The Consequences of Prosecuting Youth As Adults and the Need to Restore Judicial Oversight

RE - D I R E C T I N G JUSTICE

The Consequences of Prosecuting Youth as Adults and the Need to Restore Judicial Oversight

1 QUICK DIRECT FILE FACTS FROM OVER 1800 DIRECT FILE CASES SINCE 1999

85% OF DIRECT FILE CASES INVOLVE MIDDLE-TO-LOW LEVEL FELONIES

15% OF DIRECT FILE CASES ARE HOMICIDES

5% OF DIRECT FILE CASES ARE FIRST DEGREE MURDER

22% OF DIRECT FILE CASES ARE DISMISSED

75% OF DISMISSED CASES INVOLVE WHITE YOUTH

25% OF DIRECT FILE CASES RESULT IN PROBATION OR DEFERRED SENTENCES

28% OF DIRECT FILE CASES ARE CONVICTED AS CHARGED

95% OF DIRECT FILE CASES ARE PLEA BARGAINED

82% OF YOS ADMISSIONS ARE BLACK & HISPANIC YOUTH

A Special Report by the Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary and Recommendations...... 2

PART I: INTRODUCTION

The Changing Landscape of Juvenile Court and the Prosecution of Children as Adults...... 13

The History of Colorado’s Direct File Statute ...... 19

PART II: KEY FINDINGS

1. Trying youth as adults doesn’t make Colorado safer, but increases the likelihood a teenager will re-offend...... 27

2. Direct file has affected thousands of youth, and the law disproportionately impacts black and Hispanic youth...... 30

3. The vast majority of youth impacted by direct file are not the most serious offenders...... 37

4. Most youth who enter the system as a result of Direct File do not see their case reviewed by a judge or jury, and are convicted of a lower offense than their original charge...... 41

5. Most youth prosecuted in adult courts await trial in adult jails, which are dangerously unequipped for youth...... 43

6. Convicting youth as adults can expose them to all of the risks youth face in adult prisons, and carry long-term consequences that make it difficult to reintegrate into society...... 45

7. The Youthful Offender System has not been shown to be an effective intervention program, is costly, and its services and outcomes need to be better scrutinized...... 46

PART III: APPENDIX

Acknowledgements...... 63

Methodology...... 64

1 2 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE

findings, and recommendsfindings, urgent reform. This executive summary provides an overview of thefull report, presentsfact-based current and data laws.our of consequences and statecost the questionsseriousabout that researchraise against adults as youth prosecuting for rationale 1990s early the weighing year last the spent Coalition Defender Juvenile Colorado The vent recidivism in the juvenile system. provenprerehabilitatedwithprogramsto be opportunitiesto as well ecution,as solutionsthat constitutional guarantee proschildrenprocessforadultfacingdue not half-measures, are to necessary bring balance back to the state. Colorado needs reforms, Research-based done. be to needs work more but policies these sidering In recent years, Colorado’s Legislature has taken important first steps toward recon safety.nity commu jeopardizing and services, state in redundanciescreating kids, damaging juvenile treatment from departure is The society. of membersproductive become makesit adults that prosecutingas children direct-file law has donelittle to deter juvenile crime. the A intended, largelawmakers body to of what research shows Contrary ineffective. is also law direct-file The convictions. felony lifelong with them mark and prisons, and jails adult in them incarcerate inappropriatelyadults, as youth Colorado of thousands try to used been has law direct-file The system. juvenile the in up locked experience previous no had often who’ve teenagers against cases felony mid-level filing direct often more are tors who exhausted chances in the juvenile system. Yet research indicates that prosecu of a net. The law contemplated was for the most serious andcases repeat offenders wide too cast has adults, as youth filing,” prosecuting “directthat showStatistics to stay reform. on track meaningful to achieve safety,theselaws public children do haveand whatcan policymakers and affected ter of a billion dollars later, it’s time to take a look at how we togot this point, how Youthful Offender System and made it easier toconvict children the as adults. Acreated quar that session legislative special five-day a to led crime over-publicized by policy justice juvenilewhen 1993 was It system. of criminal adult the to resources course and youthsidetracking the altered Colorado ago years 20 Nearly EXECUTIVE SUMMARY less likely they’ll be rehabilitatedand be they’ll likely ------juvenile court to an adult criminal court in which the protections of juvenileprotectionstheof which lawsincriminal court adult juvenilean to court The U.S. Supreme Court hasthe recognized severity of moving an adolescent from over life-altering about decisions children’s fates. took effect in prosecutors file, direct to choosing By kids. weren’tthatfor meant termslaws—prisonsentencing adult enacted previously to subject sud became juvenilesdenly 1993, in adults as youth charge to easier it made state the When the resolution believe they ofthe isin case the interest best oftheir child. treatment or certify outcomesjudge withtheand team, possible discuss ceedings, participate have proto in the They right the counselingsupervision. increased or dispositions incase that included for next theirtosit can andbe incourt call teen guardiansparents The old. yearsor 17 to children10 against cases in guardians or parents involves that “Children’s Code” the under operates system juvenile The plans family. forand eachchild craft and localized individualized vast experience treating serious juvenile offenders with programs andfacilities that state’sthe withcontrastIn Youthful facilities. has DYC (YOS), System Offender commitment juvenile in years seven to up of sentences including consequences, serious increasingly of range a out meting by crimes their for accountableyouths hold Services’ to seeks Human It punishment. (DYC)—includes Youth Corrections of of Division Department the system—including juvenile Colorado’s for children. specifically designed nation the in systems court first the of one created he 1903, Denverprinciplesthesefromwhen, in Juvenile drew ago, Lindsey tury BenJudge Supreme Court has theserecognized findings in recent decisions. More than acen Therehabilitativeto efforts. respond to likelymore much U.S. they’realso adults, than culpable less are children reasons same the immaturebehavior.For their of out grow to likely are adolescents that shows also Research impulsive. more are ferentthanreasons haveadults, controlless overtheir environment, generally and dif for out act they that shows research development, of stage teenagers’ to Due from their parentsguidance in decision-making. need and consequence and risk of appreciationseniors—haveincomplete school high 17-year-old years—even formative their in youth that recognize laws These withoutrestrictions.vehicle motor operatinga withoutparentalconsentor rying sitting on a jury, buying cigarettes, buying a lottery ticket, entering a contract, mar and adults. The policies state thatchildren age-based prevent has anyone under 18 from voting, between differences acknowledged long has Colorado in law The Children NeedaSeparateSystemofJustice - - - - -

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE no longer apply. From a constitutional perspective, due process is denied when denied is process due perspective, constitutional a Fromapply. longer no including the National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges, the Federalthe Juvenile Judges,Family andNational Court theof includingCouncil file. Many prosecutorialdirect organizations— of result a are cases criminalcourt cases. Since the 1993 expansion of the direct file statute, the vast majority of juvenile The cases foranalyzed this report includeboth judicial transfer cases anddirect file or ajuvenileadult jail detention facility. prosecutorsdiscretion sole an held in gives be whether youth direct-filed should a havetheof prosecutor’s review to judicial right a Thefile. also to direct choice law juvenile the court. does adult in cases no case in a Yet filing considering aredirect offense characteristics. prosecutors some cases, In have provideto notice that they and age basic give meets case the to if charges adult 1993 file to discretiongreater prosecutors in expanded was that law file”—the “direct by is way second The systemwhich isappropriate. determines and needs, child’s circumstances,risk, theunique considers judge the the prosecution and the child’s defense counsel can present evidence. In these cases transfer, the prosecutor initiates the transfer request; the judge sets a hearing where allowing juvenile court judges to move a case to adult criminal court. Under judicial a transfer.” as known “judicial process is first The way through a law has Colorado are ways two this plays out. court system, a significant number are yearevery prosecuted in adultcourts. There with most children While crimes charged in Colorado are in thehandled juvenile ily strain who are already families in crisis. youth unnecessarand of vulnerabilities the ignore procedures and policies These duringtactcriminal inpending court. is themonths—oryears—the case possibly con physical no have may child and parent The telephone. or screen television a the jail, parentadult or cannotguardian visit in the an same room, and can only communicatein over held is juvenile the If agreements. plea approve isn’tto and required proceedings during child the parent their to next courts, sit criminal to allowed isn’t adult guardian In or families. engage to fails also filing Direct by both sides. presented evidence weigh to able are who judges juvenilecourtimpartial of ment circumventpolicies Direct-fileadult.an triedwhetheris as teenager a the involve district attorneys—who have a stake in the outcome of their prosecutions—decide Pathways forChildrentoAdultCriminalCourt - - - to the juvenile justice system that here pioneered in our Judge Lindsey state. tions regarding the prosecution of kids as adults. Now is the time to restore balance have policymakers more information about the research and recommenda expert the teenagers and families directly impacted, but also for the general public. Today, reforms. historic Lindsey’s Ben Colorado’s Judge overly lawsdirect-file broad have serioushad implications for only not of many dismantled they Violence,” of “Summer the hyping headlines to responding when, 1993 in session special day In hindsight, it’s clear that well-intentioned lawmakers acted hastily during the five- state in which children arewith coming felony of age convictions in adult prisons. toneeded fully address the needs of youth and, ultimately, to protect the safety of a These are significant steps. Yet they stop short ofaccomplishing the improvements youth in adult Andjails. in 2010, it made modest changes to the holding direct file statute. to related laws modified it 2009, In juveniles. for parole without life of children adults. as In 2006, the state legislation that passed the sentence abolished of prosecution the reconsidering in progress made has Colorado years, recent In hearing by ajudge. decided transfer a have court adult for considered child every that recommend Task and filing Forcedirect CommunityPreventive on against Services—caution Control’s Disease for Centers the and Justice,Juvenile on Committee Advisory -

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE

. The vastmajority of youth impacted by direct file are not the most2. Trying youth1. asadults doesn’t make Colorado safer, but increases the cases have been filed for Class 3, middle-level felonies or lower. lower. Data or felonies middle-level 3, Class for filed been have cases these of percent 75 Some dismissed. are cases such of percent 22 that One of the main indicators that direct file been overused has is thefact involvedcases white youth. dismissed of percent 75 contrast,In Hispanic. and black wereSystem YouthfulOffender the to admitted juveniles of percent 82 example, for 2010, Fromto resolved. 2009 are cases how to comes it whenlarly Direct file practicesdisproportionately affectchildren ofcolor, particu are forfiled first-degree murder. accused of killing another person, and only 5 percent all direct file cases not are system adult the in prosecuted youthToday, percent 85 some wide. too net the cast lawmakersstatistics and data hard lacking But system. justice juvenile the of rehabilitation and control the beyond was who offender juvenile of kind new a emerged had there that was commonThe assumption during session of the height the 1993 special Hispanic youth. serious offenders, and the law disproportionately impacts black and ecuting youth adultsnotdeter as does crime. pros show Prevention and Delinquency of Juvenile Justice Office the arrest rates. Research published by the Centersjuvenile for and Disease Control practices and file direct between relationship a show to fails district judicial and county by rates Colorado’scrime of analysis An and re-offending safety. public decreases of risk the increases system adult the in youth ing prosecut that conclusion the to come have studies fact, research multiple In file. direct to laws pass didn’t that that states and in youtheven adults, for decreased crime that showing by theory this researchers debunk prominent success, law’s the of evidence as crime youth in decline a tout may law file Colorado’s direct of supporters While likelihood ateenager re-offend. will Key Findings - - - . The juvenile justice system4. already is equipped to manage and serve Most youth who enter the3. adult system asaresult ofDirect File do lower level offense than their original charge. not their see case reviewed by ajudge or jury, and are convicted ofa and family.child consideration that looks beyond the offense charged and sees the whole or probation deferred sentences. in typeThis of less serious result case warrants juvenile cases court file direct of percent 25 that shows also and risk level of youth. It has experience shaping safety strategies for strategies safety shaping experience has It youth. of level risk and needs the considers that process sophisticated a developed has DYC Division ofYouthServices’ Corrections (DYC). had System Offender Youthful Corrections’ of Department adult the in youth incarcerated direct-filed percentof 80 reported previously YOS chance. last first a given haven’t been who kids against used being is law the system. Yet juvenile the in manage to difficult too youth for chance” last second “a be to direct-file intended 1993 in Lawmakers the kind ofyouth ending up in the adult system. the community. victim,determinationtheand individualized makechild, antheto for evidence the weigh and sides both to listen can Judges judges. of role Youthful Offender System. The lack of due process also circumvents the to subject juveniles to adult sentencing in the Corrections Department’s What this means, in practice, is that prosecutors can direct-fileleverage of accused originally committing. were they crimes highest the of convicted are percent 28 only court, criminal adult in up end who juveniles the Of Direct file iscommonly being used for medium and lower level offenses. ecutors much too unchecked authority. thechild’s orjury. gives byjudge apros reviewed file not Direct is case means That well. as sentence the deciding are attorneys district where agreements bargain plea by resolved being are cases all of percent 95 about discretion them gives What’scourt. juvenile adult a or in changes inappropriately those whetherfile to more file direct charge, to While prosecutors have always had the power to choose which offenses never rvosy en etne t te eatet f Human of Department the to sentenced been previously -

7 KEY FINDINGS 8 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE . Convicting youth asadults6. can them expose ofthe to all risks youth Most youth prosecuted in adult5. courts await trial in adult which jails, serious offenders with a collaborative approach that uses evidence- uses that approach collaborative a with offenders serious highest risk for sexual abuse.”highest incarcerated persons, youth incarcerated with adults are probably at of the group other any than “more that found Commission Elimination Rape Prison National The victimization. sexual of risk greatest the are at facilities adult in Youthheld criminals. adult be to up grow will they likelihood the increases and juveniles for traumatizing is prison largest group of teens is going straight into a regular adult second prison. Adultthe YOS, to go adults as prosecuted children most Although difficult to reintegrate into society. inface adult long-term prisons, and carry consequences that make it transfer the to jail. child to judge a remain juvenileinasks detention unlessthefacility facilities youth direct-filed all require will bill 2012 pending A direction. right sion ought to be made by judges. Colorado is actively taking steps in the deci That needs. their thatserve cannot jails transferredadultdren to chil have to discretion prosecutors inappropriatelygives Currentlaw committed suicidein Colorado’s since 2008. adult jails have teenagers Twoadolescents. developing for damaging very be to held in isolationoften are cells for 23 hours a day. juveniles confinementSolitary protection, is known their For grim. is also alternative The cational services. cation only one-third youth a week, of anyjailed actually received edu edu school fourhigh requirehoursto of 2010 in changed thelawwas Although services. educational recreationaland adequate visitationor have separate areas for juveniles and cannot provide appropriate family not do which jails, adult in trial awaiting children leaves filing Direct are dangerously unequipped for youth. with juveniles. includeand victims. engagement Its to work trained staff is specifically family promote to localized be can programming so facilities of work counseling net statewide established family. and an DYCwhole has the thatincludes services, psychological and medical practices, based - - - - - . The Youthful7. Offender System has not been shown to an effective be go on to live crime-freego lives. and costsindependently, courtlive covervictim,restitution the pay to to money enough earn to youth direct-filed for tough it makebarriers make thatit difficult to get job, goa convictions tocollege, and finda place felony to live. These permanent have System Offender Youthful the complete who youth All adjudication. juvenile a to record theirconvert or record their seal to court the for petition never can convictions.They criminal adult receiving are juveniles file, direct Under youth in the programs. two of outcomes the comparing conducted been has study No sentenced. or convicted are they whether of regardless filing, felony or demeanor prison crime. on a new DYC counts youth all mis who up pick new as to return who graduates YOS counts only Department Corrections’ the rates re-offense calculating better.in Butare outcomes YOS claim to use inappropriatelymany which YouthfulmeasureCorrections’ of Division the than rigorous less is that measure recidivism a uses YOS assurances that of staffers would have experience working abandonment with juveniles. the and girls for programming appropriate gender of absence the interventions, evidence-based and care health mental of lack the about concerns significant raised YOS of Priorevaluations since 2004. conducted been has evaluation No years. two every evaluations independent requires statute YOS The effectiveness. were its of legislators evaluations aggressive was created, promised Youthful the program on the dollars When billion System. a Offender of quarter a spent has Colorado to better be scrutinized. intervention is program, costly, and and outcomes its services need -

