The Colorado General Assembly established the Youthful Offender System (YOS) for juvenile offenders who have been convicted in the adult criminal justice system. YOS inmates are “subject to all laws and department of corrections rules, regulations, and standards pertaining to adults,” but they are housed separately from adult inmates, and they are provided with more rehabilitative services than adult inmates (Colorado Revised Statutes 18-1.3-407(1)).
Juvenile offenders as young as 12 years of age can theoretically be sentenced to YOS (C.R.S. 18-1.3-407(2)(a)(I)), but the most recent data show that the youngest inmates entering YOS are 16 years old and that the vast majority of inmates are between the ages of 18 and 20 (Miera, Flick, Adams, Lucero, & English, 2014, p. 35). YOS inmates have much more violent criminal histories than Department of Youth Corrections (DYC) offenders and Department of Corrections (DOC) adult offenders of the same age: 85 percent of YOS offenders under 18 and 73 percent of YOS offenders between 18-19 had violent/sex crime convictions, compared to 27 percent and 30 percent of DYC offenders and 69 percent and 39 percent of DOC offenders, respectively (Miera et al., 2014, p. 40). While 53 percent of YOS inmates have received either a high school diploma or GED, 13 percent are illiterate and another 28 percent are functionally illiterate (Miera et al., 2014, p. 39). As will be explained in more detail later, a majority of YOS inmates have mental health problems.
Although YOS has many successes, it is failing in some important areas. Namely, it is not providing female inmates with equitable educational services, and it is not providing inmates in general with adequate mental health care and adequate social skills training. Moreover, YOS inmates are not allowed to expunge their criminal records upon release.
In light of all this, we propose that the Colorado General Assembly acts to ensure that YOS inmates start receiving equitable educational services and adequate mental health scare and social skills training. Additionally, we urge the General Assembly to broaden Colorado Revised Statute 19-1-306 to allow YOS inmates to expunge their criminal records upon completion of the program. Although some of these changes will require the General Assembly to procure additional funding, there is strong evidence that they will save Colorado taxpayers in the long-run, as research suggests that all of these changes will likely reduce recidivism rates (Scott & Steinberg, 2008, p. 27; Mukherji, 2013), which will in turn require taxpayers to spend less money to support victims of crime and to finance prison-related expenses.
Tasks Required for Change
I. Female inmates must be provided with equitable educational services.
Female inmates are not receiving equitable educational services.
Female inmates do not have the same access to vocational programs, college classes, and the library as male inmates (Miera et al., 2014, p. 51).
Female inmates must remain in the same classroom all day, while male inmates can move between classrooms (Miera et al., 2014, p. 51).
Female inmates receive significantly lower compensation for their work than male inmates (Miera et al., 2014, p. 52).
By failing to provide females with equitable educational services, YOS is violating Colorado Revised Statute 18-1.3-407(1)(b), which requires YOS to “establish separate housing for female and male offenders who are sentenced to the youthful offender system without compromising the equitable treatment of either.”
These inequities can be ameliorated by constructing a new education building and hiring additional instructors.
The building must be large enough to accommodate up to 12 female inmates between four classrooms. It must also include a restroom, storage closet, and an office. The purpose of the building would be to allow female inmates to rotate between two academic classrooms and two vocational skills classrooms.
Two teachers, a mental health worker, and two vocational skills instructors will utilize this building. The mental health worker will be available to the female inmates throughout the day, if needed.
These inequities could also be ameliorated by transferring YOC’s small number of female inmates—seven at last count—to Department of Youth Corrections (DYC) facilities.
DYC facilities are already set up to provide female offenders with appropriate educational and vocational services.
This newly vacated space could then be used to facilitate the mental health needs of male inmates, which will be more fully explained below.
Taking this action would save taxpayers the cost of constructing a new building and hiring additional instructors.
The Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ), which is part of the Department of Public Safety and independent from the Department of Corrections, should set up a task force to explore the cost-effectiveness of transferring female inmates to DYC facilities.
The task force should consists of at least two economists (with at least a master’s degree in economics or a related field), two mental health specialists (with at least a master’s degree in psychology, social work, or a related field), one DYC administrator, and one YOS administrator.
