This is an archive of an Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention OJJDP publication. |
|
Colorado: Review of Children's Code Brings Significant Change for Juvenile Justice Administration Introduction The passage of House Bill 961005 in the 1996 legislative session completed a 3-year assessment of juvenile justice administration in the State of Colorado. Beginning with a special legislative session called by Governor Roy Romer in 1993 to address the increasing number of youth in need of services from the human services and judicial systems in the State, Colorado has undertaken a comprehensive review of State juvenile services. Through the work of the Interim Committee on Youth Violence, the Task Force on the Recodification of the Children's Code, and the Legislative Oversight Committee (LOC), several initiatives were introduced in the 1996 legislative session that proposed significant changes to the administration of child welfare and juvenile justice policies in the State. The legislative process brought many changes and amendments to the proposals and resulted in a system that seeks to balance youth accountability for delinquent and violent behavior with the best and most appropriate services to help youth become contributing members of society. Although it is too early to assess the long-range impact of the measure, officials expect that a full implementation of the law will result from their 3-year commitment to finding "what works" and soliciting the views of hundreds of Coloradans concerned with the administration of juvenile justice in their State. Impetus for Reform: A Summer of Violence The juvenile justice reform effort in Colorado was prompted by what the local press termed a "summer of violence" in the State in 1993. In the span of only a few months, a series of random violent acts seriously injured or killed several people in the Denver metropolitan area. The media recounted incidents in which a 10-month-old child was wounded by a stray bullet while visiting the Denver Zoo and a young boy was hit in the arm by a random gunshot while playing on his aunt's porch. In another incident, a young man was murdered and his wife abducted and assaulted as they were en route to their neighborhood grocery store.279 The availability of firearms to youth in the community in large part accounted for the increased violence. According to an article that appeared that summer in the Denver Post, "[Local] authorities agree that the prevalence of weapons among youths is at an all-time high. In the first five days of a high-intensity gang sweep, Denver officers confiscated 69 guns, mostly from teenagers."280 The rash of violence caused significant concern among the public and among State and local officials, who noted the shocking nature of the randomness and unpredictability of the violence in the area. Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter noted that "the violence we are seeing has, to some extent, a random nature. And while it has a gang dynamic, we have innocent people who are not gang involved who are being injured and killed -- and that is something new."281 The Governor expressed the same concern with random and impersonal violence, which is especially frightening to citizens. The drive-by shooting, and the irrationality of such an act, indicated to the Governor "an abandoning of our moral code."282 In response, Romer called a special legislative session in September 1993. A result of the 10-day session was the creation of an Interim Committee on Youth Violence that studied juvenile justice activity in the State and concluded that the children's code was in need of revision.283 The committee determined that, although the laws governing children and families had been reviewed and partially recodified in 1988, the changes made in that year were not comprehensive. It noted that the number of children in need of support services overwhelmed the human service and judicial systems. The committee found that there was an imbalance between treatment and aftercare for children receiving services, which were fragmented and duplicative in some cases. Further, little substantive information was available on the effectiveness of the services and interventions provided to youth and their families. State leaders also realized the importance of the community's role in providing services to youth and the necessity of interagency communication in providing appropriate sanctions and services to children.284 This conclusion, coupled with the work and recommendations of the Interim Committee, led to the 1994 introduction and enactment of S. 9421, Concerning a Task Force Study for the Recodification of the Colorado Children's Code.