9 KEY FINDINGS 10 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE Recommendations help the system embrace data-driven research-based practices best follow: recommendations Key us. of considerthatto would all for safety enhancespublic thus and, success future for opportunities greater to leads court juvenile in cated adjudi be to youth for opportunitiesRestoring system. adult the injuveniles ing incarcerat and trying are that policies reassess to Colorado for time the is Now their moveand decisions transition bad beyond people into adulthood. young helps what about 1993 in did we than today Wemore munities. far know intoback Colorado’s released be day one children will Nearlydirect-filed all com . If direct file laws are maintained, the raise age limit to 16and2. over, Restore authority over whether ayouth1. should tried be in criminal judge through transferjudge hearings. court juvenile a by evaluated be can children younger all so over, and torial discretion to charge juveniles as adults, the limit age should be 16 prosecu maintain to choose makers policy If decisions. sensible make stand court effectivelyproceedings, cooperate with their attorneys, and court. Studies show children under the age of 16 are less likely to under adult in their case Juvenilesyoungbegin aretotoo 16 of under theage opportunity to request transfer back to juvenile court. restrict criteria to the most serious cases and provide juveniles an anbeing adult. prosecuted as before hearing process constitutionaldue a receive should child Every tions are transparent and reviewable. determina that and consideration for available is information more that insure will fact-finders neutral to authority Returning decisions. tioned to consider evidence from all sources before making life-altering development, adolescent rehabilitation and punishment about in the juvenile system, knowledgeable and are best posi most the are judges These system. adult the to transferred be should teenager a whether Juvenile areto qualified best courtmake judges critical about decisions and better outcomes for kids and families. court to juvenile court judges to ensure constitutional due process ------6. Provide opportunities for youth5. convicted asadults to earn the Keep youth out ofadult jails. 4. Create aseparate sentencing3. scheme for juveniles in adult court. hi idvda crusacs n aiiy o e aae ad safely treated within the juvenile court system. and managed be to ability and circumstances individual their adult court to judge transfer the case back to juvenile court upon based the ask to ability the have should be and charged, offense not the by defined should children cases, those in Even murder. second-degree or first-degree and as such offenses circumstances extreme serious to restricted most be should the address to enacted was filing Direct evaluate the effectiveness of the Youthful Offender System (YOS) to (YOS) System Offender the Youthful of effectiveness the evaluate need urgent an is there performance, prior low and cost high to Due impact, cost and effectiveness ofprosecuting children asadults. make odds despite amends all and succeed. tions. Colorado should therecognize redemption of former youth who adjudica juvenile intoconvictions adult converting of method a vide criminalconvictions.theiralternativepro One to seal is to ability the have should society into reintegrate successfully and restitution pay who youth, as convicted and filed direct been had who Youngadults ability tocriminal seal convictions. adolescent population. an manage to staff trained with equipped better are which facilities, juvenile in detained be should up locked be to need who Those sion. supervi community pre-trial for opportunities have should Juveniles possible. as safe psychologically and physically crimes—as serious of accused those children—even keep to Colorado on incumbent is It options for adolescents. A separate, sentencingflexible be enacted grid should that provides more adults. as convicted children to apply not should laws sentencing tion to impose individualized sentences for juveniles. discre Adult mandatory of judges deprive that sentences mandatory long include adults and for designed were laws sentencing court criminal Colorado’s Improve data collection. Provide comprehensive reports on the - - - - 11 RECOMMENDATIONS 12 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE ensure Colorado isn’t wasting taxpayer dollars on a corrections model model corrections a on isn’t dollars ensureColorado taxpayer wasting Youth Corrections. of Division the to sentences or adjudications juvenile prior have and tem,including whether were they involved welfareinthe child system, sys adult the in prosecuted juveniles on data comprehensive Collect adults. as ecuted national disproportionate reduce youthtoprosexperts being minority rates of Engage system. justice criminal adult the in sentenced and prosecuted children among disparities ethnic and racial the Examine and ensure that YOS staff experiencehas working with kids. rigorously, recidivism measure includeinformation theonjuvenilesprior of recordYOS, to admitted to YOS require will accountability adequately meeting the of needs girls and mentally ill youth. Thorough is YOSwhether of inventoryimmediate take should Italso years. two every completed is YOS of evaluation independent required utorily forprogram youth that’s not effective. The state should ensure the stat - - - participants, the juvenile judge or magistrate is tasked with ordering services that orderingservices with tasked is magistrate or juvenilejudge theparticipants, administrative functions of managing a courtroom and protecting the rights of the The role of the judge in a juvenilecourt also is unique. In addition to the traditional documents all related to theirto co-sign case. of supervision their child. increased and classes, parenting counseling, as such parent the on requirements legal and constitutional child’s their of rights, advised be must Parents child. the of intereststhe respondentin the as guardian or parentthe namesthat delinquency child. their of juvenile delinquency, of cure and intends and for cause parents the to participateboth in in the assessment role and significant treatmenta play families that belief the on founded is code The families. their and age of years 17 to 10 children to Children’s“The Code,” applies by which governed Colorado’sare courts juvenile society. of members productive become offenders youth help and recidivism of rate the child, the victim, and the community in providing appropriate treatment to reduce accountability paramount while taking into consideration the best interests of the through and guidance Colorado’sservices. juvenile system holds public andsafety thecountry to rehabilitate children in their formative years separately from adults of adult criminal courtrooms, jails, and prisons. part of a national social reform movement to protect was children court Colorado’sfrom juvenileLindsey, the Ben harsh Judge Juvenile effects Denver by Pioneered court with for children crimes. charged state thetheinnationsecond separatea establishtobecome to 1903 inColorado led that – growth and redemption of notions with along – principle this was It consequences. serious weighing for capacity diminished a have juveniles that us: differencescontracts, and serving into on entering juries, recognizing voting, for fromexample, acknowledge children what prohibiting common policies Laws sense tells adults. and and kids between laws long-standing many has Colorado PART I:INTRODUCTION

A SeparateJuvenileCourttoSupportYouthDevelopment 4 & THE PROSECUTION OF CHILDREN AS ADULTS THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF THE JUVENILE COURT and are required to attend all proceedings. 2

3 A juvenile court case begins when a prosecutor files a petition of petition a files prosecutor a when begins case court juvenile A 6 In most courtrooms, parents and children are required 1 Juvenile courts were set up across 5 The juvenilecourt may impose

13 INTRODUCTION 14 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE protect the interest of the community and are appropriate to a child’s needs. In most states, an adult is defined as a person who has reached 18 years of age age of years 18 older. reached or has who person a as defined is adult an states, most In not apply to youth who are sentenced adults. as do adults and children between separation sound” and “sight require that laws Federal population. prison general the in inmates adult from youth separating requires that law Colorado no is There prison. adult an she to goes or he Corrections of Department the in years of term a to sentenced and courtcriminal in convicted is age of years 14 as young as child a When its approach to criminals and penalties.” –in procedures, goals rehabilitation of the young person, whereas the adult system necessarily hardens in ofgoal the juvenile“The system is to remain informal, flexible,focused and on the described by Colorado’s Supreme Court for how juveniles are handled in this state: inappropriatedevelopmentallysentencinglaws. tochildren prosecutionadultsubjected suddenlyfor make juvenilesmore eligible adults. as convicted teens to apply in parole, life of possibility to the without prison murder first-degree for penalty the increased 1991 in example, Legislature for the When, adults. to apply to written were laws criminalColorado’s or program. adult prison, facility locked in a juvenile untilfacility they turn 21, and then are subject to transfer to an youth a keep would thatsentencesconsecutive for allowing by prosecution adult to alternative an provide would 28 Bill Senate the cases, serious most these For murder. second-degree or first- of convicted juveniles for consequences increase further would Legislature, 2012 the before bill pending is which 28, Bill Senate currentThe maximum sentence can in child a juvenilereceive court seven years. is Colorado the offenders, aggravated or Children’ssentencingseriousconsequences. mandatory terms violent,thathasset Code repeat, be to found teenagers facility. lock-upjuvenile a to commitment or home, the of out placement probation, treatment, counseling, programs, justice restorative include options individualized plans for craftevery child and family to appearing frombefore them. choose to sentences of selection wide a have judges court Juvenile help motivate improvements in behavior. strengthsto individual their embraced and childreninterests theof engaged who judges interactive encouraged system juvenile the of founders other and Lindsey The CriminalCodewasDesignedforAdults 17 Lawmakers set the boundaries of the juvenile court based upon the upon based court juvenile the of boundaries the set Lawmakers 12

14 Laws later enacted in 1993 through 1997 to 1997 through 1993 in enactedlater Laws 13 8

there was no discussion the law would law the discussion no was there 15 This runs counter to the ideals ideals the counter to runs This 16 9 Sentencing 7 10 Judge For 11

give up jurisdictiongive and transfer the to case adult criminal subject court --aruling judge considers the evidence and then makes the decision of whether to “waive” or or incapable of rehabilitation within the juvenile court system. The juvenilecourt Under judicial transfer, the prosecutor toseeks show that a youth is too dangerous the adult criminal court system. by treatmentserved in the juvenile system or warrant more severe consequences in offense communitydeterminesbetterthearewhether and interests --and the child the of the of seriousness the and child the of maturity the including -- factors juvenile defense the attorney and prosecutorcan the present both evidence. which in hearing Thea judgefor considers motion athe listsets ofjudge fourteencourt prosecutor motion a files to transfer adult to criminal The court. case the juvenile the and juvenilecourt in begins case transfers,the situationsIninvolving judicial judges. function. adult—the child will powerface. The to impose a sentence is a traditional judicial makessense thesincecourt’s determines ruling what sentencing –juvenile code or has found decide the judicial transfer todecision analogous to a sentencing discretion decision, the judges court whetherchild’sa triedcriminal inadult be court. should case juvenile give that laws Colorado, transfer including judicial states, Forty-six transfer.” “judicial called is court criminal adult to court juvenile from child a moving for method traditional The prosecution puts up needlessly barriers families. within struggling already criminal Adult process. court criminal the of out left is parent the case, othercriminal any like handled is case the Because trial. awaiting jail adult an in held is juvenile a while contact physical any without -- year a than more cases, some in over a television screen and telephone. Parents and children can monthsgo – and, accommodate families. If a child is held in an adult thejail, parent can only “visit” don’t jails adult Likewise, treatment. in participate or court in appear to parent no authority orderto has the criminalThe court judge court.atthein table sit to an adult, the prosecutedis as toparent the and permittednot is case party a not is Adult criminal court doesn’t serve the needs of children and parents. When a child outcomes— the very juvenile courts were designed to stop acentury ago. subjects court. criminal adult in children exceptionsprosecutionof permittingthe limited out carved and child, the of age Pathways thatSendYouthtoAdultCriminalCourt them 22 uiil rnfr ttts prpitl vs tase dcsos with decisions transfer vest appropriately statutes transfer Judicial to the same rules, 23 18

convictions

Increased criminal and sentences prosecution 20 imposed A Colorado courtColorado A of on children 21 19 which adults have 15 INTRODUCTION 16 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE to appeal byeitherJudicial appeal toside. transfer assessmentprovides individualized an of of direct file and mandatory exclusion laws has yet tobe considered by the Supreme Fundamental fairness has been the hallmark of juvenile court. criminal only juvenilesentencing.attocourt remandcase opportunitythe to an transfer hearings giving judges review over the prosecutor’s filing decision, decision.or provide criminal court, the juvenile has no opportunity to appeal or contest the prosecutor’s offense.chargedthe and child the of age the upon based is eligibility file Directcriminaladult directly court.in filed be juvenileshouldprosecutorswhich cases discretiondecide give states toto fourteen by enacted were -- Colorado in have we one the like -- laws file Direct criminal court to transfer the to back juvenile case court. the petition to opportunity the teenagers give that hearings transfer”“reverse or waiver” of “reverse possibility offering the by laws mandatory of effects harsh the thecrime.thosesameyouthof statesStill,of most accused all alleviated forcourt juvenile of boundaries the redefining by discretion eliminated lawmakers states, laws” requiring certain cases filed be in adult criminalcourt at exclusion the outset. In “mandatory those enacted -- Colorado including not – Twenty-nine states prisons. and jails adult in incarceratethem and court criminal adult in children on not completely if heavily focus protectingpublic. the should policy that and children, not first, juvenilecases. of coverage media sensationalized and crimeviolent in increase an to response 1990’s in the through 1980’s the from place took justice juvenile in shift major A with the complies law Colorado’stransfer decision. judge’s the underlying reasoning the and facts the of record a representationand counsel, by hearing, fair a entitledto In practical terms, this means teenagers facing judicial transfer to criminal court are withoutcounsel, assistance without statement of effective a hearing, reasons.” of without ceremony– without tremendousconsequences such of result a reaching for law of system our in place no is “therethat holding in Amendment 5th the child. the for consequences” “tremendous with action to transfer a child from juvenile court to criminal court was a “critically important” Kent v. United States landmark the In process. due to rights constitutional ensure Transfer hearings the ismade decision whether to transfer to adult court. whether a child is capable of being rehabilitated in the juvenile court system before

one 32

Kent

court of Ten of the fourteen states that permit direct file also provide reverse provide also file direct permit thatstates fourteen theTen of

four decision. decision. 27

The thinking at the time was that youth offenders was time thinking the The were at criminals and

states

no ruling, the U.S. ruling, Supreme Court found that ajudge’s decision 28

judicial Most states created new pathways to make it easier to try try to pathwaysMosteasier states make it new createdto with

complete 31

review In Colorado, once a case is filed directly in adultdirectly in filed is case Ina Colorado,once

prosecutorial for

remand

discretion

juvenile 24 25 30

The Court relied on relied Court The

34 Theconstitutionality

court.

to 33

file

Colorado

the

case

in is 29 26

function of“gut reactions” than ofconscious thought processes.” cognitive of product the Many thana processes...more adolescents’ risky be behavioraboutto appear decisions rather responses instinctual more be to when appear cortex prefrontal the on heavily stimuli fear-evoking to reactions adolescent Thus, stimuli. lessstressful to responding and amygdala the on adults than heavily more rely teenagers that reveals imaging resonance “Functional magnetic in understanding why juveniles involved become in criminal behavior: until one’s early to mid-twenties. for “executive” functions of planning developed and abstract is not fully thinking, no risks people’s brains grow until 25. age youngthat show neuroscience and development adolescent on studies Advanced leading to better and decisions more effective use of state-funded programs. thesystem make thorougha assessment child’sa of and circumstances, needs, risk, counsel. competent by best made by a judge after anevidentiary hearingis in which court the youthjuvenile is representedor adult in handled be should case a whether of determination against The statutory interpretation ofthe law under the circumstances in that case. its upon constitutionalbased was law the whether on directly in2006, ruling avoided but file statute direct Colorado’s reviewed Court Supreme Colorado The upon the differenttwodifferent of philosophies prosecutors.” transferred be status remainsadult toonejuvenilecould and a depending solely – juvenile factors,’ one ‘personal their of terms in alike essentially are and offense, same the essentially commit counties different in juveniles two if example, “For West expressed the same concern: Virginia treatment.” adult for out single to offenders giving by penalties prosecutorsjuvenilepotentialdiscretionof a classmembers of “in which deciding different radically face to juveniles situated identically two permitted it statutebecause file direct overturneda example, forSupreme Court, the Court, although critics theseargue laws violate the due process requirements set in to Kent New Adolescent Development Research Supports Juvenile Court Outcomes National and peer decision. prosecutorial consequences, pressure. Council 35

Some state Some courts have struck down file direct laws. The Utah 41 39 The pre-frontal cortex of the brain, which is responsible is which brain, the of cortex pre-frontal The direct Providing both sides an opportunity to be heard helps heard be to opportunity an sides both Providing of control Family file 42 40 How the teenage brain functions is also relevant

impulses, Adolescents laws. and Specifically, the group asserts that the that asserts group the Specifically, Juvenile 36 handle The Supreme Court of Appeals of Appeals of Court Supreme The are less Court stressful able Judges than 37 situations 43 adults

recommend 38 to and assess say 17 INTRODUCTION 18 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE This research has been relied upon by U.S. Supreme Court in several juvenile law several by in upon Court Supreme U.S. relied been has research This prosecuted trust decision facilities. adult of instead facilities juvenilein and prevention rehabilitation. on focus that reforms justice juvenile wants shows public adults general the as children of prosecution the regarding polling national Recent for everyone. increase safety public outcomes Better facilities. lock-up once-size-fits-all costly than results better far communitiesand kids, their families that programsto lead tailored closely engage treatmentinvolvement. family and abuse substance with curbed was activity criminal Rather, re-offending. reduce as crimes commit to adults. on went minority small a only that found and murder to burglary from ranging offenses serious committed had who kids followed study youth who commit violent offenses. for even intervention, delinquency for effective are programs evidence-based and The MacArthur research showingFoundation produced thatcommunity also has toward rehabilitation. approach child’sworkinga together inin life community people and systemsthe of thatall incorporate and and “Functional family intensive an take Therapy” programs Therapy” “Multisystemic Family certified Blueprints example, For can make makers harmmorethatthan programsavoidresourcesdo good. scarce and of policy smartuse so effectiveness of standards scientific high meet that programs prevention violence and drug identifies -- Colorado of University the at PreventionViolence and Studyof the Center forthe of project Preventiona -- Violence for Blueprints work. to proven been have that methods rehabilitation devise tojuvenile preventionresearchcrimehavedrawnfrom on experts Leading to recidivism reduce rates. regimen. military-style a increasecrime.actually programs – those designed to deter youth from crime by lecturing them in prison – “scaredstraight”example, For doesn’twhat work. us law.National tells research a makes the breaking continue or development ways their mend offenders youth of whether in difference period important this during responds society How adults in the juvenile and criminal justice system. decisions that consistently have held that youth treated be should differently from judges 51 The study also found longer institutional sentences do not appear to not appear do sentences institutional longer found also study The to place as --not 53 an mjrt o aut sree tik engr sol b held be should teenagers think surveyed adults of majority A a adult. prosecutors-- youth 49 45