The task force should explore the costs of successfully transferring these female inmates to DYC facilities, keeping in mind the safety of the public, the safety of DYC offenders, and the well-being of the transferred inmates. (For example, transferring these inmates might require DYC facilities to spend additional money on security measures.)
The task force should also take into account the costs of constructing a new building for social skills groups, which will be required if female inmates remain at YOS, as explained in (III)(B).
The task force should compare the costs required to successfully transfer female inmates to DYC facilities to the costs of constructing the new buildings outlined in (2) and (3).
If it proves to be more cost-effective to transfer the female inmates, then the task force should devise a plan for transferring female YOS inmates to DYC facilities. If it proves to be more cost-effective to construct these new buildings, then YOS is charged with overseeing their construction.
Timeline for implementing these changes.
If DCJ’s task force decides it would be more cost-effective to transfer female inmates to DYC facilities, then this transfer must be carried out within 180 days.
If DCJ’s task force decides it would be more cost-effective to construct a new YOS building, then YOS will be required to construct this building within 545 days.
II. YOS inmates must be provided with adequate mental health care.
YOS’s mental health assessment process must be improved.
Evidence suggests that YOS’s current assessment process does not flag many inmates who have mental health problems.
The Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) claims that only 60 percent of YOS inmates need to be treated for mental health problems and that half of these individuals have low treatment needs (Miera et al., 2014, p. 50).
However, research shows that around 70 percent of juvenile offenders have at least one mental health disorder (Hammond, 2007, p. 4; Odgers et al., 2005, p. 26).
Research also shows that the vast majority of juvenile offenders have experienced multiple traumatic events in their lives (Abram et al., 2013, p.4).
Inmates entering YOS should be given the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-2 (MAYSI-2), which assesses the following areas: alcohol/drug use, anger-irritability, depression-anxiety, somatic problems, suicidal ideation, thought disturbances, and traumatic experiences.
The MAYSI-2 is a reputable youth mental health screening instrument that can be administered by a non-mental health professional (Griss et al., 2010). It is used with juvenile offenders in over 40 states and with Colorado DYC offenders (Ingargiola, Lynn, & Updike, 2005, p. 18).
YOS currently uses personal interviews and the Level of Service Inventory (LSI) to screen for mental health problems. The LSI has been shown to effectively predict recidivism, but it does not offer the depth of mental health assessment of the MAYSI-2 (Manchak, Skeem, & Douglas, 2008).
Inmates who score in the Caution Range or Warning Range on any MAYSI-2 scale should receive a mental health evaluation by an independent mental health specialist.
These specialists should be approved and overseen by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ), which is independent of DOC. The specialists must be independent of DOC to reduce the chances of a conflict of interest. A specialist who works for DOC, for instance, might feel pressured to downplay mental health findings in an effort to keep department costs down.
DCJ will be required to develop criteria for hiring these mental health specialists. As a blueprint for developing this criteria, DCJ might consult its own Approved Provider List for Domestic Violence Offender Treatment Providers.
DCJ will also need to appoint or hire someone to oversee these specialists. This individual must also be independent of DOC.
These independent mental health specialists will recommend the mental health services they believe the inmates must receive to reduce their MAYSI-2 scores that were in the Caution Range or Warning Range.
Inmates will receive the recommended mental health services by independent mental health specialists—either the same specialists who conducted their initial evaluations or different specialists—until these specialists determines that these services are no longer needed.
Timeline for implementing these changes.
YOS should be given no more than 42 days to start screening incoming inmates with the MAYSI-2.
YOS should be given no more than 56 day to screen all existing inmates with the MAYSI-2.
DCJ should be given no more than 28 days to develop criteria for hiring these new mental health specialists.
DCJ should be given no more than 42 days to hire someone to oversee these mental health specialists.
DCJ should be given no more than 112 days to hire these mental health specialists.
III. YOS inmates must be provided with adequate social skills training.
YOS is failing to provide inmates with adequate social skills training.
YOS inmates primarily receive social skills training through Guided Group Interaction (GGI) groups and Quick Skills groups.