For the next 12 months, beginning in the fall of 1994 and extending through the entire 1995 legislative session, a diverse task force was assembled. It was composed of representatives from State and local agencies, family court judges, probation officers, attorneys, representatives from nonprofit agencies charged with the treatment of families and children, and a family that would experience the impact of changes in children and family law in the State. To facilitate the task force objectives, subcommittees were formed in eight topic areas that included juvenile justice; child protection; relinquishment of parental rights and adoption, paternity, and child support; development of a single uniform assessment instrument; family-focused legal and administrative procedures; performance-based standards for service providers; homeless youth; and parental rights and responsibilities.286 Members of the task force solicited 120 additional Coloradans to participate on these subcommittees. Subcommittees met frequently and reported monthly to the subcommittee chair, who was a task force member, on their progress and recommendations. According to the task force's final report submitted to the LOC in September 1995, the chairman of the task force noted in his opening comments that: [T]he Colorado Children's Code contained a basic structure, focus, and legislative process that needed only clarification and some modification rather than an entirely new The Juvenile Justice Subcommittee Findings and Recommendations The juvenile justice subcommittee began its work by articulating the goal of creating "an effective juvenile justice system that addresses the needs of children and their families and preserves the safety of the community, and under which early intervention and prevention services are available." The salient policy issues it identified for discussion were public safety and accountability for behavior; out-of-home placement of delinquent youth; the relationship between the juvenile justice and education systems; juvenile social and delinquency history and records; juvenile parole, detention, and diversion; fragmentation of services across the State; the statutory creation of the Division of Youth Services within the Department of Human Services; the role of juvenile courts; the needs of special offenders; and direct file and other transfer provisions.288 Further, the subcommittee wanted to create a system that coordinated assessment procedures and youth services into a system whose base was at the community level and to suggest feasible revisions that would result in more expeditious processing of juvenile caseloads.289 In its work, the panel also battled with the perception that government was intervening in the lives of families and children inappropriately and circumventing a parent's right to raise his or her child. The chairman of the juvenile justice subcommittee, who also served as the director of the Department of Human Services, was particularly responsive to many of these issues, according to the task force's final report. "[The director] consistently looked for ways to reduce government interference while maintaining the department's ability to properly respond to the needs of children and families when appropriate."290 Through the work of the juvenile justice subcommittee, the task force presented nearly 20 juvenile code recommendations to the LOC. The recommendations included establishing a cabinet-level position for youth crime prevention; augmenting the role of the municipal courts in processing juvenile cases; setting aside funds to supplement community corrections allocations; and changing procedures regarding the transfer of information about delinquent youth between the juvenile justice and education systems, while getting tough on parents of truant children.291 The majority of the subcommittee recommendations, however, related to a juvenile offender's entry into the juvenile justice system and subsequent adjudication. Presentencing assessment and sentencing options also were addressed. The provisions of these four primary categories include:
The task force combined the juvenile justice subcommittee recommendations with the recommendations of the other seven subcommittees and submitted its final recommendations to the LOC for review.
Although the LOC accepted many of the core ideas set forth by the task force, it also rejected several key components of the task force's findings. For example, it rejected the idea of setting aside a portion of State appropriations to judicial districts to be combined with community funds for community corrections programs for nonfelony offenders. LOC members were concerned that this plan would result in a first-come, first-served delivery of services. They questioned the availability of services under this plan if a juvenile entered the system after the State and community-raised funds were expended. Further, the LOC was concerned this would result in localized services and circumvent the goal of reducing fragmented service delivery across the State. In rejecting this portion of the proposal, the LOC also rejected the community review team concept.294
The LOC also rejected several initiatives related
to parental responsibility for truant behavior. The
committee members agreed that parents should be
somewhat accountable for truant children but noted
that often parents did not have control over their
children. They also were not in favor of keeping
unruly children in class and, as a result, voted to repeal
the compulsory school attendance law. According to
the LOC report, the committee "agreed that
students who do not want to attend school will not
attend school," and that some committee members
"questioned the State law, which requires the
attendance of disruptive students who don't want to be
in Finally, the LOC did not support the recommendation to create a cabinet-level position for prevention purposes. It voted instead to establish a function in the State auditor's office that would coordinate and evaluate prevention and intervention strategies and programs in the State and identify duplicative efforts.
Elements of Reform
H.R. 961005, as introduced before the 1996
General Assembly, reflected the conclusions of the
LOC. During the 1996 legislative session, however, a
series of hearings and testimony exposed some
dissent from the plan put forth by the LOC. Myriad
views were heard and represented as the bill moved through the legislative process. For example,
some groups, including State prosecutors, believed
the LOC proposal had deviated significantly from
the task force's findings. Still other groups were
concerned about any expansion of the role of the
State in making decisions about sanctioning and
services for children and its impact on the privacy right
in child rearing.296
As the bill moved through the legislature,
however, it became clear to all interested parties that
the children's code needed significant revision.
Because this bill would have an impact on the children's
code in its totality, interested parties believed this was
an opportunity for broad change in the
administration of child welfare programs. A collective mindset
was created from two somewhat opposing camps:
those who supported the reforms and valued
increased accountability in the juvenile justice system
and those who perceived the discussion of
children's code reform as an opportunity to contribute
more broadly to the climate of change. This
environment lent itself to compromise and collaboration as
the four primary pieces of legislation representing
the work of the task force -- recodification of
juvenile code definitions, juvenile justice reform, child
welfare amendments, and information management for multiagency access to information on
youth -- moved through the legislature.297
Although the reform initiative, as enacted,
differed significantly from the original task force
recommendations, many of the core ideas and concepts were
in place in the final bill. For example, the
legislature, through its action, created a measure that
prioritized increased accountability and a swift sanction
against juvenile delinquency and youth misbehavior. It
retained the provisions for transferring juveniles
to criminal court to allow them to be held
accountable for violent behavior. The law also clarified the
roles and expectations of various State and local
officials who come into contact with these youth as they
are processed through the juvenile justice system.