46 Equally ineffective are boot-camp programs ineffective boot-camp programs Equally thatare employ 55 Both programs have since been determined as unlikely as determined been havesince programs Both 47 Public opinion and scientific research reinforce the reinforce research scientific and opinion Public in adult to 52 50 criminal The findings in major studies are consistent: inare major studies findings The The Foundation’s “Pathways Desistance”to determine 54 court,

With 44 if

and 81 respect percent when to a child of who adults makes should polled the be 48

prior juvenile commitments, murder,first-degree of convicted children for mandatory became sentences adult when 1980’s the in curbed partially was flexibility Sentencing sentenced. be to courtjuvenile to transferred back be even juvenilea stillreceive could adultsentence anmeant 17-year-oldconvicted a as or court gave cases. these overseeing judges court criminal adult to discretion more gave lawmakers eligibility, direct-file expanded of days earlier In previously hadadjudicated for afelony. been who older or years juveniles for 16 only but eligibility, direct-file for — felonies 3 14. to lowered was murder first-degree for filing direct for age minimum the and created was Code murder. first-degree as such offenses Eligibility 1 for adult prosecution Class remained the serioussame until most1968, when the the Children’s 17-year-olds with to charged 16- involving cases in only Colorado prosecution direct adults. allowed initially as children prosecuting for exceptions out carved gradually has state the 1903, in system justice Colorado’sjuvenile of inception the Since and juvenile facilitiesfor more effective treatment. court. “reversereturnpetitioncanto court juvenileadult totransfer”in children laws so juvenile detention facilities instead of adult jails. adult court jurisdiction. court. adult transfer to mandatory for age minimum the raised have Illinois and Connecticut enactingand juvenilereformssmart tothat court. youthbringpolicies moreback Persuaded by research and manypolling, states are reconsidering adult prosecution to prevent re-offending. their formative years are less thanculpable effective adults andrehabilitation need principles on which Colorado’s juvenile justice system was founded: Adolescents in

The EvolutionoftheDirectFileStatute’sExpansion adult 59 THE HISTORY OF DIRECT FILE IN COLORADO would Across the country, state trends are returning more youth to juvenile court criminal or 56 Mississippi and Delaware have removed certain offenses from offenses certain removed have Delaware and Mississippi send 62 In the 1970’s, lawmakers added new offenses – Class 2 and 2 Class – offenses new 1970’s,lawmakersthe In added court the 57 Oregon and Texas have laws passed to house children in case judges 66 and later for children convicted ofviolent crimes. back the to power juvenile 65 children 16 years and older who had who older and years 16 children 63

to 58 And Ohio and Arizona enacted sentence 60 court Colorado for the sentencing. case law as previously a juvenile 64 This This 67 61

19 INTRODUCTION 20 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE o 9 yas - rm 93 o h 19 - drc poeuin n rmnl court criminal in prosecution direct -- 1993 the to 1903 from -- years 90 For published by published the number, length and placement of news stories about juvenile and violent crime professorCriminology at the University of Denver, created this table summarizing 1993 Post violentof crime thancoverage withnews inrisewithcrime a itself. do to more had that construct media a was Violence” of “Summer so-called The with the that widely heldbelief crime up. was going weekend showing that serious crime was down 12 percent, it was in direct contrast Post Denver juvenilethepopulation.substantial in growth a despite slightly only for youth weapons, searching still the text of police the article reported that juvenile showed crime rates had Violence” increased of Summer “Denver’s headlined blame wereto guns with kids that implication over-arching the withsummer, that detail graphic in The Denver Post violence, prompting lawmakers to take action. the summer of 1993 triggered public outcry about a higher perceived rate of youth 1991. in 1980’s thefrom peak itsthrough up rising gradually been had Colorado in crimeJuvenile crime. violent of coverage their increased dramaticallyColorado’s 1993, media summerof theDuring news to increase sanctions and create juvenile new atough were program rejected. Other juvenile bills convictions. justice violent crime murder and first-degree for that constitute crimes of violence. prior the juvenile eliminated record requirement lawmakers for 16- to 17-year-olds 1993, accused of Class 2 or 3 felonies in session legislative regular the During 1993, prosecutors had discretiondirectly to filecharges courtin adult if of thechild was: January in stood law file direct the As adjudication. had felony juvenile previous a a if only permitted was murder first-degree than less anything for • •

1993 andtheMediaConstructed“SummerofViolence” ran or 3felony older,oryears 16 or withprior a felony withClassadjudication,2 a charged 14 years or older, with and aClass charged 1felony than up in released news from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation that same Investigationthat of Bureau Colorado the from news released to The Denver The Denver Post the and ten 68 summers . 73 times Rocky Mountain News

A photo attached to an August 8, 1993 8, Augustan to attached photo A more of during the summers of1992,1993and 1994: 1992 69 articles At that time, adult sentencing was mandatory and on 1994. covered murders, rapes, and shootings 71 youth 72 But, stepped-up news coverage in coverage But,stepped-up news

77 Paul Colomy, a Sociology and Sociology Colomy,a Paul 75 violence in Denver Post Denver the 76 74

T When summer heDenver 78 article 70

The of become law. become passage. quick for legislators urged 1993. 11, September on later days five The legislative sessionspecial towas called order onSeptember 7, 1993 and closed justice policy. “moral panic” and rushed through reforms that led a to to wholesale changes led inthat portrayals juvenile crime juvenile profile high to reacted statesMany alone. action.”for need radical more much a here...and was session the when spring in was there than now atmosphere different “a was there it, put Thesebills werelikely predicted topass sessionin because,as special Governorthe sanctions. harsher even with proposals new consider to and session regular the during failed hadthat bills justicejuvenile reexamine to session legislative special By the end of July 1993, Gov. Romer Roy unveiled an “iron fist”plan, for a calling into neighborhoods urban gang-ridden traditionally “safer” beyond Denver and suburbs. neighborhood spreading was that violence or elderly, and white. childrenyoung very were media news the by victimsportrayed the Hispanic, and though Even victims. statistically the most likely victim and of youth violence in the summer perpetratorsof 1993 was 17 of portrayal their sensationalizing and skewing by fear heightened articles coverage, news disproportionate the Within misperception may stem from arecent pattern in journalism.” before.summerthe seem dangerous more city the making for fault at was media the whether of question the raised the from Facts the Fears.” Separates that Cases Homicide 130 Denver’s of Review A InJanuary1994, of and CreatedtheYouthfulOffenderSystem The FiveDaysthatExpandedDirectFile,Eliminated JudicialDiscretion 79 Thepaper that acknowledged Denver homicides were down in 1993 and Front PagePhotographs Total Photographs Length of All Stories Editorial PageStories Section A Stories Front PageStories Total Stories 89 86 Hearing testimony shows bills were moving so quickly during the during quickly so moving were bills showstestimonyHearing STORIES The Denver Denver PostThe 82 The articlesalso imparted a sense of increasing and random 88 80 published an article titled “Year titled article an Violence: of published f h 3 bls nrdcd 1 pse to passed 10 introduced, bills 33 the Of A police officer was quoted as saying “the saying as quoted was officer police A 87 Governor Romer set the deadline and deadline the set Romer Governor 1512.65 1992 29 73 0 3 2 2 5606.87 1993 106 196 83 32 43 73 44

85 81 Colorado was not was Colorado

1615.98 1994 10 61 3 2 5 6 84

21 INTRODUCTION 22 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE special session that up to six were being heard in committee at any given time, given any at committee in heard being were six to up that session special ih e. opr bt ht tee ant nuh ie t cet a middle-tier alternative a youthin services. create to time” enough wasn’t “there that but Hopper, Sen. with population. young this serve to better thatbe staff trained would youtharguing insteadservices youth of services, why the $31 proposed formillion YOS was to going the Corrections Department supported the idea of a new program, but not in adult corrections. She questioned Hopper (R-Golden) Sally Sen. withtheYOSplan. agreed legislators all not Still, Youthfulthe for -- its sizecost. and program mainly proposed OffenderServices prison new the on focused Capitol the at debate the Instead, sentencing. at discretion judicial of removal the or provisions file direct new the session. Romer Gov. by attorney onhearings Senate 9.RitterBill -- who had appointed Denver been as district whole program was by designed district attorneys,” SenateandYOS9 wereBill DA’screated byprosecutors. “The The wrotebill. this “hammer” to ensure youth compliancewith the program. new a as touted was sentence prison suspended The program. YOS the failed youth the if imposed be would that sentence prison suspended longer, a included also five years to one for YOS to (sentences were increased to two be to sentenced six the following year). Every sentencecould to YOS youth direct-filed A system. last of convicted children for a called what Wham as promoted corrections was offenses, weaponsviolentYOS or adult and juvenile between alternative tier” a program “middle a as Known (DOC). Corrections as of Department adult (YOS) the within System Offender Youthful the created also bill Wham’s juvenile court. to back pathway last the off blocked it effect, Insentencing. for court juvenile to the removed case a juvenilesendsentence a or impose bill judge Wham’sa thatlawlet earlierthe of section crimes, serious most the for mandatory was already include all violent crimes and attempted violent crimes. to Although increased adult were offenses sentencing the and offenses, eligible all for 14 to lowered was file direct for limit age The court. criminal youth more adult in against charges file to discretion prosecutorial expanded bill Her session. special five-day throughthe 9 Sen. Dottie Wham, (R-Denver/Arapahoe), introduced and shepherded Senate Bill were at located the from Colorado obtained recordings State Archives. hearings. the of all attend even or testify to stakeholders interested for difficult it making chance” 94 90 amkr’ icsin o Wa’ bl dd’ eaie h dtis of details the examine didn’t Wham’s bill of discussions Lawmakers’ All of the statements and hearing testimony presented in this report this in presentedtestimony hearing statementsand the of All program for juveniles who exhausted opportunities in the juvenile the in opportunities exhausted who juveniles for program 93 -- helped design the YOS program for the legislative the for program YOS the design helped -- 96 Since the new direct file provisionsfile increase direct would thenew Since 95 Sen. Wham responded that she initially agreed agreed initially thatshe responded Wham Sen. 92 Sen. Wham explained during 91 “second The funding for direct file and YOS was split between two bills, with the $1.5 the with million bills, in capital costs two in one and between the $29 split million in operatingwas costs YOS in the and other. file direct for funding The stick abig and “weto turn need them around.” Association, testified that “many kids havebeen in and out of DYS five or six times” corrections. youthadultmore underfunded”operatebywere if andbetter would handled and “overcrowded was system corrections juvenile the testified officials DYS Rather, of the Division by opposed not Youthwas of DivisionCorrections/DYC). the renamed (later Youth(DYS) Services corrections adult in to invest move The control. evaluated for quality carefully would be adolescent understand YOS behavior. at working people the that so properly” program population. youthat-risk highly the for coaches”mentors,“counselors, provideteachers, to programming” in rich “very be would program YOS the explaining by price-tag dollar $31 million the justified Department, Corrections’ the of director deputy Perco, John people.”would place we where on need we that don’tall we have don’t short...wenumbers... firm have is time the but ideas, these out work “We to need stating, When data, fiscal limited had dollars. or details out work to time questionedabout the costs YOSof during an appropriations Wham Sen. no hearing, provided session five-day The to rely on the DA’s.” exceptcontrolssystemthethrowingthere anywhere outno within anotherpiece that’s out there... if DADYS is so every bad, whyby don’t built weget change tothat systemgoing too. Weis pipeline that are — just pipeline the building “Weare ago,” complained. days untilhe 4 informationthis onno had and ago weeks four untilthis of heard havenot “I DOC. within build pressureto outspoken against said. place,”he in it put we before piece this study to need them....we distinguishing for criteria no with and YOS, into going another and services youth into going child one Youhave may process. the fragment further will system “This services. youthinvesting in of insteadDepartmentCorrections thewithin YOS building Junta)cautionedagainst James Rizzuto(D-La also Sen. up,” YOS. for proposed being numbers” the with uncomfortable “very properly,”was it she statingdo to time is there‘til well. as passed YOS unless prison Wham adult regular Sen. to youth more send court, to alternativebut no adult be would therecautioned in olds, year 15 to 14 including teens, of number the shepredicted. 103 Assurances were made by the Department of Corrections that YOS thatCorrections of Department the by made wereAssurances 104 tes icuig ebr o te ooao ony hrif’s Sherriff County Colorado the of members including Others, 98 100 101 102 Wham agreed it was critical to screen and “staff the and screen to critical was it agreed Wham 97 Sen. Hopper urged her colleagues to “wait to colleagues her urged Hopper Sen. “If you build 105

these beds, 99 Sen. Rizzuto was Rizzuto Sen. we will fill them 106

23 INTRODUCTION 24 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE The initial price tag and increase of 80 FTE’s (full time equivalent employees) in employees) equivalent time FTE’s (full 80 of increase and tag price initial The statement stating hewas notconvinced there was aproblem with file. direct a issued – attorneydistrict Denver was he when legislation 1993 the of architect an been had who – RitterRitter.Gov. Bill by vetoed Representatives,was of but juvenile court. to return to a “reverse-transfer”petition could court criminal provided adult in and children so offenses hearing serious the most limited the have to would crimes that bill eligible a introduced (D-Boulder) Levy Claire Rep. statute. file direct the to back balance bring to began effort significant a 2008, In They remain sentenced in to die prison. parole. without life to sentenced previously youth 50 the to apply didn’t behavior). good for reduction no with years full 40 means (this years calendar 40 serving after parole for eligible now are juveniles,who sentencingfor parole without life eliminating in successful was Hefley Rep. 2006, in But pass. 27 years. serving after sentenced to life without parole kidsas to petition for reconsideration of sentence and convicted prisoners allowed have would that legislation introduced Springs) lawmakers began to reconsider these policies. In 2003, Rep. Lynn Hefley (R-Colo. prisons, adult and court adult in children of number increasing the of years After By 2000,there were 298youth sentences serving in YOS. vehicular assault, vehicular and homicide arson. offenders, juvenile habitual non-violent include to file direct for offenses eligible YOS. for eligible recordjuvenile habitual a with sentences, YOS Pueblo, in facility 300-bed a build to YOS for funding Denver the at quarters granted InLegislature the temporary 1994, Centerbeds. Diagnostic with96 and Reception in placed was originally YOS youth. more include to expand to continued statutes YOS and file direct the years, the Over spend we won’t have for education.” looking atare $3 Wemillion. we will now be on the road to million; $31 million. Whatever money $31 we was note fiscal first “the that cautioned lawmaker one youth.Even financialthe of though new analysis lowered million, was YOS $3 to of wave first the for million $3 at startingsystem, theimplementation of gradual a calculate to amended was bill the so steep, was Corrections of Department the Lawmakers ReconsiderDirectFile&AdultSentencing 116 Thebill successfullypassed a majority ofboth the stateSenate and House 109 n md jvnls ovce o nnvoet eoy offenses felony non-violent of convicted juveniles made and 113 ht esr - ad nte bl i 20 --didnot 2005 in bill and another -- measure That 115 107

111 110

In 1997, lawmakers expanded 1997, In 108 112 expanded the length of length the expanded

114 The law The 117 –year-olds accused of murder–year-olds accused or sexoffenses. 17 to involving 14- cases in required not is file” direct consideration“noticeof of The statute. the in outlined factors upon based case the file direct to not her or him persuade to attempt an in prosecutor the with meet to agreement) mutual by extended be could (which weeks two provided are attorneys defense juvenile file a “notice ofconsideration ofdirect file” in juvenile court. Underthis provision, statutefile direct prosecutorsburglary, requires robbery,to andthenew assault as crimes.those of the direct file statute – except in murder cases, violent sex offenses and any attempts consider in deciding whether to direct file, and removed 14- and 15-year-olds from Ritter. Gov. by law into Reps. by (sponsored bill Levy-D and reform May-R, and Sens. Newell-R and direct-file Lundberg-R) did pass and was signed compromise bipartisan a 2010, In moves to the state Senate. House Bill 1139 passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 64 to 0, and now totransfer the judge ask theof As printing the toteenanjail. adult thisof report, cannot teenbe safely held with the other youth, finds the bill gives facility the facility the juvenile opportunity to the If facilities. detention juvenile in youth filed House Bill 1139, which is pending in this 2012 legislative session, would keep direct services. educationalany received jails adult in teens one-thirdof thatshowing only 2012, in released was data this on report final The services. educational providedthey were whether and jails adult in held juveniles of number the on collection data children in adult jails receive four hours of education a week. adult jails, the Legislature took nominal action by amending the law to require that Stewart’s juveniles in of Borrego’s for conditions news and After exposed suicides in the Pueblo County Jail. had passed, 17-year-old Robert Borrego committed suicide in solitary confinement without the right to appeal to the judge. prosecutor the with detained is youth the where regarding decision ultimate the leftbut facility, juvenile or adult an in held is youth a whether regarding discuss was amended to establish a list of factors prosecutors and defense attorneys should juvenileyouthinprohibitive. considereddetention was jailed facilities there were about 100 juveniles in adult jails throughout Colorado, jail. the cost adult to an place to moved be could youth a before hearing a drivingdrunk a accident. aconfinement in man after killing solitary in held been JailhadCounty where he Denver the in suicide committed Stewart James 17-year-old 2008, of fall the In 124

127 For 16- and 17-year-olds accused of middle-level felonies such felonies middle-level of accused 17-year-olds Forand 16- 126 118 125 122 The new bill established factors for prosecutors to prosecutors for factors established bill new The Rep. Levy introduced a bill that introducedhavebill would a required Levy Rep.