However, the facility’s space limitations do not allow for the privacy needed to successfully conduct these groups (Miera et al., 2014, p. 6).
In order to provide inmates with adequate social skills training, a new building should be constructed on YOS property to allow GGI and Quick Skills groups to be successfully conducted.
DCJ should appoint a task force consisting of at least two mental health professionals (each with at least a master’s degree in psychology, social work, or a related field) to determine how much additional space will be needed to successfully conduct GGI and Quick Skills groups.
If female inmates are transferred to DYC facilities, this newly vacated space could be used to conduct GGI and Quick Skills groups.
Timeline for implementing this change.
If DCJ’s task force recommends transferring female inmates to DYC facilities, then the transfer would be complete within 180 days. YOS should be given an additional 180 days to convert the newly available space to be used for GGI and Quick Skills groups.
If DCJ’s task force recommends that female inmates remain at YOS, then YOS will be given 545 days to construct a building meeting the requirements made by DCJ.
IV. YOS inmates must be given the ability to expunge their criminal records upon release.
Colorado Revised Statute 19-1-306 allows DYC offenders, but not YOS inmates, to expunge their criminal records upon release.
Because YOS inmates cannot expunge their records, they will have more difficulty accessing numerous government benefits, being admitted to certain colleges, and they will be barred from entering certain professions (Colorado Juvenile Defender Center, 2015, p. 30).
Colorado Revised Statute 19-1-306 should be amended to allow YOS inmates who meet certain criteria to also expunge their records upon release.
To be eligible to expunge their records, YOS inmates must complete all of phases that take place in the YOS facility: Orientation Training, Phase I, and Phase II.
Inmates who fail to complete these phases for reasons related to bad behavior will not be allowed to expunge their records.
Timeline for implementing this change.
We urge that a legislator propose a bill to effect this change and that the General Assembly pass and the Governor sign this bill into law as soon as possible.
Legislative Brief: Colorado’s Youthful Offender System
Background
Governor Roy Romer called a special legislative session in September, 1993, in response to what the media dubbed “the summer of violence” (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1997, p. 52). Romer ended up signing into law several tough crime measures, one of which made it easier to try juvenile offenders as adults. Legislators were aware that many problems come with sending adolescents to prison with adults—e.g., such youth recidivate at higher rates, and they face a greater risk of physical and sexual abuse by other inmates—and so they also created the Youthful Offender System (YOS), which they billed as a “middle tier” correctional facility for adolescents. Young people sentenced to YOS were “subject to all laws and department of corrections rules, regulations, and standards pertaining to adult inmates” (Colorado Revised Statutes 18-1.3-407.1), and also like adult inmates, they could not expunge their criminal records upon release. But YOS inmates were housed separately from adult inmates, and they were provided with several rehabilitative and educational services. During Senate testimony, the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) promised that YOS would be “very rich in programming,” providing inmates with “counselors, teachers, mentors, coaches” (Colorado Juvenile Defender Center, 2012, p. 23).
Current Situation
YOS is not currently providing its inmates with adequate psychological services. For instance, evidence suggests that DOC’s screening process is failing to flag a significant number of inmates with mental health disorders, and both staff members and inmates report that the facility needs more mental health services (Miera et al., 2014, p. 50). Additionally, YOS is not providing inmates with adequate social skills training, as the most recent evaluation by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice stated that YOS lacks the space needed to adequately run social skills training groups (Miera et al., 2014, p. 51). Finally, YOS is not providing female inmates with equitable educational services. The Division of Criminal Justice’s evaluation found that female inmates are not given access to the same vocational trainings as male inmates and that, unlike male inmates, they are confined to the same classroom all day (Miera et al., 2014, p. 51).
Stakeholders
The Colorado Juvenile Defender Center (CJDC) has long criticized YOS for failing to deliver its initial promise of enriched programming (CJDC, 2012, p. 47). CJDC argues that adolescent brains are not fully developed, and consequently they “are less able than adults to assess risks and consequences, control impulses, handle stressful situations and say no to peer pressure” (CJDC, 2012, p. 17). Because their brains are still developing, CJDC argues that juvenile offenders are not as culpable for the crimes as adult offenders are for theirs. CJDC also argues that adolescents are “much more likely to respond to rehabilitative efforts” (CJDC, 2012, p. 17) and that they must be given such opportunities.