House Bill 961005. The juvenile justice
reform initiative resulting from Colorado's 3-year study
of the delivery of services to youth in the State
made several significant changes to the manner in
which juvenile justice is administered. The continued
attempt to balance both a youth's accountability
and his or her rehabilitation and treatment is evident
in the legislative declaration of the State's juvenile
justice system reform:
In addition, the law required a 1-year mandatory
parole period, removed the cap on restitution for
parents of delinquent youth, and provided increased
agency access to youth records -- provisions that were
included in both the task force and LOC
recommendations.299
The enacted measure slightly amended most of
the LOC recommendations set forth in H.R.
961005. The enacted provisions include:
Implementation and Outlook
Because many of the provisions of H.R.
961005 were not effective until January 1, 1997, it is still
too early to tell what issues, if any, will help or
hinder implementation of the juvenile justice reform
effort. The parties involved in this effort took steps to
increase support and buy-in for juvenile justice
reform in hopes of facilitating full implementation of
the measure. For example, the Colorado State
Advisory Group advocated for the task force to be
composed of members who represented different
perspectives and priorities for juvenile justice reform.
Having diverse representation forced those individuals
with opposing views and interests to listen to the
opinions of others and allowed a mechanism for all voices
to be heard and represented. According to State
officials, this broad inclusion and availability "at
the table" helped facilitate support for the
bill.301
Further, the involvement of more than 100 additional Coloradans participating on the
subcommittees was significant in ensuring that all
interests were represented. Subcommittee selections
were made with attention to geographic, racial, and
gender diversity, and a person's group
identification -- social worker, government attorney, therapist,
parent, or father's rights. This avoided overrepresentation
of a particular group on a subcommittee.302
Although the sensational media accounts in 1993 likely inspired juvenile justice reform by
enhancing the public's perception and concern about the
problem of juvenile crime, the media presentation of
the proposed changes to the juvenile justice code in
1996 were much more substantive and informative.
One observer noted the absence of sensational headlines
in the local papers and the inclusion of more
substantive information in articles about the policy changes
being debated before the legislature. For example, at
one point early in the debate on juvenile justice reform,
a provision was introduced to drop the age of direct
file to 10 for some offenses. The media stories
discussed the advantages and disadvantages of making a
change of that type in the law.303
With significant statewide support for the
legislation, it is expected that the effort will be
sustainable. State officials already have anticipated some
changes in current infrastructure to accommodate the
changes made by the law. For example, the mandatory
1-year parole provision has led policymakers to
appropriate additional funds to help judges and court
personnel prepare for more juvenile parole cases. An
additional allocation was made to the judicial
department to help the courts hire administrative staff or
part-time magistrates.304
Only time will tell if the initiatives set forth by
the legislature will achieve the goals of holding
juveniles accountable for their behavior, reducing
recidivism, and helping delinquents become contributing
members of society. Supporters anticipate that the
modifications to the juvenile justice system and the
other changes to the children's code will enable the
State to have a positive impact on the lives of all its youth.
280. Id.
281. Id.
282. Id.
283. Task Force for the Recodification of the
Colorado Children's Code, S. 9421 (Colo.
1994) (on file with author) [hereinafter
Recodification].
284. Id., Legislative Oversight Committee,
Legislative Oversight Committee for the Recodification of
the Colorado Children's Code, p. v. (n.d.).
285. Id. at v, vi.
286. Recodification, supra note 283.
287. Task Force for the Recodification of the
Children's Code: Final Report (Sept. 1995) [hereinafter
Final Report].
288. Recodification, supra note 283.
289. Recodification Task Force, Summary of
Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Revisions (on file with
author) (n.d.) [hereinafter Summary of
Recommendations].
290. Final Report, supra note 287.
291. Action Taken by the Legislative Oversight
Committee on the Final report on the Task Force for the
Recodification of the Children's Code 57 (n.d.) [hereinafter
Action].
292. Summary of Recommendations, supra note 289, at 15.
293. Action, supra note 291, at 3543.
294.Id. at 35.
295. Id. at 37.
296. Telephone Interview with Pat Cervera, Juvenile
Justice Specialist, and Joe Thome, Program Administrator, Office
of Juvenile Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety,
Division of Criminal Justice (Jan. 6, 1997) [hereinafter Cervera
and Thome Interview].
297. Id. According to officials, all the bills but the child
welfare initiative passed. It is expected to be reintroduced in the
1997 legislative session.
298. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 192102 (1996).
299. State of Colo. Offices of Legislative Legal
Services and Legislative Council, Juvenile Justice HB
961005 (Mar. 1996).
300. Colorado Department of Human Services &
Division of Youth Corrections, Summary of House Bill
961005, The Colorado Juvenile Justice System.
301. Cervera and Thome Interview,
supra note 296.
302. Recodification, supra note 283.
303. Cervera and Thome Interview, supra note 296.
304. Id.
|