121 Six months later, after the curtailed bill 128

119 Because at the time the at Because 123 Thisbill required 120 The bill bill The 25 INTRODUCTION 26 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE If a prosecutor now chooses to direct file a case, the 2010 law requires him or her or him requires law 2010 the case, a file direct to chooses nowprosecutor If a to Colorado’s juvenile justice system. back balance bring to reformaround discussion research-baseddata-driven, a for and expert recommendations regarding the prosecution of kids adults. as It’s time importance.”sweeping such of of considerationinstitutionalchanges and legal and inform to expect deliberation would one that consequences thoughtful of kind missing, the is been part, has most the “What for needed. improvements the accomplishing of short Colorado has taken significant first steps toward direct file reform, but has stopped justice system to craft an appropriate individualized treatmentplan. negotiation does not further the interests of due process or the of goals the juvenile adult prosecution, conviction and sentencing. Thisbehind-the-scenes, high-stakes of risks the avoid sentenceto juvenileandadjudication a for bargain plea quick a be resolved without a hearing or trial. There is pressure on the defense to negotiate will case thehow also butin, belongs case thesystem judicial which merelyabout not are place take that discussions file,” the direct of consideration of “notice a a has coercive effect file towardplea bargaining indirect juvenilecourt. of When theconsideration prosecutor files of notice the that concern additional is There case in juvenile court –there is still no opportunity for judicial review. case file. direct to decision or prosecutor’s the appeal to reasoning right no is there filed, statementis reasons of outline any particular facts or circumstances the prosecutor relied upon. Once the not does and off check to boxes with list one-page decision. a statementis the the practice,In affected factors what explain to reasons” of “statement a file to may be direct filed and So 130 some -- Policymakers now have access to extensivestudies to haveaccess Policymakersnow while time defense to try to attorneys persuade now prosecutors have notice to keep that 129 a a

Delinquency Prevention.Delinquency judicial district using juvenile population figures from the Office of Juvenile Justice each for calculated wereyouth) 1,000 juvenilearrests(per violent of rate the and Office of the State Court Administrator. The rate of direct filing (per 1,000 youth) 2005 to 1999 from statistics Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition availableanalyzed Colorado juvenile arrest the district. report, this For judicial each in year to fluctuaterates year file Direct direct file practices and juvenile violent arrest rates, or arrest rates in general. prosecutorial expand didn’t that states in discretion. even decreased rate crime the that proof of as their success. Yet prominent researchers rebuke by showing this theory crime youth in decline the to point expansion file direct 1993 the of Supporters violent juvenile arrests make up 10percent arrests. ofall 2010. in closed werethat cases in assaults aggravated of percent 9.4 and cases robbery of percent 14 cases, manslaughter and murder of percent 4.7 committed 18 of age Investigation,the underyouthBureauof Federal the to percent. 50 fell arrests crime violent juvenile 2009, timeframe. to 1980 From same that during percent 23.5 dropped arrests juvenile In contrast, percent. 1 increased 2010 and 2001 between arrested adults of number the Youth crime is at also historic lows. Even crimethough has substantially,dropped re-offending. returns,todiminishing lead incarcerationof periods longer as the chancesraise of crime.indrop overall the of more or two-thirds least in at for responsible are shifts likely factors andeconomic and social policing in changes complex, is crime and incarceration between low. a near-historic at is also rate crime violent The decades. for decline the on been have rates nationally,crime and Colorado In PART II: 1.

No Cause&EffectbetweenDirectFileandJuvenileCrime DIRECT FILE IS NOT MAKING COLORADO SAFER 139

134 Colorado DIRECT FILEFINDINGS

data 141

133 140 shows What’s thatshowincarceration studiesmore, may alongside direct file numbers obtained from the from obtained numbers file direct alongside there is no discernable 132 138 hl te relationship the While

connection 137 In Colorado, In 136 According between 135 131

27 KEY FINDINGS 28 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE The following table shows the 1st Judicial District, which is Jefferson is Jefferson which County. District, 1st Judicial the shows table following The lowest. at its direct was violent crime year in the fluctuating came rate file direct highest the The numbers. file and decrease that between connection discernable no is Counties-- saw ina decrease violent juvenile arrests from 1999 to 2005. But there 17 the as such jurisdictions, Other rate went also up in 2005despite theuse file on 106youth. ofdirect preceding 19 theIn inin this 2005was thesix-year highest was the as total crime period, rate. rate. Afterdirect filingagainst 137teens from 1999 to 2004, the violent crime rate Since 1999, prosecuting kids as adults there has had no impact on the violent crime 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 Year Year th Judicial District -- which is Weld County -- the violent juvenile arrestjuvenileviolent Weld the is -- County which -- DistrictJudicial of Direct of Direct Number Number Cases Cases File File 13 27 17 15 17 28 14 21 19 33 22 19 23 2 1st JudicialDistrict–Jefferson County 1,000 Youth 1,000 Youth Cases per Cases per Direct File Direct File 19th JudicialDistrict–Weld County 0.23 0.34 0.30 0.52 0.34 0.30 0.36 0.48 1.04 0.66 0.60 0.71 0.09 1.28 1,000 Youth 1,000 Youth Arrests per Arrests per th Juvenile Juvenile Violent Violent uiil itit Aas n Broomfield and –Adams District Judicial 2.90 2.73 1.98 2.71 2.70 2.81 1.67 4.48 3.26 3.62 3.52 3.85 2.84 3.62 1,000 Youth 1,000 Youth Arrests per Arrests per Property Property Juvenile Juvenile 20.23 17.56 17.79 16.67 19.58 20.76 15.60 14.96 20.57 25.55 24.21 21.51 21.27 24.31 1,000 Youth 1,000 Youth Arrests per Arrests per Juvenile Juvenile 10.06 9.44 8.90 7.58 8.00 5.15 4.16 5.52 4.22 5.06 1.88 3.26 3.97 2.06 Drug Drug Juvenile Juvenile Arrests Arrests 33.19 29.73 28.67 26.95 30.28 28.71 21.43 24.95 28.06 34.22 29.61 28.63 28.08 30.00 Total Total report violent crimes, as compared to juveniles retained in the juvenile justice system. prosecuting youth as adultsthat on generally indicate results in findings increased arrest Their for Forcecrime, including adults. Taskas juveniles prosecuting of Prevention effectiveness the and Control measure Disease to study comprehensive a conducted for PreventativeServices Community Centers the 2007, In to Colorado’s return will and communities. youth neighborhoods direct-filed all Nearly youth for adults. difficult successful it be making to are and crime, down brought not have practices the and Colorado’syouthnumbercrimesarrestedin for of filing Direct cases districts. judicial file direct of number the between relationship no show data The seen violent juvenile arrests rise and fall with no connection to the rate of direct file. The 18 Prosecuting YouthasAdultsIsMoreLikelyto IncreaseCrime 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 Year Year th concluded Judicial District --Arapahoe, Douglas,Lincoln, andElbert Counties-- has 18th JudicialDistrict– Arapahoe, Douglas,Lincoln,ElbertCounties of Direct of Direct Number Number Cases Cases File File 17th JudicialDistrict– Adams &BroomfieldCounties 22 27 28 31 25 19 33 19 29 13 10 18 15 11 that 1,000 Youth 1,000 Youth the Cases per Cases per Direct File Direct File 0.23 0.28 0.30 0.33 0.28 0.22 0.39 0.37 0.22 0.58 0.26 0.21 0.38 0.35 increase 1,000 Youth 1,000 Youth Arrests per Arrests per Juvenile Juvenile in Violent Violent 2.75 2.16 2.16 5.10 5.42 5.68 6.41 2.19 2.34 1.24 2.76 1.16 3.90 2.11 prosecuting 1,000 Youth 1,000 Youth Arrests per Arrests per Property Property Juvenile Juvenile 26.49 22.19 15.73 48.10 47.64 53.66 65.89 16.31 17.16 11.40 7.68 9.15 8.52 9.62 youth 1,000 Youth 1,000 Youth Arrests per Arrests per as Juvenile Juvenile 12.48 14.49 13.45 17.99 11.55 9.21 7.74 4.99 4.79 4.22 4.61 4.26 4.72 Drug Drug 3.11 adults -- Juvenile Juvenile Arrests Arrests 40.79 33.56 25.63 65.68 67.55 72.79 90.30 23.41 24.14 17.96 12.03 16.52 13.94 18.25 including Total Total The 29 KEY FINDINGS 30 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE the More than have 3,000cases in Colorado from filed direct 1993 to 2011. been in housed facilitiesthatbe can address their developmental needs. health needs. mental and developmental physical, unmet of rate higher a have system correctional American juvenile the The in youth that reported court. recently Pediatrics criminal of Academy in youth of number the reduce to procedures implementingwaiver andreverse making, decision in assessmenttools needs and creatingfile, transferprosecutorial direct judicial a process risk that uses validated adolescents. of needs developmental the handle the to equipped found poorly is report system criminal 2010 adult Justice’ on Juvenile Committee Advisory Federal The criminality, safety. and decrease life-long promote recidivism, increases teens of prosecutionAdult reintegration. felony conviction reduces opportunities for employment, housing and community criminal behavior from learning adult offenders, as felons, and a lack of rehabilitation labeled andfamily being support. of effects negative and stigmatization finding Ph.D., J.D., Redding, juveniles criminalto the aremoredue likelyreoffend adult courtinto E. prosecuted Richard Professor by written a report, released and Prevention similar Delinquency Justice of Juvenile Office the 2008, In file for the purpose of reducing violent juvenile offending. violence The in thisrecent casesis setoffifty-six report. separately and analyzed reviewed year 2010-2011 that changes followed in the direct file statute werealsoobtained. cases file direct (56) fifty-six The 2010. to 1999 from court adult in youth against filed cases 1,800 the of details the primarily analyzes report This 2.

use How ManyCasesareDirectFiled? 145 DISPROPORTIONAL IMPACT ON YOUTH OF COLOR DIRECT FILE HAS AFFECTED THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN WITH For these reasons, the Academy recommends children and adolescents and children recommends Academy the reasons, these For of and prosecutorial 144 enhancing The report recommends eliminating or narrowing the scope of scope the or narrowing eliminating recommends report The public waiver-- safety. is counterproductive 142 The report recommends against direct against recommends report The to reducing 146 148 during fiscal juvenile 143 147 A

against 15year children. old against against 14children, year old andonly four filed fileno direct casescases were filed 14 and 15 year old youth who were direct filed dropped. In 2010-2011, there were offenses,mostfor 16 to the number of eligibility of lawthethatage change raised Recent cases follow thepattern, same age withbut expected as the 2010 direct file and 3percent 14-year-olds. 15-year against -olds; against percent 11 16-year-olds; against percent 30 about 17-year-olds; against filed are cases file direct all of -- percent 55 – half over just that shows also Data Moreboys. than against are 90percent filings direct ofall is a Colorado 17-year-old ofan white assault. male whoand isaccused lives in or nearcity abig in direct-filed is who child average the research, statistical From

Percent of Direct File Cases 100 20 40 60 80 0 What aretheCharacteristicsofChildrenProsecutedasAdults? Number of Direct Number File Cases By GENDER 1999 2000 for1999 2001 - 2010 2002

Percent of Youth Direct Filed byAGE and Year 2003 2004 Unknown Female Male Calendar Year Calendar 2005

2006 Number Number of Direct File Cases By AGE for 2007

2008 1999 2009 - 2010

2010 13 14 15 16 17 17 16 15 14 13 31 KEY FINDINGS 32 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE of the date of this report. Of the thirty-two closed cases, fifteen or 46 percent 46 or fifteen resulted in a sentence cases, to the closed YOS, eight or 25 thirty-two percent resulted thein a sentence.DOC Of report. this of date the of as a sentence in resulted in 2010-2011 filed cases fifty-six the of thirty-two Some Two-thirds ofdirect file sentences in the adult are served corrections system. sentences. countsboth but result, sentences oneinto informationthoseseparate not does herepresented The probation. adult by followed Corrections, Youth of Division the to sentence a as such sentences, of kinds multiple with resolved are cases file direct Some percent). (39 sentence prison Corrections’ of Department regular a is youth direct-filed for sentence likely most second The percent). (47 System The majority ofdirect file convictions result in sentences to the Youthful Offender What HappenstoDirectFiledYouthafterConviction? 4% 21%

48 62

21% 47% 3 15

283

Numberof Youth Sentenced by Type of Sentence 0

Numberof Youth Sentenced by Type of

618

2 59 4% Sentence2010

1999 1

515 8

- 2010 FY 2010 1%

39%

- 2011 FY 2011

Probation Corrections Community Sentence Deferred System Offender Youth Supervision Intensive Offender Sex of Corrections Department Corrections Youth of Division

Department of Corrections of Department Corrections Youth of Division Probation Corrections Community Sentence Deferred System Offender Youth Supervision Intensive Offender Sex

children. white children, 18 percent against black children, against and 14 percent against filed Hispanic were cases file direct of percent 62 studied, period 11-year primary the During cases. file direct in youth white than file direct from impact harsher Kids of color --particularly black and Hispanic youth-- are more likely to experience on ethnicity than the state courts. file direct in statistics. underrepresentedjudicial Department The ofCorrections more accuratemaycollect data are youth Hispanic suggests data Department ethnicity. on data additional without “white” as recorded be may race whose youth, Hispanic collection at differentpoints in thedata criminal justiceon limitationssystem. by This particularlycomplicated affects is minorities ethnic and racial on Reporting

Percent of Direct File Cases 100 40 60 80 20 Direct FileDisproportionatelyImpactsYouthofColor 0 1999 149 2000 Comparisons between state court judicial data and Corrections and data judicial court state between Comparisons 2001 Number Number of Direct File Cases By RACEfor 2002 Percent of Youth Direct Filed byRACE and Year 2003 2004 1999 Calendar Year Calendar - 2005 2010

2006 2007 2008

Unknown Other Indian Asian Hispanic Black White 2009 2010 White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Other Unknown 33 KEY FINDINGS 34 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE These andracial ethnicpercentages do not reflect ofColorado’s the demographics suggest that youth categorized as “white” by the courts may be categorized as as categorized be may “Hispanic” courts by the Corrections’ Department. the by “white” youth as Hispanic categorized for youth that ethnicity onsuggest limitations data Again, thenew of YOS. 13 to percent only admissions were children white 2009-2010, year fiscal in But constituted1999-2010, they 57percent children sentenced ofall to YOS. from cases file Fordirect all of percent 62 upmake children white sentencing. although example, file direct of point the at increase disparities ethnic and racial there While disproportionate is direct-filed, is case impacta at the which in point trial court level. the at entry data in accuracy more and/or filing direct in increase an reflect may of cases filedagainst white children. The increase in percentage for Hispanic youth Hispanicagainst children, percentblack percent50 40 and filed cases of against filed cases of percent 16 with 2010-2011, in continued disparities Racial Hispanic and population, youth are likely undercounted. the in percentage their to relative cases file direct of youth population. Black children in particular are over-represented in the number Disproportionate Racial&EthnicImpactIncreasesatSentencing Other Hispanic Black White 22% Percent Direct of File YouthSentenced to YOS Race 16%

% of Juvenile Population 1999 22% 68% 5% 6% 57% - 2010

% of Direct File File % of Direct Other American Native Asian Hispanic Black White 14.6% 17.8% 63.8% Cases 3.7% appendix. also group. isincluded inminority RRI Thethe DistrictJudicial Snapshots in the over white youth. A rate than higher “1.0” means there is over-representation of a andis Index, Rate Relative youth for minority disproportionateon impactof ratemeasuring the of wayanother stands which rate, RRI an includes table This Corrections. Youthof Division juvenile the to sentences of percent 14 of and YOS, percentto sentences 15.8 DOC, to sentences of under- percent 14.9 constitute are youth Hispanic population, youth Colorado charged. cases thefile direct of percent 14.6 atunder-counted, likely representedbut of percent 22 youth, Hispanic of sentences to the juvenile Division ofYouth Corrections. percent 14 and YOS, to sentences of percent 22.4 DOC, to sentences of percent 18.7 constitute youth Black cases. file direct of percent 17.8 charging: direct overrepresentedin are population, youth Colorado the of percent 6 youth, Black 71.9 and YOS, to percent ofthe sentences sentences to the juvenile Division ofYouth of Corrections. percent 57 DOC, to sentences of percent 63.7 constitute youth White cases. file direct of percent 63.8 charging: file direct in White youth, 68 percent of the Colorado youth population, are underrepresented The following figures are from the state courts: Today’s YOS admissions are 82percent black and Hispanic youth. 54%

Current Admissions to YOS 3% 0%

13%

2010 28%

Other American Native Asian Hispanic Black White 150 35 KEY FINDINGS 36 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE percent of dismissed direct file cases were filed againstchildren.whitepercent file werecases direct ofdismissed filed On the other side of the direct file spectrum are cases thatgetSomedismissed. 75 youth that issentenced to YOS. From 1993to 2011,the as follows: are figures and black Corrections, of Hispanic Departmentyouth have always been over-represented the in the population from of direct filed provided data to According Unknown Hispanic White Black andHispanicYouthHaveAlwaysBeenOver-RepresentedatYOS Other Asian Black 0 Number Number of Casesby for Race Dismissed CasesOnly 46% Percent of Juveniles Sentencedto YOS Raceby 50 2% Dept. Dept. of Corrections 1993 2% 100 0% 1999 25%

24% - 2010 150

- 2011 2011 FY 200 Hispanic Black Unknown Indian American Asian White 250

300 cases in our study period. Vehicular homicide adds an additional 1 percent. The percent. 1 additional an adds Vehicular homicide period. study our in cases murder to criminally homicide negligent -- constitute only 14 percent of direct file are for first-degree murder. Homicide cases ofall classifications -- from first-degree Contrary to the original intent of the direct file law, only 5percent of direct filings of middle-level offenses thatcould insteadbe handled in the juvenilecourt system. convicted and charged are children direct-filed most fact, in that, shows data the heinous that no review of their individual circumstances would be warranted. But used only for the most serious juvenile offenders -- children whocommit crimes so behind theThe expansion theory of Colorado’sdirect file lawwas that it be would percent ofthe sentences to YOS. the Division of Youth Corrections, 36 percent of the sentences and 45.8 to DOC, sentences to the of percent 37.5 are youth sentencing black In cases. file direct of percent 38.6 but population, youth the of percent 9 only up make youth Black District. Judicial 18th the in impact sentencing harsher experience youth Black and 41.5percent only of theto sentences DOC, to YOS. Youthof Divisionsentencesthe the to sentencesthepercent Corrections,of 49.2 youthconstitute white percent sentencing, of 62.5 In cases. file direct percentof and Elbert, Lincoln counties -- white youth Douglas, make up 73 percent Arapahoe, of the population, yet includes only 50 which -- District Judicial 18th the In of youth sentenced to the Youthful Offender System. 46 up make percent they of the juvenile where population, Denver, yet 53 percent in of direct file cases and effects 55percent harsher experience youth Hispanic percent ofthe juvenile population, 13percent yetonly file cases. ofdirect IntheJudicial 2nd District Denveris which -- Countyyouthwhite -- make up 30 in the “Judicial District Snapshots” in included the appendix to this report. disproportionality in Racial direct file case varies acrossdistricts, judicial as shown 3.