Many organizations exist that would probably resist CJDC’s efforts to reform YOS. Two leaders of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers recently argued in the New York Times that those who spend significant effort advocating for juvenile offenders ensure that the victims of those offenders crimes are overlooked (Hare & Bishop-Jenkins, 2014). Although it is true that a young person’s brain is still developing, these women write, “we all learn from an extremely early age that killing is wrong,” and therefore such offenders are culpable for their actions. “Juvenile offenders,” they write, “often suffer from psychological and sociopathic conditions that will never allow them to rejoin society,” and therefore we should not waste our money trying to rehabilitate them.
Trends
Over the past decade, the state and national trend has been towards more rehabilitative responses to juvenile crime. This has happened for two main reasons. First, juvenile crime rates have been falling since the 1990s, which has reduced political pressure to get tough on crime (Bonnie, Johnson, Chemers, & Schuck, 2013, p. 32). Second, the US Supreme Court has ruled in four significant cases since 2005 that adolescents are not as culpable for their crimes as adults are for theirs (Colorado Juvenile Defender Center, 2015, p. 6). Some of these rulings have been based in part on the fact that the adolescent brain is still developing,
Despite this overall trend, economic realities, namely budget shortfalls, have persuaded some lawmakers in recent years to reduce spending on rehabilitative services (Bonnie, Johnson, Chemers, & Schuck, 2013, p. 32). Some progressives have responded by arguing that paying more now for rehabilitative services will benefit society later on by, for example, reducing recidivism rates and providing more productive members of the workforce (Redding, 2010, p. 2). The public appears to be receptive to such arguments, as polls show that a majority of people favor paying nearly 20 percent more for to fund rehabilitation programs once they learn that these programs are as effective as incarcerating juveniles (Piquero & Steinberg, 2007, p. 5).
References
Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., King, D. C., Longworth, S. L., Emanuel, K. M., Romero, E. G., & Olson, N. D. (2013). PTSD, trauma, and comorbid psychiatric disorders in detained youth. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1-13.
Bonnie, R. J., Johnson, R. L., Chemers, B. M., & Schuck, J. (Eds.). (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. Washington, D.C., National Academies Press.
Colorado Department of Corrections. (2015). Youthful offender system: Fiscal year 2014. Retrieved from http://www.doc.state.co.us/sites/default/files/opa/YOS_Final_0.pdf
Colorado Juvenile Defender Center. (2012). Re-directing justice: The consequences of prosecuting youth as adults and the need to restore judicial oversight. Retrieved from http://cjdc.org/wp/juvenile-justice-policy/re-directing-justice/
Colorado Juvenile Defender Center. (2015). Justice redirected: The impact of reducing the prosecution of children as adults in Colorado and the continuing need for sentencing reform. Retrieved from http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CJDC-Report2015_FINAL_bug.pdf
Colorado Office of Children, Youth, and Families. (2016). Recidivism evaluation of Colorado Division of Youth Corrections. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/a/state.co.us/cdhs-dyc/home/resources-publications/reports-and-evaluations
Grisso, T., Fusco, S., Paiva-Salisbury, M., Perrauot, R, Williams, V., & Barnum, R. (2012). The Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Version 2 (MAYSI-2): Comprehensive research review. Worcester, MA: University of Massachusetts Medical School. Retrieved from http://www.nysap.us/MAYSI-2%20Review.pdf
Hammond, S. (2007). Mental health needs of juvenile offenders. Denver: National Conference of State Legislators.
Hare, L., & Bishop-Jenkins, J. (2014). Some young offenders are beyond redemption. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/18/young-souls-dark-deeds/some-young-offenders-are-beyond-redemption
Ingargiola, P., Lynn, J., & Updike, B. (2005). A framework for system improvement on behalf of youth with mental illness and co-occurring disorders in the juvenile justice system. Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://hermes.cde.state.co.us/drupal/islandora/object/co%3A4605
Manchak, S. M., Skeem, J. L., & Douglas, K. S. (2008). Utility of the Revised Level of Service Inventory (LSI-R) in predicting recidivism after long-term incarceration. Law and Human Behavior, 32(6), 477.
