to determine which inmates they believe are acceptable for their community.

Three changes were suggested by Brodhead in order to increase the utilization of available beds.

• Standardizing criteria for placement across community board jurisdictions; the criteria now rest with each community board.
• Creating regional governance—central, northeast, southern, and western—rather than by judicial districts
• Transfering administration funding for the community-corrections program to the Departments of Corrections and Judiciary.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, who chairs the budget committee, said curbing statutorily recognized local control over the boards may be problematic.

“We’ve created a pretty powerful voice for community control,” Pommer said, adding that the proposal would “take away their control and essentially usurp their authority over their communities.”

Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, recommended that further investigation be done to look into the individual components driving the issue to see if there are compelling reasons to override local control.

“I wouldn’t want to take that step without understanding all the dynamics of it,” said Levy.

No action was taken by the Joint Budget Committee and no potential legislation emerged today as a result of the discussion.