Only 5percentofdirectfilecasesareforfirst-degree murder 85 percentofdirectfilecasesarefornon-homicides. Racial andEthnicDisproportionalityVariesAcrossJurisdictions ARE NOT THE MOST SERIOUS OFFENDERS THE VAST MAJORITY OF YOUTH IMPACTED BY DIRECT FILE

37 KEY FINDINGS 38 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE narrow circumstance that originally provided for adult prosecution of children has cases outnumber homicide direct file cases. Even the increased in an of non-homicide during cases thepercent. year is75 last fiscal resulted still change law 2010 percentagethe Still,percent. percent 25 to15 from cases homicide of percentage the after cases file Direct file direct in the 1980’s What’s more, 85 percent of cases thatall are direct filed today were for not eligible the exceptionbecome rather than in the most filing direct decisions. rule 3.2% after 3.9% 2.0%

1.9% 5.9% the 20.0% 22.4% 9.8%

23.5% 2010 Percentof Direct by Type File Cases Case

9.8% by TypeCase 2010 direct Percent of Direct File Cases . 15.7% 14.7% 18.8% file 25.5% 13.7% 6.2% law

9.7% 1999

change,

3.2% - 2010

- 2011 FY 2011 drug Other Other Non Weapon Assault and Homicide Vehicular Drugs SexOffenses Burglary Robbery Assault Homicide

Other and assault homicide Vehicular Assault Weapon Drugs Robbery Burglary offenses Sex Homicide and - Violent non-violent direct file traditionally have by handled the been juvenile court system. that cases of kind the are felonies lower-level to middle- concerning, are crimes middle for level, Class 3 are and 4 felonies such cases as burglary, assault,file theft and robbery.direct While such all in charges highest the of majority Today,the as as dangerous nearly not are lawmakers when passing the imagined law. kids direct-filed and most sentences that of these suggests use dismissals frequent The communities. own their in children supervise typically sentencesdeferred Probationand sentence. deferred a receive percent 3 about and sentence, probation adult an receive children direct-filed percentof 21 that shows Data sentence. deferred a or probation in result percent 24 another dismissed; are that cases direct-file of percent 25 the to addition In this 396youthscenario. Some faced dismissed. studied or herhis gets case have felonyspendmonthsadult anarrest if jail, evenadult theiran– inon record get kicked out school, of child may means a This canresulthearings. inexpulsion Every case that is direct filed is required tobe reported to the teen’s school, dismissal. and filing thatfourmonths of ultimatelyaverage anbetween took were dismissed cases that shows also study case The jails. adult in time and court criminal adult of a quarter nearly means That in childrenprosecutedincourtunnecessarilyadult or toproceedings were subjected completely cases. court dismissed juvenile were as studied re-filed and cases dismissed file direct all of quarter a Nearly 22 percentofalldirectfilecasesaredismissed have ahighestchargeofmiddlelevelClass3felonyorlower 75 percentofthealldirectfilecaseareattimechargingonly 24 percent of direct file cases result in probation or a deferred sentence 151 which 39 KEY FINDINGS 40 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE Total 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 100 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 0 District 1999 Number of Cases of Number 2000 1791 178 302 194 116 116 183 210 176 74 65 23 17 15 17 33 31 10 8 8 6 4 5 Percent of Direct File Cases by Highest Charge1999 Felony 1 Felony 2001 Felony 1 13.33 20.00 0.00 0.00 4.62 2.81 1.66 5.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.70 5.88 8.62 5.88 2.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.74 7.62 4.55 84 Felony 2 Felony 2002 Number of Direct File Cases By Highest Charge Felony 2 12.50 16.92 19.54 18.04 12.50 50.00 17.39 11.76 18.10 11.76 12.12 22.40 40.00 28.10 21.59 8.11 8.99 0.00 0.00 8.62 3.23 0.00 316 Felony 3 2003 Felony 3 62.50 54.05 52.31 50.00 53.97 46.39 25.00 25.00 43.48 35.29 20.00 39.66 64.71 44.83 39.39 48.39 50.00 43.17 43.81 33.52 0.00 0.00 815 Felony 4 Felony 2004 Felony 4 12.50 25.68 20.00 25.84 18.21 23.71 37.50 33.33 50.00 17.39 23.53 46.67 23.28 11.76 30.17 21.21 32.26 30.00 21.31 20.00 15.24 35.23 Felony 5 Felony 420 2005 Felony 5 12.50 15.15 Felony 6 Felony 0.00 6.76 6.15 7.87 4.64 5.15 0.00 0.00 4.35 0.00 6.67 8.62 5.88 6.03 9.68 0.00 3.28 0.00 3.33 4.55 97 2006 Felony 6 12.50 17.65 Misdemeanor 4.05 0.00 3.93 1.32 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.35 6.67 1.72 0.00 6.90 6.06 6.45 0.00 1.09 0.00 1.90 0.57 43 2007 Misdemeanor - 2010 25.00 10.00 0.00 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 Other 2008

Other 12.50 16.67 10.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.33 0.00 0.00 4.35 5.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 3.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2009 10 Total 1791 2010 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 choosing the sentence as well. the case will be tried. When you factor in plea bargaining, the prosecutor is in effect alreadyis choosing thecharges andchoosing thecourt (juvenile adult)or whichin systems, it poses unique problems court criminalin direct and juvenile filethe cases. within With used commonly direct isfile, bargaining the plea prosecutor While sealing the adult misdemeanor conviction. returned to juvenile court. These cases warrantfurther review and consideration for criminal record. Any direct file case that results in a misdemeanor should have been an indelible consequence for the juvenile involved by leaving him or her a convictions.permanentproportionatelynotWhilethisis substantial, caseshadthe88 eachof misdemeanor resulted report, 88 this in for analyzed cases directfile 1,800the Of departure from the kind file direct intended ofcases was to address. the from shift this a significant offenses felony represents lesser Again, and middle- to offenses seriousmost lower. or felonies 3 Class for filed are them against cases percent of 80 cases, file direct all percentof 10 only makeup girls Although 4.

80 percent of direct file cases against girls are Class 3 felonies or lower 95 Percent of Direct File Cases are settled by Plea Bargain 88 Cases Concluded with a Misdemeanor as the Highest Charge Convicted CONVICTED OF A LOWER OFFENSE THAN THEIR ORIGINAL CHARGE DO NOT SEE THEIR CASE REVIEWED BY A JUDGE OR JURY, AND ARE MOST YOUTH WHO ENTER THE SYSTEM AS A RESULT OF DIRECT FILE Misdemeanor Felony 6 Felony 5 Felony 4 Felony 3 Felony 2 Felony 1 Other Total Highest ChargeHighest Number of Direct File Cases By Highest Charge and Gender Male 1641 377 748 297 35 93 77 6 8 Female 121 36 52 15 8 4 5 0 1 Unknown 15 29 0 0 7 4 2 0 1 Total 1791 420 815 316 43 97 84 10 6 41 KEY FINDINGS 42 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE Technically, a juvenile could reject a prosecutor’s plea bargain offer and exercise his or less. or convictions felony 4 Class in resulted percent 30 charges, murder first-degree for filed cases among Even offenses. felony 4 Class level lower for is convictions file concentration direct of highest the In fact, charge. original convictionthe on in result not do charges file direct of -- percent 72 – majority overwhelming The juvenile a includes rarely and prosecutor adjudication the and sentence. by designated been has already juvenilesentence.discretionaimpose to theifjuvenile crimepleadsato guiltythat wasnotdirect file eligible, the judge has thatmaymayhavenotor eligible direct forbeen file first the in place. Technically tofile the case in adult criminal court. The child then pleads guilty toa lesser crime againstover-charging. The original charge is what provides prosecutorial discretion protection of lack the Another is problemcases plea-bargainingwithfile direct in court where the needs of the youth, victim and communityjuvenile incan beoccur heard. to discussionthat’slikelyforthmore and backcritical the lacks process bargain plea The bargaining.plea in leverageunequalgrossly withyouth leavesThis convicted,mandatory facingsentencingriskifadults. created forlaws the prosecutor’s decision to file the case in adult criminal court, direct-filed children, herright to ajury trial in adult criminal court. But without any ability to challenge Charge, Resulting in a High Concentration of Class 4 Felony Convictions 72 Percent of Direct-Filed Youth Are Not Convicted of the Original Misdemeanor 6 Felony 5 Felony 4 Felony 3 Felony 2 Felony 1 Felony Highest ChargeHighest Felony Class 814 315 417 43 96 84 5 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Felony 1 Highest Conviction FelonyConviction Highest Class 30 29 0 0 0 0 0 Felony 2 152 262 136 But with plea-bargaining, the sentenceplea-bargaining,withtheBut 22 0 0 0 0 Felony 3 255 146 49 16 0 0 0 Felony 4 67 28 86 40 0 0 2 Felony 5 11 11 1 9 9 0 0 Felony 6 23 10 38 7 7 3 0 Misdem. 196 136 61 27 40 2 7 No conviction programming the may jail offer adult inmates. to access no to littlehave and room, exercise or shower the use to day a out hour one allowed are door, the in a slot through meals their take They confinement. solitary in day a hours 23 jail. teenagers isolating adult by achieved an is in generally separation held is adult an as prosecuted child a when adults court. criminal in adults as prosecuted arejuveniles when apply not does prisons or jails adult in adults and children between separation sound” and “sight requiring law Federal to after an adult jail ahearingbefore the judge. youth juvenilein filed keep would direct detention move them only facilities, and to thisprint, paper goes lawmakers are considering -- a Housebill In Colorado, Bill 1139 -- that jails. trial. adult inpending held are adults as juvenileswherecharged decide prosecutors teenagers of confinement pre-trial the policies and regarding laws ancillary to led has also adults as children of prosecution The under currentcourt law. juvenile Fundamental to fairness and d return cannot still but eligible file direct be would that charge for which the child is convicted. The child may notbe convicted of a charge the not is court, adult for eligible that them made charge the child, a against filed sig poses filing Direct 5.

Only 28 percent of direct filed youth are convicted of the original charge 100% ADULT JAILS, WHICH ARE DANGEROUSLY UNEQUIPPED FOR YOUTH MOST YOUTH PROSECUTED IN ADULT COURTS AWAIT TRIAL IN 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% Felony 1 Felony 155 Percentof Direct byFelonyFiles Class Charged Felony and Nevertheless, Colorado law requires physical separation from separation physical requires law Colorado Nevertheless, Felony 2 Felony nificant constitutional problems when the highest charge charge highest constitutional the when nificant problems Convicted as Charged as Convicted Felony 3 Felony Class ConvictedClass ue processrequiresnewpolicies. Felony 4 Felony 157 154

Not Convicted asCharged Convicted Not Felony 5 Felony

Felony 6 Felony Misdemeanor 156 Physical

153 As 43 KEY FINDINGS 44 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE The confinement of children in adult jails is developmentally and emotionally is developmentally jails adult in children of confinement The the number ofeducational hours receive. they are now required each year to report the number of children held in adult jails and awaiting trial in juvenile detention facilities ’s instead of Countyadult jails. Sheriff are children Today,direct-filed many numbers. the reduce helped and problem this attentionto called have years recent in legislation of pieces two and suicides 2009. in Colorado in Two jails adult in held being children were direct-filed 100 The number of youth in adult jails has declined. It was estimated that approximately confinement. in solitary especially in adult jails, Facilities,” Juvenile in Belong younger and age of incarcerationyearsthe 15 children of against stronglyadvised Juveniles “Incarcerated entitled statement a in under of18from adult jails. the age recommendedthe House White and Congress require the children removal all of JusticeStandards. The detention of heldbyor her his be parent or guardian. they provide contact visits with importantly, family members so that Mosta child can touch, hug and intervention. gang on programs community and recreation, organized gyms, services, education provide -- Services Human of Department Youththe of of CorrectionsDivision state the by operated are which – facilities his visit only can jail adult mother an or father over in a telephone and a screen. TV child In contrast, juvenile A detention members. family with visits or contact programs, appropriate developmentally recreation, organized schooling, no population. special this accommodate to trying of position difficult the in placed been have sheriffs juveniles, for built not were jails county In Colorado, adult jails are operated and funded by county ’ssheriff offices. Because jail adult in placement their isolation cells. of propriety the review to judge a ask to had chance teen a Neither years. previous in suicides jail teen on exists research known No Jail. County Pueblo the in himself killed Borrego Robert later, year A Jail. reckless homicide charge -- hanged himself with a bed sheet in the Denver County In JamesDUI isolationrecent 2008, years. a inin on held Stewart– jails adult in Coloradoyouth confinement have inbeingheld solitary committed while suicide tocommit thansuicide children inheld juvenile detention facilities. to treat. damaging to children. How ManyChildrenareHeldinAdultJails Colorado? 159 For this reason, children held in adult jails are thirty-six times more likely children in adult jails violates American Bar Association Juvenile 162 In 2008 the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenileon Committee Justice Advisory Federal the In 2008 158 Long periods of isolation cause trauma that can be difficult 163 And the American Psychiatric Association, 165 164

161 Adult jails provide jails Adult 160 Tragically,

crime-free lives. live to on go and costs, court cover victim, the to restitutionindependently, pay record. criminal live no to money enough earn have to youth direct-filed for who tough it make barriers These those with jobs for competing are convictions and findplace live. a to With unemployment young rateshigh, adults with felony havepermanent felony college convictions go to job, a that get make to difficult it adjudication. juvenile a convictiontheirconvertto or record, their seal to court the for petitioncannot They convictions. felony and criminal adult receive juveniles file, direct Under attackedbe teens as heldin ajuvenile facility. likelyto as twice almost and timessuicide, commitmorelikely to prisonareeight adult Juveniles in bleak. be abuse.” sexualcan outlook for The risk highest the at probably are adults withincarcerated youth persons, incarcerated of group other any than “more that found Commission Elimination Rape Prison National The staff. prison by assaults witnessed had or assaulted been had prison adult in youth percentof 30 than more study one In prisons. adult in vulnerable also Youthare inmates. other from behavior criminal learning time their of much spend prison adult in juvenilesconfirms Research criminals. adult be to increases up grow only they’ll likelihood the prison to teens Sentencing years. nine was 1999-2010 in youth for length sentence prison DOC average The prisons. DOC adult regular into straight going is percent, 29 teens, of group largest second the System, Offender Although 35 percent of children prosecuted as adults are sentenced to the Youthful Housejail. 1139wouldtake Bill significant steps in remediating problem. this give them the right to a hearing in front of a judge before they’re moved to an adult more harm than Policymakers good. must work to keep youth out of adult jails or confinement during -- solitary in formative their especially does – years jails adult year.fiscal last services educational juvenilesreceived 42 the of educationIndividualized Education Plan.special a under are they if more and – week a services educational of hours four least at length of stay in jail was 110 days. Last fiscal year, there were 42direct-filed children held in adultjails. 6.