Miera, G., Flick, P., Adams, C., Lucero, L., & English, K. (2014). Evaluation of the Youthful Offender System (YOS) in Colorado: Report of findings per 18-1.3-407, C.R.S. Denver: Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/YOS-2014-DCJ-Evaluation.pdf
Mukherji, R. (2013). In search of redemption: Expungement of federal criminal records. Law School and Student Scholarships, 163. Retrieved from http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1163&context=student_scholarship
Odgers, C. L., Burnette, M. L., Chauhan, P., Moretti, M. M., & Reppucci, N. D. (2005). Misdiagnosing the problem: Mental health profiles of incarcerated juveniles. The Canadian Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Review, 14(1), 26-29.
Piquero, A., & Steinberg, L. (2007). Rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders: Public preferences in four models for change states. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/WILLINGNESSTOPAYFINAL.PDF
Redding, R.E. (2010, June). Juvenile transfer laws: An effective deterrent to delinquency? Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf
Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescent development and the regulation of youth crime. The Future of Children, 18(2), 15-33.
Female inmates are not receiving equitable educational services.
Female inmates do not have the same access to vocational programs, college classes, and the library as male inmates (Miera et al., 2014, p. 51).
Female inmates must remain in the same classroom all day, while male inmates can move between classrooms (Miera et al., 2014, p. 51).
Female inmates receive significantly lower compensation for their work than male inmates (Miera et al., 2014, p. 52).
By failing to provide females with equitable educational services, YOS is violating Colorado Revised Statute 18-1.3-407(1)(b), which requires YOS to “establish separate housing for female and male offenders who are sentenced to the youthful offender system without compromising the equitable treatment of either.”
These inequities can be ameliorated by constructing a new education building and hiring additional instructors.
The building must be large enough to accommodate up to 12 female inmates between four classrooms. It must also include a restroom, storage closet, and an office. The purpose of the building would be to allow female inmates to rotate between two academic classrooms and two vocational skills classrooms.
Two teachers, a mental health worker, and two vocational skills instructors will utilize this building. The mental health worker will be available to the female inmates throughout the day, if needed.
These inequities could also be ameliorated by transferring YOC’s small number of female inmates—seven at last count—to Department of Youth Corrections (DYC) facilities.
DYC facilities are already set up to provide female offenders with appropriate educational and vocational services.
This newly vacated space could then be used to facilitate the mental health needs of male inmates, which will be more fully explained below.
Taking this action would save taxpayers the cost of constructing a new building and hiring additional instructors.
The Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ), which is part of the Department of Public Safety and independent from the Department of Corrections, should set up a task force to explore the cost-effectiveness of transferring female inmates to DYC facilities.
The task force should consists of at least two economists (with at least a master’s degree in economics or a related field), two mental health specialists (with at least a master’s degree in psychology, social work, or a related field), one DYC administrator, and one YOS administrator.
The task force should explore the costs of successfully transferring these female inmates to DYC facilities, keeping in mind the safety of the public, the safety of DYC offenders, and the well-being of the transferred inmates. (For example, transferring these inmates might require DYC facilities to spend additional money on security measures.)
The task force should also take into account the costs of constructing a new building for social skills groups, which will be required if female inmates remain at YOS, as explained in (III)(B).
The task force should compare the costs required to successfully transfer female inmates to DYC facilities to the costs of constructing the new buildings outlined in (2) and (3).
If it proves to be more cost-effective to transfer the female inmates, then the task force should devise a plan for transferring female YOS inmates to DYC facilities. If it proves to be more cost-effective to construct these new buildings, then YOS is charged with overseeing their construction.
Timeline for implementing these changes.
If DCJ’s task force decides it would be more cost-effective to transfer female inmates to DYC facilities, then this transfer must be carried out within 180 days.
If DCJ’s task force decides it would be more cost-effective to construct a new YOS building, then YOS will be required to construct this building within 545 days.
II. YOS inmates must be provided with adequate mental health care.
YOS’s mental health assessment process must be improved.
Evidence suggests that YOS’s current assessment process does not flag many inmates who have mental health problems.
The Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) claims that only 60 percent of YOS inmates need to be treated for mental health problems and that half of these individuals have low treatment needs (Miera et al., 2014, p. 50).
However, research shows that around 70 percent of juvenile offenders have at least one mental health disorder (Hammond, 2007, p. 4; Odgers et al., 2005, p. 26).
Research also shows that the vast majority of juvenile offenders have experienced multiple traumatic events in their lives (Abram et al., 2013, p.4).
Inmates entering YOS should be given the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-2 (MAYSI-2), which assesses the following areas: alcohol/drug use, anger-irritability, depression-anxiety, somatic problems, suicidal ideation, thought disturbances, and traumatic experiences.
The MAYSI-2 is a reputable youth mental health screening instrument that can be administered by a non-mental health professional (Griss et al., 2010). It is used with juvenile offenders in over 40 states and with Colorado DYC offenders (Ingargiola, Lynn, & Updike, 2005, p. 18).
YOS currently uses personal interviews and the Level of Service Inventory (LSI) to screen for mental health problems. The LSI has been shown to effectively predict recidivism, but it does not offer the depth of mental health assessment of the MAYSI-2 (Manchak, Skeem, & Douglas, 2008).
Inmates who score in the Caution Range or Warning Range on any MAYSI-2 scale should receive a mental health evaluation by an independent mental health specialist.
These specialists should be approved and overseen by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ), which is independent of DOC. The specialists must be independent of DOC to reduce the chances of a conflict of interest. A specialist who works for DOC, for instance, might feel pressured to downplay mental health findings in an effort to keep department costs down.
DCJ will be required to develop criteria for hiring these mental health specialists. As a blueprint for developing this criteria, DCJ might consult its own Approved Provider List for Domestic Violence Offender Treatment Providers.
DCJ will also need to appoint or hire someone to oversee these specialists. This individual must also be independent of DOC.
These independent mental health specialists will recommend the mental health services they believe the inmates must receive to reduce their MAYSI-2 scores that were in the Caution Range or Warning Range.
Inmates will receive the recommended mental health services by independent mental health specialists—either the same specialists who conducted their initial evaluations or different specialists—until these specialists determines that these services are no longer needed.
Timeline for implementing these changes.
YOS should be given no more than 42 days to start screening incoming inmates with the MAYSI-2.
YOS should be given no more than 56 day to screen all existing inmates with the MAYSI-2.
DCJ should be given no more than 28 days to develop criteria for hiring these new mental health specialists.
DCJ should be given no more than 42 days to hire someone to oversee these mental health specialists.
DCJ should be given no more than 112 days to hire these mental health specialists.
III. YOS inmates must be provided with adequate social skills training.
YOS is failing to provide inmates with adequate social skills training.
YOS inmates primarily receive social skills training through Guided Group Interaction (GGI) groups and Quick Skills groups.
However, the facility’s space limitations do not allow for the privacy needed to successfully conduct these groups (Miera et al., 2014, p. 6).
In order to provide inmates with adequate social skills training, a new building should be constructed on YOS property to allow GGI and Quick Skills groups to be successfully conducted.
DCJ should appoint a task force consisting of at least two mental health professionals (each with at least a master’s degree in psychology, social work, or a related field) to determine how much additional space will be needed to successfully conduct GGI and Quick Skills groups.
If female inmates are transferred to DYC facilities, this newly vacated space could be used to conduct GGI and Quick Skills groups.
Timeline for implementing this change.
If DCJ’s task force recommends transferring female inmates to DYC facilities, then the transfer would be complete within 180 days. YOS should be given an additional 180 days to convert the newly available space to be used for GGI and Quick Skills groups.
If DCJ’s task force recommends that female inmates remain at YOS, then YOS will be given 545 days to construct a building meeting the requirements made by DCJ.
IV. YOS inmates must be given the ability to expunge their criminal records upon release.
Colorado Revised Statute 19-1-306 allows DYC offenders, but not YOS inmates, to expunge their criminal records upon release.