171 THAT MAKE IT DIFFICULT TOYOUTH REINTEGRATE FACE IN ADULTINTO SOCIETYPRISONS, AND CARRY LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES CONVICTING YOUTH AS ADULTS CAN EXPOSE THEM TO ALL OF THE RISKS Youth held in adult facilities are at the greatest risk of sexual victimization. 170

173 All youth who complete the Youthful Systemthe Offender complete who youth All 167 Current law requires juveniles to be provided 172 168 Despite the new law, new theDespite 15 only 169 Holding kids in Holdingkids 166

The average 45 KEY FINDINGS 46 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE ery l drc-ie cide oe a wl b rlae bc into Colorado’s back released be will day one children direct-filed all Nearly Under the old parole system, teens had the right to a parole revocation hearing revocation parole a to right the had teens system, parole old the Under thentransitionedlater.and out facility YOSthe to takenback directly be can she or he having youthis communitysupervision, problemsa that,in if is change this “community III period. supervision”Phaseintothe 1994 in changed was This year. one of period parole a included initially sentenceYOS A the iscompleted, YOS sentence III phase and suspended sentence are over. “community supervision,” a parole-style period lasting six to twelve months. Once community and planning for their release. Phase III, last stage in YOS, is known as the into periods brief for out going identification obtainingpapers, byplacement community for youth prepares that period transitionthree-month a is II Phase the vocationaleducational,inrecreational and programming. sentenceYOS of served is majority the which in period –the I Phase to graduate then They camp. in a separate housed are phase in this assessmentsparticipateundergowhereboot- and in building they interviews, and Teenagers days. 30 first the for occurs phases. four has YOS’s program to reconsider the length of the suspended sentence in revocation proceedings. YOS,the suspended prison sentence must be imposed. The judge has no discretion sentencing court for YOS revocation suspended proceedings. a receive If prison also the sentencejudge YOS thatrevokes will to be imposed sentenced theif they fail youth theyouth program. all Juvenilesfrom that return requires to statute the The behaves in the program. means that four years in YOS is four years in YOS – no matter how well a teenager not receive “good time” or “earned time” credits that reduce their sentence. do YOS to sentencedyouthprisons, DOC Unlikein adults exception: one with adults and subject to the laws and rules of as the convictedDepartment areof CorrectionsYOS (DOC), to sentenced juveniles All operated. be shall program the code. criminal the in statute a separate by created was System Offender The Youthful on smartcrime. getting about it’s crime; on tough getting of question a longer It’sno safety. public enhances also and success future for opportunities greater to leads communities. Creating opportunities for them to be adjudicated in juvenile court 7.

174 AN INTERVENTION PROGRAM INSUFFICIENT OUTCOMES TO DATE TO DEFEND ITS EFFECTIVENESS AS THE YOUTHFUL OFFENDER SYSTEM IS A COSTLY PROGRAM THAT HAS The law establishes what offenses for are eligible aYOS sentence and how 177 There is an intake and diagnostic phase that phase diagnostic and intake an is There 178 The legal effect of effect legal The 175 176 This lawmakers receive regarding YOS come from the DOC itself and fail to address to fail and itself DOC the from come YOS regarding lawmakersreceive is now at an annual appropriation of more than $11 million dollars. its recommendations, hundreds of youth continue to be sentenced to YOS, which Without any review of whether YOS has addressed DCJ’s concerns or implemented thatprogram prevents recidivism. YOS has yet to adequately justify its cost and effectivenessas a juvenile intervention the Colorado Mental Health Institute Pueblo campus. After 15 years in operation, sinceconducted YOS outmoved into onof its built newly facility older buildings program, many of which were reiterated two years later. the by published in performed 2002 and 2004. evaluations independent recent most Colorado Division of Criminal Justice Office the of(DCJ), Research & Statistics were but years, two every evaluated independently be program the that mandates statute YOS The its meeting was statutory it requirements and goals. whether determine to evaluated regularly and rigorously be serious reforming would it that assurance was effective Another system. juvenile the than juvenileoffenders more be would it that and juveniles, with working experience previous had who staff with programming youth in rich be would it createdLegislators YOS on the basis of several assurances about thethat program: gym and othermove left facilities. withoutYOS an indoor recent most The Pueblo. in InstituteHealth Mental Colorado the at buildings facility designed for YOSconstructed in Pueblo (La newly Vista Correctional Facility), a and then into to moved then Center, Diagnostic and Reception Denver The program firstoperated 152.7. out ofto an decreased outfittednow unithas at theand Corrections’1998, in Department 231 to rose then 80, was allocation Corrections from budget 1993 to 2011. of Department the in YOS to appropriated was dollars million $250 of total A operating and expenses from 1993to the 2011and calculated total. capital budgets, state researched Bell The 1993. in inception its since YOS onhavespent taxpayers much how calculate Centerto Policy Bell the asked Coalition Defender Juvenile Colorado The Corrections. adult of the Department in youth for prison a built Colorado corrections, youth in solution a Abandoning funding. and juvenile in policy justice shift System markedradical a The 1993 expansiondirect file of authority and creation of the Youthful Offender transferred be could before they to back YOS. Colorado hasspentnearlyaquarter-of-a-billiondollarsonYOS 182 The first reportraised extensive concernsabout the 180 full Thetime original employee (FTE) 179 183 No evaluation has been 184 The briefings 181

47 KEY FINDINGS 48 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE many aspects of YOSmanyprogrammingof that aspects warrant re-examination. In YOS’s2003, health care for this population ofat-risk youth must urgently be reviewed. mandated policy whencounseling. weekly individual quarter per once patient each seeing were clinicians of medications. for prescriptions in result that assessments for particularly ineffective, as staff and residents YOS throughteleconferencing.taking place that were learned frequently psychiatrist They not the with counseling had returned. and assessments care evaluators psychological when health later mental years adequate two remedied of been lack the admonition, this Despite isaserious impediment “This to corethe mission of concluding, YOS.” other aspects of YOS if chronic or acute mental health problems are not addressed, care. meaningful minutesnine contactlessaveraged orof week per treatment.health mental individual all of received few found files that they alarmingly residents YOS withseriousneeds, health the reviewing After program. YOS larger the within services health Evaluators in 2002 expressed deep concerns about the lack of integration of mental issues and monitoring. and provide services health mental assess adequately youth serving program justice criminal any that mental health needs or providing screening enough mentalis YOShealth whethercare regarding services. It’squestions raises numbersimperative these in disparity only 19 percent of its youth population has mental health needs. problems. health mental has traumaand/or experienced has system justice juvenile the in percent, 93 to 50 youth, of percentage high A evaluation the following isconducted, concerns must addressed: be isasignificant This first requirements.program. legal meetingstep in As new the has who director executive requested new DCJ initiate a a new has evaluation Correctionsto ensure of YOS Departmentis effective the as Today an intervention to send their kid to YOS now.” don’t anybody I for promise...butadvocatefantastic a was program the this of in design captured we what believe really “I eliminated: or corrections adult from Richard chief architect, psychologist Swanson, was calling for YOS to be removed Lack ofMentalHealthTreatment

The report noted that mentally ill youth may not benefit from benefit not may youth ill mentally that noted report The 193 185 192 Previous concerns over the severe lack of mentalof lack Previoussevereconcernsthe over The system’s inappropriately limited number limited inappropriately system’s The 188 The mental health contact that did occur did that contact health mental The 191 Teleconferencing both by perceived was 189 –hardly constituteto enough 186 Yetthat reports YOS 187 The significant 190

for families in the Denver-metro area or beyond to participate in such a program. YOS sentence. completednearly their youth until has the begin integration not family do efforts Today’sannualYOSinclusionreportsMultisystemic noshow of Therapy. fact, In offenders. adolescent abusing substance or violent chronic, treat to developed recommended YOS to consider Multisystemic Therapy, anevidence-based now program and theninvolvementjuvenile’sfamily importance theofa show in research treatment, Because plan. program individual resident’s each into members familyintegrates that program a develop to encouraged was also YOS programs and practices. ofevidence-based of availability both. or Culture”GroupInteraction” “Guided and wereprograms unqualified, untrained, “Positive Peer the of leaders group that youth and staff amongconsensus general population. its with best work would what determine and programs these review YOS that recommended then offending. was It adolescent on effect negative a have or effect no yield they that in inconsistentare programs peer positive thatshowing was research 2002, inEven by the use. their against cautioned developed has which standards Violence of Prevention the for Blueprints under treatment program Neither evidence-based as Interaction.” qualifies Group “Guided and Culture” Peer “Positive called models on focus behavior offender-thinking and change to programs YOS long-term behavior change. good. 1980’s and 1990’s, current research shows these programs may do more harm than the in popular were camps boot While girls. the for even regimen, exercise style military- a and cutting hair includes that camp boot 30-day a with begins YOS todevelopmentally return disabled to juvenile court. or ill mentally is anyyouthwho allow to changed statutebe the of should section Moreover,this care. its underyouth for services health mental adequate provide the mentally orill developmentallyyouth. disabled for sentencejuvenile a impose nor conviction adult the vacate to authorized not sentence. DOC lesser a impose or sentence, DOC suspended the Court for reconsideration of his or sentence. or ill mentally too be developmentally disabled to to complete diagnosed the is YOS who program will juvenile be a sent law, back YOS to currentDistrict Under Lack ofEvidenced-BasedProgramming 197 Boot camps help ensure institutional compliance, but have no effect on effect no have but ensureinstitutionalcompliance, help camps Boot 202 Any evaluation of YOS must take inventory of the availability or lack or availability the inventorymusttakeof YOS evaluationAnyof 205 Moreover, the single YOS location in Pueblo makes it very difficult 198 201 Yet two years later, evaluators found a found evaluators later, years two Yet 194 Thecourt hastwo options: impose 196 As such, it is vital that YOS 195 203 The court is court The evaluators 200 199 204

49 KEY FINDINGS 50 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE promptly in the and placed juvenile system. out moved be should law, they the with accordance in and adequately, equitably expensive. and inefficient would offenders female 30 than fewer for measures programming girls. security and gender-specific for intense services developing and that treatment found provide evaluations can Prior it demonstrate to yet has YOS gender. This evaluation.mustconsideredbe in anew 23 percent. percent,therevocation40 wasthe revocation while rate girls was forrate boys for 2010, and 1994 Between prison. in sentences longer serving and program YOS the failing for risk greater at them puts girls for treatment adequate of lack The trust among the they’re girls treating. place in a space that is physically and emotionally safe so that 70 providers can that develop and abuse, traumaticincident. a of percenthaveexperienced form some experienced have system justice juvenile the in girls of percent 88 to percent 56 that estimated is It delinquency.juvenile in engage who males than treatment and concern of issues different have Females access to space, programs and gender-appropriate treatment. campusYOS’s opportunities.environmentrecreational or use to able being without building, own their in “isolated” now are girls that is security this of effect negative The implemented. were measures residents),female and male between activity sexualresidents (and Due to prior prosecutions of YOS correctional officers for sexual assault on female risk andgirls. the highest needs for the highest facility is a40bed specific programming forgirls at theK.Betty Marler YouthServices Center, which The Division of Youth Corrections in the juvenilesystem already providesgender- of-state facilities or in adult facilities that operate intensive treatment programs. programming Evaluators for girls. have recommended in that out- placed be girls and female residents. Repeated evaluations have found inadequate gender-specific The YOS legislation requires separate housing andequitable treatment ofboth male Lack ofGenderSpecificProgramming 212 211 If the small number of girls being housed at YOS cannot be treated be cannot YOS at housed being girls of number small the If YOS not does separately report program statistics and outcomes by 209 There is a serious lack of equitable of lack serious a is There 210 Gender-specific treatment takes Gender-specific 207 208

new security security new 206 YOS had become “a program in name only” and was in fact “just another prison.” found. evaluators conflict statute,implementationby described full andpreventedas anda theYOSprogram of confusion to lead security and programming between integration of lack The guards. prison a treatment-as more role their saw who those and took approach based who staffers between tensions philosophical and personnel last “second youth. or environmentfor chance” rehabilitative a creating on focus less greater a and security reported on members emphasis staff several Pueblo, to relocated was YOS When to the Inspector General’s Office for investigation. “slamming” incidents were not isolated events, leading DOC to refer the allegations areas. sleeping in security of lack a and on-youthassaults floor. the degrading to youth slamming and making comments language, abusive or obscene using including behavior, staff atYOS.safe” “not or not feel did really they other residents 25.7 percent and guards; felt andsomewhat 30.4 percent safe; around said safe feeling reported youth of percent 43.3 that found report 2004 The working with kids. 40-houra orientationhas priorexperience require not staff,for but does program withat-riskjuvenile youthor treatment detentionor populations. experience work any had who members staff few very found evaluation the and quarterly training for all staff. provide and requirements hiring the reinstitute YOS recommended Evaluators related a field. in or youth adjudicated with working experience of years two least at a present calm and demeanor, frustrationamong other mustqualities. for tolerance settings high correctional a have in stability, emotional adolescents exhibit with working People services. and experienceof staffThe is criticaland toknowledge ensuring programming quality Lack ofStaffwithPriorJuvenileExperience 214 In 1998,those hiring requirements were eliminated. 225 218 There was considerable concern by staff and residents that residents and staff by concern considerable was There 216 But by 2004, no requirement had been established 223 Evaluators noted a lack of cohesion of lack a Evaluatorsnoted 213 Architects of the YOS program required 219 220 There were problematic of reports There also were reports of youthof reports were also There 222 221 Evaluatorsthe found 215

217 Today, YOS 224 among 226 51 KEY FINDINGS 52 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE

the following: reported and DYC like recidivism measured it YOS, evaluated first DCJ When moreis far rigorous than the by one used YOS. case results in a conviction or sentence of confinement. Its definition ofrecidivism case after arrest. DYC in court, filed new cases all includes of regardless whether a stepcriminal a in second -- court the thatin felonymisdemeanoror case filed was offense or misdemeanor DYC.”from new felony discharge following year one a within occurred that for filing “a as recidivism defines DYC than to prison, probation such as or community corrections. other sentences in result that cases felony or cases misdemeanor count YOS not does re-offending. in engaged graduate YOS a whether determining in -- case felonyserious a in step last the -- prison to admission new countsa only program sentence.”YOS a of completion successful following system prison DOC YOS definesas recidivism “new criminal activity that results inplacement a in the near- using differently recidivism opposite points in the timeline ofprocessing criminal anew charge. define DYC aren’t and rates these YOS But because percent. comparable 33.9 is rate recidivism DYC’ percent, 7 is rate A quick glance at published recidivism rates shows theYOS’ following: recidivism rates and file decisions. impact policy public direct can drive program the of effectiveness perceived the YOS, to sentenced be to order in direct-filed be must youth Because rates. recidivism effective than thea new Division of or Youth Corrections (DYC) conviction, because YOS “better” has new a filing, new sentence. a arrest, new a measured: what point it’s at case and a how in on depending significantly differ can rates Recidivism administrators,program and taxpayers. policymakers services. of systems and programs of for evidence-based programs; and (3) to support continuous quality improvement in criminal for measuringgoals (2) (1) torecidivism: to increase reduce re-offending; support re-engages three describes Administrators a person Correctional Juvenile of Council The whether behavior. by defined is recidivism Generally, Recidivism is an important measure of effectiveness in any criminal justice program. Lack ofStringentRecidivismMeasures 228 Colorado prosecutors commonly assert that the YOS program is more 232

227 Recidivism is a critical consideration for consideration critical a is Recidivism 231

230 It counts any countsIt 229 229 The reports eachyear. extensiveDYCrecidivism publishes succeed. to tends who and fail to tends who explain to and not, did who those and re-offended who residents YOS between 2002. statutein the from eliminated was mandate That offenders. YOS for system mandateddata a develop was to Department Corrections the legislation, YOS 1993 the Under the most serious crimes hadrate completion. the ofsuccessful highest of convicted youth that found Notably,YOS escape. of crime the be with cancharged release community during placement from away walk who youth Since violation. rule or for new crimes, and 51 percent were for program non-compliance such as defiance werepercent of that49 found and 2010 to 2004 revocationsfrom analyzed YOS YOS’s averagerevocation rate was 23percent for boys, was 8 percent, but the total revocation rate was 17 percent. with the program. The pre-release recidivism rate for new crimes reported in 2010 doesn’tnon-compliance recidivism for YOSfrom revoked are youth whoinclude crimes. new with charged and YOS from revoked are includes who youth only figure this but Recidivism,” “Pre-Release calls it what report and calculate does YOS public. makes it figures recidivism the in program YOS the It’s also important to note that YOS does not include youth who are revoked from makers and thepolicy public. 2003. in so doing stopped but to include rates of new misdemeanor and felony case filings in their annual reports, more polarized, with either a 76.5 percent or a 1 percent recidivism rate. YOS used rate of either 30.1 percent or 1 percent in 2002. Five years out, the result becomes recidivism a had YOS that say could one used, measurement the on Depending like the look recidivism would figures this: But if only prison admissions for new crimes were counted during that same period, Admissions New DOC Total NewFilings New Misdemeanors New FelonyFilings No NewFilings 2002 Evaluation YOS Recidivism per