Because YOS inmates cannot expunge their records, they will have more difficulty accessing numerous government benefits, being admitted to certain colleges, and they will be barred from entering certain professions (Colorado Juvenile Defender Center, 2015, p. 30).
Colorado Revised Statute 19-1-306 should be amended to allow YOS inmates who meet certain criteria to also expunge their records upon release.
To be eligible to expunge their records, YOS inmates must complete all of phases that take place in the YOS facility: Orientation Training, Phase I, and Phase II.
Inmates who fail to complete these phases for reasons related to bad behavior will not be allowed to expunge their records.
Timeline for implementing this change.
We urge that a legislator propose a bill to effect this change and that the General Assembly pass and the Governor sign this bill into law as soon as possible.
Legislative Brief: Colorado’s Youthful Offender System
Background
Governor Roy Romer called a special legislative session in September, 1993, in response to what the media dubbed “the summer of violence” (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1997, p. 52). Romer ended up signing into law several tough crime measures, one of which made it easier to try juvenile offenders as adults. Legislators were aware that many problems come with sending adolescents to prison with adults—e.g., such youth recidivate at higher rates, and they face a greater risk of physical and sexual abuse by other inmates—and so they also created the Youthful Offender System (YOS), which they billed as a “middle tier” correctional facility for adolescents. Young people sentenced to YOS were “subject to all laws and department of corrections rules, regulations, and standards pertaining to adult inmates” (Colorado Revised Statutes 18-1.3-407.1), and also like adult inmates, they could not expunge their criminal records upon release. But YOS inmates were housed separately from adult inmates, and they were provided with several rehabilitative and educational services. During Senate testimony, the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) promised that YOS would be “very rich in programming,” providing inmates with “counselors, teachers, mentors, coaches” (Colorado Juvenile Defender Center, 2012, p. 23).
Current Situation
YOS is not currently providing its inmates with adequate psychological services. For instance, evidence suggests that DOC’s screening process is failing to flag a significant number of inmates with mental health disorders, and both staff members and inmates report that the facility needs more mental health services (Miera et al., 2014, p. 50). Additionally, YOS is not providing inmates with adequate social skills training, as the most recent evaluation by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice stated that YOS lacks the space needed to adequately run social skills training groups (Miera et al., 2014, p. 51). Finally, YOS is not providing female inmates with equitable educational services. The Division of Criminal Justice’s evaluation found that female inmates are not given access to the same vocational trainings as male inmates and that, unlike male inmates, they are confined to the same classroom all day (Miera et al., 2014, p. 51).
Stakeholders
The Colorado Juvenile Defender Center (CJDC) has long criticized YOS for failing to deliver its initial promise of enriched programming (CJDC, 2012, p. 47). CJDC argues that adolescent brains are not fully developed, and consequently they “are less able than adults to assess risks and consequences, control impulses, handle stressful situations and say no to peer pressure” (CJDC, 2012, p. 17). Because their brains are still developing, CJDC argues that juvenile offenders are not as culpable for the crimes as adult offenders are for theirs. CJDC also argues that adolescents are “much more likely to respond to rehabilitative efforts” (CJDC, 2012, p. 17) and that they must be given such opportunities.
Many organizations exist that would probably resist CJDC’s efforts to reform YOS. Two leaders of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers recently argued in the New York Times that those who spend significant effort advocating for juvenile offenders ensure that the victims of those offenders crimes are overlooked (Hare & Bishop-Jenkins, 2014). Although it is true that a young person’s brain is still developing, these women write, “we all learn from an extremely early age that killing is wrong,” and therefore such offenders are culpable for their actions. “Juvenile offenders,” they write, “often suffer from psychological and sociopathic conditions that will never allow them to rejoin society,” and therefore we should not waste our money trying to rehabilitate them.