234 233 243 240

Of the new crime revocations, 45 percent were for escape. for were percent 45 revocations, crime new the Of 242 This left YOS evaluators unable to analyze the differences the analyze to evaluators unable YOS left This 1 Year Post YOS 21 60 192 Number (n=269) 1 235 This leaves a significant gap in information for in gap significant a leaves This 30.1% 7.7 22.4 77.6 Percent 1% 15 65 105 Number (n=184) 2 Years Post YOS -- 43.7% 8.2 35.5 57.4 Percent 238 -- 40percent for girls. 237 From 1994 to 2010, 2 11 5 Number (n=17) 5 Years Post YOS 1 236 Pre-release 241 76.5% 11.8 64.7 29.4 Percent 1% 239

53 KEY FINDINGS 54 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE ts rtcl o plcmkr ad tkhles o nesad o recidivism how understand to stakeholders and policymakers for critical It’s eas YS etne ad upne pio snecs r rsn, these rising, are sentences prison suspended assumptions and may skew futureevenfurther. analysis fiscal sentences YOS Because years in YOS to twelve or sixteen years in prison. fourcompares of cost analysis when the state budget policy fiscal of part becomes assumption this Nevertheless, offender. felony first-time a for particularly exist, not did YOS if received have would youth the time the be would prison in years 16 or thatassume12 to faulty be would Butit more. even or suspended years 16 for ask could prosecutor the bargaining, plea In time. prison suspended in years receives a four-year YOS sentence, the program would recommend eight to twelve prison time hanging over the youth’s head. What this means in practice is if a child “hammer” a incentive provide with to meant is This sentence. YOSthe of length the times three to two- be sentence prison suspended a that recommends YOS how and YOS much prison in time suspended. be will served be will time much how decides essentially prosecutor the plea-bargained, are cases these of majority overwhelming the Since exist. not did YOS if that received have would youth sentencing the what sentenceis prison suspended the at findings no make typically judges Moreover, suspended. be should time prison much how YOS regarding The guidelines any provide not does statute program. the and of YOS completion in successful is upon youth discharged the considered while suspended is sentence prison that but prison, regular tosentenced technically is YOS tosentenced child every above, stated As by YOS sentencing. (YOS or DOC) and leads to misleading fiscal analyses of the purportedcosts saved instead was sentenced to an adult prison. and YOS to gone not she or he had received have case would youth the what YOS reflects every in imposed sentence suspended the that assert reports Official the use program amore rigorous definition of recidivism. demand should lawmakers money, taxpayers’ in dollars billion a a of YOS quarter giving After program. a of effectiveness the gauging before measured is Unchallenged AssumptionsaboutYOSandDirectFile 244 Thisassertion sets up afalse dichotomy determine which system would better serve society and the teen, it cannot be said andthecannot it teen, said be determinesociety system betterwhich would serve can who judge a before hearing a to right no have adolescents direct-filed Since sentencing. and jurisdiction adult to youth subjecting in plays statute file direct prison.havesentencedadult would to been otherwise YOS to sentenced youth all assuming by dichotomy false a up sets analysis State DYC, but nosuch study conducted. has ever been recommended study of a control group that for was YOSeligible but sentenced to same type of offensecould end up in eithersystem. A very earlyevaluation of YOS the committed DYC.have who youth jurisdiction, in by vary belong decisions filing that direct Since those from YOS in belong that cases distinguishing line DYC in bright no bifurcatingtherecautionedis aboutjuvenile 1993, the justicein system sentencing for eligible also are sentencing YOS for to that alternatives YOS are toavailable consider in the Division of Youth failure the Corrections.by All of the offenses eligible limited is analysis fiscal Accurate youthsuccessful out ofYOS earlier and save the state money. Balancing offer. sentencesuspendedthe (“hammer”) time(“carrot”), withearned transitionto could the has it in what time of deal significant good a a exhausted spend already having could system years six for YOS to sentenced youth a that risk a is there years, two in completed be can program YOS the technically Since sentences.their reduce canthat time earned or “good-” for juveniles credit giving consider to wantmay policymakers rise, the onterms sentenceYOS With ofCases Number Average Months Sentenced 100 120 140 160 180 200 20 40 60 80 0

1999

1 29 60 53 47 59 50 63 49 63 50 4759 53 60 29 1 Youth Sentenced to YOS with suspended DOC sentence 2000 2001 Suspended DOC Sentence DOC Suspended 2002 2003 Calendar Year Calendar 2004 2005

2006 YOS Sentence YOS

245 246

2007 This ignores the role the role the ignores This 64 58 60 7 60 58 64 2008 . . s e. Rizzuto Sen. As 2009

2010

2011 55 KEY FINDINGS 56 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE with certainty that teenagers sentenced to YOS cannot be managed in the juvenile deserve abetter shotat rehabilitationdeserve kids future. and asuccessful Colorado And investment. quarter-of-a-billion-dollar its on return better a deserves Colorado solution. all-too-final and first a as a or as chance” last used “second being are YOS and File Direct whether know to need public the and Lawmakers juvenilesystem. the treatmentlock-upin optionsfor and considered formallyensure toand first adolescentsare possible everything do should systems Our kids. at-risk most our to good than harm more do canimplementation or design program poor reviews, rigorous regular, effectiveness Without quality program. the YOS the gauge of to submitted are reports annual thorough and Colorado must do better to ensure independentregular evaluations are conducted incarceration youth beyond corrections. tool reports, policymakers lack juvenile critical data regarding on the need for YOS been as an additional never had population YOS probation. the of percent locked-up 56 been and never DYC, had populationin YOS the of percent 80 nearly 2001, In show juveniledataa residentsinYOScommitment locked previously havefew facility.been But system. system adult juvenilethe in the incarceration in of layer failure another widespread necessitated that and DYC, in over and over up locked being were juveniles that testimony of because part in created was YOS to YOSgoes or DYC is the prosecutor’s decision to direct file the case adultcourt. child a whether determines for that effective factor primary moreCurrently, theyouth. be individual would system which assessing of job better a do Colorado to but needs DYC of instead YOS for appropriate more be may youth Some system. 247 Because YOS stopped including this information in their annual their in information this including stopped YOS Because 43 Barry C. Feld, 32 Hofsra L. Rev. 463, 519-521. See also www.waldorflibrary.org/Articles, also See Rev.519-521. Hofsra Feld,L. 463, 32 C. TheBarry Harvard43 University 42 Lucy C. Ferguson, The Implications ofDevelopmental CognitiveResearch On ‘Evolving Standards of and Decency’ 41 Id. 40 Rethinking Juvenile Justice, supra, p.44-49 39 Juvenile Guidelines, supra, p. 39 Delinquency Flakes38 v. P.3dPeople,lesser153 offense not a thatconvicted is of is (2007)(the foundthat 427 Courtchild whena 37 State v. McL., 887,891(W.Va. 496S.E.2d K. Robert 1997) 36 State v. Mohi, 901P.2d 991,998-1002(Utah 1995) 35 Lynda EFrost Clausel &Richard J. Bonnie, Juvenile Justice on Appeal, p.181-206, in Changing Borders, supra 34 Kent, supra Juvenile of Office Reporting, TransferStateand of Laws Analysis An Adults: Juvenilesas SentencingTrying and 33 19-2-517 32 C.R.S. 31 19-2-517; C.R.S. Prosecutorial Discretion in Juvenile Homicide Cases, 109 Penn. St. L. Rev. 1071 (2005); Choosing 30 Trying and Sentencing Juveniles Adults, as supra, p.19 29 Feld, supra, at 86 28 Rethinking Juvenile Justice, 2008) p.9, &Laurence (Elizabeth eds., Scott Steinberg, 27 Protecting Truth: An Argument for Juvenile Rights and a Return to In re Gault, 58 L. UCLA Rev. 165, 176 (2011); 26 Id. at 554 25 Kent v. United States, 383U.S. 541,554-63(1966) O. Dawson,24 Robert Judicial Waiver and Practice, in Theory in ChangingBorders, 45 supra, 19-2-518 23 C.R.S. Hughes v.22 Colo. Const., III; Art 1995) State, 241,249(Del. 653A.2nd 21 People v. A.D.G., 895,P.2d 1067,1070(Colo. App. 1994) of Juvenile Office TransferStateReporting, of and AnalysisLaws An Adults: TryingJuvenilesSentencing as 20 and 19 Trying Juveniles Adults as in Criminal 19-2-518 Court, supra ;C.R.S. 18 The ChangingBorders of (JeffreyJuvenile &Fagan JusticeFranklin Zimring 2000). eds., 17 Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court: An Analysis of State Transfer and Blended Sentencing Laws, National 16 People v. J.J.H., 17P.3d 159,164(Colo. 2001) the finding decision, v. Florida the Graham in phenomena this recognized Court Supreme States United The 15 4, Feb. Reading Second House p.m.; p.m.-4:11 1:38 1991, 24, Jan. Committee, Judiciary House 91-1086: H.B. 14 13 H.B.91-1086 12-028 12 SB 19-2-516,19-2-908 11 C.R.S. 19-2-907(1) 10 C.R.S. 19-2-907(1) 9 C.R.S. 8 Judging Children AProposal Children: as for aJuvenile Justice System, Corriero, Michael A. p.80-81 (2006) of Council National Cases, Delinquency Juvenile in Practice Court Improving Guidelines: Delinquency Juvenile 7 19-2-919 19-2-113(2)(b), 6 C.R.S. 19-2-109(6) 5 C.R.S. 19-2-706(1) 4 C.R.S. 19-2-113(2)(a) 3 C.R.S. 19-2-102(1) 2 C.R.S. 1 Colorado Juvenile The First Court History: Hundred 32-APRColo. Law.Years, King, Laoise 63,63(2003) Family and Juvenile Court Judges, p.32 (2005) Endnotes the Imposition ofthe Death Penalty on Juveniles, U. 54Am. 441,461(2004) L. for file, direct courtthe eligible mustconsider factors in the transfer statutebefore imposing an adult sentence). 5204,VA 33VSA 2-5-206,VT 43-247,OK 41-5-206, NE 16-2301) 16-1-269.1,WY 14-6-203,DC MT 712.A4, MI 15-11-28, GA 985.557, FL 9-27-318, (AK (2011); Prevention,p.5 Delinquency Justiceand the Forum: Prosecutorial Discretion and Walker v. State, Rev. L. 46Ark. 989(1994) false upon based prison to sentenced and rape confessions. DNA later evidence the cleared boys) of convicted were boys Four era. this of crimes high-profile most the of one was City New York the in rapist Park Central the of story www.innocenceproject.com(The & Fagan Chicago University Frank Zimring), Press(Jeffrey (2000) Barry C. Feld, Legislative Exclusion of Offenses from Juvenile Court Jurisdiction, in ChangingBorders, p.84-87 circumstances);certain transferundermandate states these of (15 Prevention(2011) Delinquency Justiceand Center on Juvenile Justice (2003) this to children subject to intended states sentence.specific 130S.Ct. 2011,2025(2010) prove not does sentences parole without life for eligible children these judgment the about Statesnothingappropriatehavethe regarding made punishmentoffenders”...the youthfulsuch for us “tells statethatfact a made court adult in children of prosecution the of approval legislative p.m.; March Reading Senate p.m.-4:05 Second 13,1991(norecording ofthird reading) 1:43 1991, 20, February Committee, Judiciary Senate reading); third of recording (no 1991 57 KEY FINDINGS 58 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE 93 http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/news-mainmenu-2/99-race-for-governor/424-roy-romer-endorses-bill- 92 Senate App. 9/8/93 91 Id. 1993 First the for sheets status daily the Id.;Hearing90 Testimony StatetheColoradoSenateat Judiciary Archives: listeninglocated tapes in byto obtained was bill every reviewed Coalition Defender Juvenile Colorado The 89 Message 88 HJR93S-1001-Governor 87 House Journal, 59th General Assembly, State ofColo., 1st Extraordinary Session,p.105 86 Rethinking Juvenile Justice, supra, p. 11 85 Id. 84 Id. at 663;Romer Unveils Iron Fist Plan, Mountain Rocky News, July 23,1993 83 Id. at 675-677 82 Making Youth supra, p.674-74 Visible, Violence 81 Id. 80 Id. 79 Michael Booth, Year of A Violence: review of Denver’s 130 homicide cases in 1993 separates the facts from the fears, 78 Making Youth supra,, p. 670 Visible, Violence 77 Id. at 669. 76 Making Youth supra Visible, Violence 75 Marilyn Crime Robinson, Popular Dips in Rate Denver Colorado: perception belied, Post, Aug. 7,1993 74 Steve Lipsher, Denver’s Summer Denver ofViolence, Post, Aug. 8,1993 73 Making Youth supra, p. 674-678 Visible, Violence 72 Making Youth supra, p. 663 Visible, Violence 71 Crime and Justice in Colorado, 2008-2010, p.187; Evaluation ofthe Youthful Offender System, Research of Office Denv. 77 662-664 Violence, Rev. 661, L. Summer of the U. and Media New The MakingYouth70 Visible: Violence 1993 69 §19-2-805,C.R.S. 1987 68 §19-2-805,C.R.S. 1987 67 §19-2-805,C.R.S. 1985 66 §19-1-104(4)(c), C.R.S. 1981(adult sentencing 1973). 65 §19-1-104(4)(c), under C.R.S. 18-1-105,C.R.S. 1973 64 §22-1-4(4)(c), C.R.S. 1973 63 §22-1-4(4)(c), C.R.S. 1969 62 §22-1-4(4),C.R.S. 61 Ch. 85,p. 178(1903);Ch. 75,p.197 (1923);Ch.4,§53,p. 33,Art. 459(1923-1967) System,JusticeCriminal AdultYouth theRemoving from 2010 to 2005 from Victories Trends:State Legislative 60 (2011) 86Ohio 2011);HB (Ariz. Sess. 1191,50th59 SB Leg. 82(R)(Tex. Sess. 2011),S.B.1209,Legis. (OE Sess. 2011) 58 H.B.2707,2011Leg. 2005) (Dela. Sess. Assem., (Miss. Reg. 2010);S.B.200,143d Gen. Sess. Reg. 57 S.B.2969,2010Leg., S.B. 2009); (Ill. Assem. Gen. 1st 95-10319, P.A. 2007); (Conn. Sess. Spec. June 07-4, no. Acts Pub. Conn 2007 56 55 Id. 54 Id. CampaignforYouth53 Justice, Youth Justice System Survey, Strategies, GBA http://www.gbastrategies.com/(2011), 52 Id. 51 Id. 50 Research on Pathways to Desistance, Research Update Created for the Fourth Annual Models for Change National 49 http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/modelprograms.html 48 http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html 47 Id. Long-Term a with Experiment Jean Up, Follow Randomized A Camps: Boot of Effectiveness the Examining Id.; 46 45 http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ J.D.B.v.U.S.S.Ct.v.2011(2010); v.Roper Simmons,Graham543 130 Florida,44 North131 (2005); Carolina, 551 the a amygdala, structure in the temporal lobes known to be involved in discriminating fear and other emotions) Gazette, “Deciphering The Adolescent Brain” (stating that research has shown that brainsteenage rely “more on ritter.html 9/10/93; App. House 9/9/93; Judiciary House 9/10/93 House 2ndReading 9/8/93; Reading 2nd Senate 9/8/93; App. Senate 9/7/93; Extraordinary Appendix Session,see Denver Post, Jan. 1994 and Statistics, Colorado Department ofPublic Safety, p.i, FN1(2002). (2000) Campaign for Youth Justice (2010),http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/ 3085, 96thAssem. (Ill. 2010) Gen. public_files/cfyj101111m1.pdf Working Conference, 2009,John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Bottcher Ezzel, &Micheal Journal ofCrime and Delinquency, v. 42,No. 3(Aug. 2005) S.Ct. 2394(2011) 142 Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies and Policies Facilitating Laws the of Violence on Transfer of Effects 142 Adult the from JusticeYouth the Juvenile to Access to Juvenile141 Easy Populations: http://ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/ 140 Crime and Justice in Colorado 2006,Colorado Division ofCriminal Justice, p.229-260. Violent on File Laws Direct State Waiver of Effects Relative Wright,the AssessingEmily and Steiner Benjamin 139 138 Crime and Justice in Colorado, 2008-2010,p.95 Federal137 Bureau Investigation.of Crime in the United States Washington2010. D.C., http://www.fbi.gov/about- of136 Office Juvenile Justice Delinquency & Prevention, Juvenile Arrests 2011) (Dec. 2009 FederalBureau135 Investigation,of Crime Unitedthein States, 2008,Ten-Year Arrest Trends, Table http://www.32, 134 Id. 133 What Works: EffectiveReductionRecidivism and Risk-Focused Prevention Programs, Prepared for the Colorado 132 Id. p.11 Justice, Criminal of Division & Statistics, Research of Office 2008-2010, Colorado in Justice and Crime 131 130 Rethinking Juvenile Justice, supra, p.11 19-2-517(5) 129 C.R.S. 19-2-517(4) 128 C.R.S. 19-2-517 127 C.R.S. 10-1413 126 HB 125 http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2012A/csl.nsf/BillFoldersHouse?openFrameset 10-054Annual124 SB Colorado Division Revision, ofCriminal Report-2nd Justice 10-54 123 SB 122 http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/article_8eb6efbc-8bf6-11df-b7e2-001cc4c03286.html 19-2-508(3)(c) 121 C.R.S. Council Staff 120 Colo. Legis. Fiscal HB09-1321 Note, 09-1321 119 SB 118 http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/25/family-sues-city-5-million-troubled-teens-suicide/ 117 http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9352797 08-1208 116 HB the in failed youth former 50 these for years calendar 40 after eligibility parole provide attemptto subsequent A 115 Arrested06-1351; AnAlternative Development: HB 114 JuveniletoWithout ParoleLife U.78 Colorado,in Serving 03-1199 113 HB 112 2001YOS Annual p.55 Report, 96-1005 111 HB 94-155 110 SB 94-201 109 SB p.20-21108 2002YOS Report, 107 Senate 9/8/93 2ndReading SB7 106 SB9, 105 Id. 104 Senate Judiciary 9/7/93 103 Senate Judiciary 9/7/93;Senate App. 9/8/93 102 Id. 101 Senate Judiciary 9/7/93 100 Id. 99 Senate App. 9/8/93 98 Id. 97 Id. 96 Id. 95 Senate Judiciary 9/7/93;TheDivision of laterwas Youth Services renamed the Division of Youth Corrections 94 http://www.thecrimereport.org/archive/co-unique-youth-offender-system-faces-scrutiny Disease ControlDisease and Preventio (Nov. 2007) for Centers PreventativeServices, Community Task on Forcethe of Recommendations on Report A System, but in any noeffect of the 21 other states of passage statutory exclusion laws in 22 states and find a deterrent effect forMaine but no effect in any of the 21 otherstates.juvenileSteiner,in after violentchanges andthe crime before Hemmens,analyzed (2006) Bell and laws in 14 states that enacted such laws file They founddirect a deterrent of effect for Michigan butpassage no effect in the any after of the 13 and before rates crimes violentjuvenile in changes analyzed Wright(2006) and Steiner (2005-2006). 1451 Criminology & L. Crim.J. Journal 96 Irrelevance?, or DeterrenceJuvenile Crime: us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl28.xls fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl32.xls in the years) last twenty the drop, significant Colorado’s people numberof percentincarceratingthanthisCorrections more400 Department is of increased has (2008)(Despite p.23 Przybylski, Roger Group, RKC Justice, Criminal of Division (March 2011) House Judiciary Committee. 11-1287 HB Rev.Colo. L. 1059,1088-1090(2007) 59 KEY FINDINGS 60 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE 143 Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency?, Richard Redding, Office of Juvenile Justice of Juvenile Office Redding, Richard Delinquency?, to Deterrent Effective An Transfer Laws: Juvenile 143 186 American Academy of Pediatrics, Policy Statement on Health Care for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System (2011) 185 http://www.thecrimereport.org/archive/co-unique-youth-offender-system-faces-scrutiny 184 YOS Spending 1994-2011, supra EvaluationofYouthful183 the and Statistics, Research Criminal of Division of Office Colorado, Offender System in 182 Available at http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/research_documents.htm 181 Id. 180 YOS Spending 1994-2011,Prepared by Center the Policy Bell and in included the appendix 179 2005YOS Annual p.20 Report, 94-201 178 SB 18-1.3-407(3.3) 177 C.R.S. 18-1.3-407(5)(c) 176 C.R.S. 18-1.3-407(2)(b) 175 C.R.S. 18-1.3-407 174 C.R.S. 19-1-306(7)(c)(expungement173 C.R.S. is only available if the juvenile receives a juvenile sentence that was otherwise 172 Id. 171 Id. 170 Juvenile Transfer supra, p.7 Laws, Redding, County Paso El children; 11 of out 2 to education provided County (Adams supra. Report, Annual SB-10-054 169 10-54 168 SB 167 Id. 10-054Annual166 SB July Report, 1,2010-June 30,201,supra 10-54 165 SB IncarceratedJuveniles.aspx?FT=pdf http://www.facjj.org/ at (2008) http://www.psych.org/ at (2009) 11-13 1 FacilitiesJuvenile in 2008 Belong JuvenilesIncarcerated Assoc., Psychiatric Report Am. 164 Annual Justice, Juvenile on Comm. Advisory Fed. 163 162 American Bar Association, Juvenile Justice Standards 10.1,10.2 161 Colorado notes legislative estimate fiscal saveHB 1139 will counities per $500,000 year 160 Jailing Juveniles, supra, 10,14 159 Jainling Juveniles, supra 158 Michael G. Flaherty, Juvenile Suicide – An Assessment of the National Incidence of Juvenile Suicide in Adult Jails, Children157 Caging in Crisis,, “A by the Report Colorado Juvenile Special Defender (2009)” Coalition 19-2-518(4)(b) 156 C.R.S. 31.304k 155 28USC 154 House 12-1139 Bill 19-2-508(3) 153 C.R.S. 152 Flakes, supra 19-1-304(5) 151 C.R.S. 150 2010YOS Annual p. 40 Report, and Data of Review Preliminary District: Judicial Colorado’s18th within Contact Minority Disproportionate 149 and statecourts from the is report this data year.in The last cases there Prosecutorswere61 othershave 148 said and Our sources. data secondary and Office Administrator’s Court State the from data of sum the is figure This 147 146 Id, p.1232 145 American Academy of Pediatrics, Policy Statement on Health Care in the Juvenile Justice System, PEDIATRICS, 144 Federal Committee Advisory on Juvenile Justice, Annual p.23-25 (2010) Report, Delinquency and Prevention,Delinquency p.7-8 (Aug. 2008) Justice (Nov. 2002)(“2002 Report”); Evaluation of the Youthful Offender System in Colorado, Office of Office Colorado, in System Offender YouthfulResearch and Statistics, Division ofCriminal Justice the (Nov. 2004)(“2004Report”) of Evaluation Report”); 2002)(“2002 (Nov. Justice for expungement)eligible services) Pueblo County provided 6 out of 6 children Weldeducational services; County provided 2 out of 3 educational provided education to 5 out of 7 children; Jefferson County had one child and provided noeducational services; MainMenu/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2009NewsReleases/ annualreports/ed_08-FACJJ%20Annual%20Report%2008.pdf 1980) ed. (Dep’tPrevention Delinquency of JusticeCtrs.Juvenile1, JuvenileOffice and andof Det. Justice Lockups, Potential Institute Strategies, Reduction 2011) OMNI (Jan. cases notincludedoes sealed 3082 cases of total estimated an for cases 1800 the to added was 1282 of total pre-1999 the (35%), sentencesdeferred or ourstudy that cases of were resolved andwith(22%), cases dismissed DYC, probation, community corrections, from percentages the applying then and Taking744 the 1994-1998. from prison DOC regular to weresentenced 744) of (total youth 345 and YOS to sentenced were youth 399 shows Corrections of Departmentfrom the obtained Data cases). sealed include not does (which 2011 and 1999 between cases 1800 includes data V. 128,No.6, 2011) p.1219 (Dec. 247 2001YOS Annual p. 48 Report, 246 Staff p.3 Briefing,supra Budget Budget Joint Assembly, Elliot, General Del John Morgenthau & YOS, Colorado the and Evaluation of Review TechnicalThe 245 Colo. Report: Assistance of Corrections, Department Briefing, Budget Staff 2012-2013 FY 244 Evaluation Recidivism 243 Committedof Youth in Fiscal Year Discharged DYC’s p.3. 2009-2010, annual recidivism p. 42 242 2002Report, 241 Id. 240 2010YOS Annual p.45 Report, 239 2010YOS Annual p.46 Report, 238 Id. 237 2010YOS Annual p.44 Report, 236 2010YOS Annual p.47 Report, p.235 2002YOS 66;2005-2005YOS Report, Report p.234 2002YOS 65 Report, p.39 233 2002Report, p.30 232 2002Report, 231 Id. DYC recidivism rates notpublish does after 3 and 5years Evaluation230 Recidivism ofCommitted Youth, supra, p.iv 229 2010YOS Annual supra, p.iv Report, 228 Defining & Measuring Recidivism, supra, p.1 227 Defining & Measuring CouncilRecidivism, of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, p.4 p.41 226 2004Report, p.20 225 2004Report, p. xi 224 2004Report, p. 7 223 2004Report, p.43 222 2004Report, 221 Id. 220 Id. p.27 219 2004Report, 218 2010YOS Annual Report p.27 217 2004Report, p.10, 12 216 2002Report, p.2 215 2002Report, p.12, 51 214 2002Report, p.12 213 2002Report, p.81-82 212 2002Report, 211 2010YOS Annual p.46 Report, 210 http://www.justiceforallgirls.org/advocacy/CenterFactSheet.pdf p.46 209 2004Report, 208 p.2002 Report, 82; “Prisoners Colorado’s of Sex: costly program for violent teens was supposed to turn these girls 207 http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDHS-ChildYouthFam/CBON/1251582364288 p. 7-9 206 2002Report, 205 2010YOS Annual p.30 Report, p. 16 204 2002Report, 203 Safety, Fairness, Repositioning JuvenileStability: Justice and Child Welfare Familiesto Engage and Communities, p.29 202 2004Report, 201 Id., p.15 p.12, 15 200 2002Report, 199 Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado, Position Summary, Positive Peer Culture198 Id. p. 59;Examining the197 2002Report, Effectiveness supraBootcamps:, of 18-1.3-407(5)(b)(I)(B)(II) 196 C.R.S. 18-1.3-407(5)(b)(I)(A), (B) 195 C.R.S. 18-1.3-407(5)(b)(I) 194 C.R.S. p.30 193 2004Report, p.30, 50 192 2004Report, p.30 191 2004Report, p. 89 190 2002Report, p.88 189 2002Report, p. 88 188 2002Report, 187 2010YOS Annual p.47 Report, Programs (1998) p.10 (1994) Committee, p.C-4-C-5 reports are available http://www.colorado.gov/cdhsdyc/Resources-Publications/Recid2012.pdf online, around. Instead, turned out,” got they Alan Prendergast, Westword, March 6,2003 Center for Juvenile Justice University Reform, Georgetown (May 2001) 61 KEY FINDINGS 62 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE PART III:APPENDIX their professional layout and editing thank youDaniel Pratt and Susan Widick. their thorough data analysis, patience, and comprehensive report production. For for Institute OMNI the at Denious Jean and Brojde Chandra the to you Thank ofOffice theChild’s Representative. Weinerman Linda the and of Coats Sheree Justice,Criminaland of Division the of Lopez Anna and English KimYouth Corrections, of Division the of Gomez theDepartmentAcademy, Corrections,of View Jerry Adamek Ridge of Johnand of Stucker Alysha and Barr, Administrator,TomBonnie Clements,Court the State of Office the of Zender Jessica Archives, State Colorado the thank we information other and data, for requests questions, to responses prompt their For tions in the research, preparation, of this and report. review organiza and individuals of dozensby wereassisted Specialist, Legislative Swenson, CJDC Karina and Director, Executive CJDC Dvorchak, Kim authors, The defensenile attorneys and advocates. juve for resources and seminars education continuinglegal providing by defense juvenileof practice the support and elevate strivesto also CJDC lativeadvocacy. legis and non-partisan research and building, coalition efforts, reformlaborative col in engaging by juvenilesystemjustice the inyouth and treatmentchildren of Colorado. in youth and dren chil all for justice and advocacy, and defense juvenile in excellence to dedicated organization non-profit a is (CJDC) Coalition Defender Juvenile Colorado The Acknowledgments Judicial DistrictSnapshots Judicial DistrictMap Direct FilingsbyJudicialDistrict Direct FilingbyZipCode YOS SpendingChart1994-2011 Special SessionDailyStatusSheets Methodology Acknowledgments CJDC seeks to protect the rights and improve theimprove and rights the protect to seeks CJDC