Trends
Over the past decade, the state and national trend has been towards more rehabilitative responses to juvenile crime. This has happened for two main reasons. First, juvenile crime rates have been falling since the 1990s, which has reduced political pressure to get tough on crime (Bonnie, Johnson, Chemers, & Schuck, 2013, p. 32). Second, the US Supreme Court has ruled in four significant cases since 2005 that adolescents are not as culpable for their crimes as adults are for theirs (Colorado Juvenile Defender Center, 2015, p. 6). Some of these rulings have been based in part on the fact that the adolescent brain is still developing,
Despite this overall trend, economic realities, namely budget shortfalls, have persuaded some lawmakers in recent years to reduce spending on rehabilitative services (Bonnie, Johnson, Chemers, & Schuck, 2013, p. 32). Some progressives have responded by arguing that paying more now for rehabilitative services will benefit society later on by, for example, reducing recidivism rates and providing more productive members of the workforce (Redding, 2010, p. 2). The public appears to be receptive to such arguments, as polls show that a majority of people favor paying nearly 20 percent more for to fund rehabilitation programs once they learn that these programs are as effective as incarcerating juveniles (Piquero & Steinberg, 2007, p. 5).
References
Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., King, D. C., Longworth, S. L., Emanuel, K. M., Romero, E. G., & Olson, N. D. (2013). PTSD, trauma, and comorbid psychiatric disorders in detained youth. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1-13.
Bonnie, R. J., Johnson, R. L., Chemers, B. M., & Schuck, J. (Eds.). (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. Washington, D.C., National Academies Press.
Colorado Department of Corrections. (2015). Youthful offender system: Fiscal year 2014. Retrieved from http://www.doc.state.co.us/sites/default/files/opa/YOS_Final_0.pdf
Colorado Juvenile Defender Center. (2012). Re-directing justice: The consequences of prosecuting youth as adults and the need to restore judicial oversight. Retrieved from http://cjdc.org/wp/juvenile-justice-policy/re-directing-justice/
Colorado Juvenile Defender Center. (2015). Justice redirected: The impact of reducing the prosecution of children as adults in Colorado and the continuing need for sentencing reform. Retrieved from http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CJDC-Report2015_FINAL_bug.pdf
Colorado Office of Children, Youth, and Families. (2016). Recidivism evaluation of Colorado Division of Youth Corrections. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/a/state.co.us/cdhs-dyc/home/resources-publications/reports-and-evaluations
Grisso, T., Fusco, S., Paiva-Salisbury, M., Perrauot, R, Williams, V., & Barnum, R. (2012). The Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Version 2 (MAYSI-2): Comprehensive research review. Worcester, MA: University of Massachusetts Medical School. Retrieved from http://www.nysap.us/MAYSI-2%20Review.pdf
Hammond, S. (2007). Mental health needs of juvenile offenders. Denver: National Conference of State Legislators.
Hare, L., & Bishop-Jenkins, J. (2014). Some young offenders are beyond redemption. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/18/young-souls-dark-deeds/some-young-offenders-are-beyond-redemption
Ingargiola, P., Lynn, J., & Updike, B. (2005). A framework for system improvement on behalf of youth with mental illness and co-occurring disorders in the juvenile justice system. Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://hermes.cde.state.co.us/drupal/islandora/object/co%3A4605
Manchak, S. M., Skeem, J. L., & Douglas, K. S. (2008). Utility of the Revised Level of Service Inventory (LSI-R) in predicting recidivism after long-term incarceration. Law and Human Behavior, 32(6), 477.
Miera, G., Flick, P., Adams, C., Lucero, L., & English, K. (2014). Evaluation of the Youthful Offender System (YOS) in Colorado: Report of findings per 18-1.3-407, C.R.S. Denver: Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/YOS-2014-DCJ-Evaluation.pdf
Mukherji, R. (2013). In search of redemption: Expungement of federal criminal records. Law School and Student Scholarships, 163. Retrieved from http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1163&context=student_scholarship
Odgers, C. L., Burnette, M. L., Chauhan, P., Moretti, M. M., & Reppucci, N. D. (2005). Misdiagnosing the problem: Mental health profiles of incarcerated juveniles. The Canadian Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Review, 14(1), 26-29.
Piquero, A., & Steinberg, L. (2007). Rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders: Public preferences in four models for change states. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/WILLINGNESSTOPAYFINAL.PDF
Redding, R.E. (2010, June). Juvenile transfer laws: An effective deterrent to delinquency? Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf
Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescent development and the regulation of youth crime. The Future of Children, 18(2), 15-33.
No comments:
Post a Comment