------staff,boarddirectors, of and volunteers. you. Thank None of this would have possible without the hard-work and support of the CJDC Justice Reform Coalition. Colorado Criminal Defender, the and Public State the of Foundation,Office the Pendulum the Counsel, Defense Alternate the Bar, Defense Criminalthe Colorado include mentors Local Children. for Counsel of Association National the Youth,and of Sentencing Fair the for Campaign the Network, JusticeJuvenile NationalJuvenile Defender Center, the Campaignfor Youth Justice, the National the mentoringof and guidance the to indebted is CJDC organization, new a As Chinook Fund and Neha Mahajan, and the Denver Foundation and Sara Fischler. Project the authors thank the Public Welfare Foundation and Katayoon Majd, the For their support of the Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition and our Direct File Matt Stamler, Susan Rosenfeld, Allen Moseley, and Katayoon Majd. Ross, Donald Rubin, Ted Meade, Bill Lisa Pasko, Robin Walker Ratliff, Sterling, Jason Stephen,Lizzy Ashley Ziedenberg, Benjamin Felson, Schoen, Dan Cain, Maureen Wilson, Doug Frolich, Lindy including report the of drafts reviewed who individuals many the to you Thank and the MacArthur Foundation for their Strategies support and review. R & M to you Thank Robertson. Leah and Solomon, Eric Sandoval, support. Campaign for Youth us Justice staff guiding includes for NeelumLiz Arya, Ryan, Jessica and research providing and drafts, Justice forreviewing process, writing Youth report the through Campaign the thank especially authors The Jennifer Barnes. and Simpson, Danielle Hook, VanWalker, Nicole Elizabeth history: legislative researched who interns student law summer CJDC 2011 the thank authors The Ratliff, Ashley researchAnn and andreview. MeganEmbrey Bingert, for legal to also you Thank assistance. report ongoing and spreadsheets, Richardresearch,preparingMijaresconductingthanksto foronline excel Special Paul Colomy Pasko and Lisa ofthe University ofDenver for their assistance. Professors thank also authors The research. informationand background viding Homan,assistantproEda for his and UniversitytheColorado, at of Violence of The authors thank ProfessorDel Elliot of the Center for the Study and Prevention of the Colorado Children’s Campaign. fiscal analysis ofdirect filepolicies and outcomes. Thank you also to SarahHughes Colorado Fiscal Policy Center, Benjamin Felson, for researching and conducting a the and Stephen, Lizzy Center, and Jones Rich Policy Bell authors the thank The - 63 APPENDIX 64 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE on charges, leavingon charges, in included the 1802cases analyses on charges. charges is missing from 8 cases in 1999. These 8 cases were excluded from analyses Informationtraditionalformat. the onratherin than meansother by or notes as entered often were charges 1999, in new was system ICON/Eclipse the Because analyses thatall include finding butdata, otherhaveall been in included analyses. from excluded been have cases These system. the informationinto the enter to whether the transferredwas case ing, to juvenile back court or whether staff failed spantheentire districts.anddate It range unclearis why havethese cases find no were data variables These cases anddemographic forthese available charges cases. regarding Other unavailable. was finding case the regarding data cases, 85 For and conviction tables and figures. charges all from omitted were cases These interstatelikelyfilings. were and cases justice” for “fugitive as categorized were cases These listed. class felony no with a felony was charge highest the which for set data final the in cases There 11 were innot included any analyseshere. reported charges entered once it was determined that they were underage. These cases were test cases or because the case was closed and moved down to juvenile court with no latter cases were likely entered into the system incorrectly either because they were filing date and 57 cases without information on charges (from 2000 to 2010). The gible direct file cases for this study. Thesecases included cases5 without recorded a Several cases were included in the raw data obtained from SCAO that were not eli 2010.Additional data for 27, yearobtained later for 2010-2011 fiscal was analysis. December on case last the and 1999 5, January on The filed year). was (calendar case first 2010 of end the to year) (calendar 1999 of beginning the Colorado’s fromin court filed adult direct were who younger and years 17 youth Data include information Database. ICON/Eclipse on from the (SCAO) Office The data reported here wereobtained from Colorado’s State Court Administrator’s Moreanalysis. recent data from year 2010-2011later fiscal cases was obtained. this of part are that maps and graphs tables, created that Denver in firm analysis data and research science social reputableInstitute, a OMNI the to directly sent data was This age. by electronically providedinformation criminal court be could Though the intent was togather cases datingback to 1985, 1999 is the earliest year ofdefendants. age the for searching by electronically extracted be can but cases, criminal adult from prosecuted in adult criminal courts. This information is not maintainedwere separately 18 of age the under juveniles which in cases on Administrator Court State of the Office the from data requested Colorado Coalition Defender Juvenile The Methodology - - White counterparts (based on their counterpartsWhite respective population (based sizes). their than filed direct be to likely more times one-half and two are Colorado in a rate of 2.5 for the calculation above would indicate that African American youth reflectinggreater levels ofdisproportionality or over-representation. For example, numbers higher with DMC, of level some indicate 1 than higher Rates 1. equal will RRI the same, the exactly are rates theIf denominator). (the group majority the for arrest of rate the (numerator) to group minority the for file direct of rate come in question be appropriately defined and determined. TheRRI compares the out or experience the for group each for rate incidence the and compared being youth. White thatof toyouth minority racial/ethnic by experiencedcontact system tice jus of rates the comparing by system justice the with (DMC) contact minority The data, in either direction. extremely cautiously as 1 or 2 cases can have a large impact on any trend seen in the interpreted be should data These data. the of portion large representa or pletely com missing are categories certain Often, sentencing. or type cases gender, age, the data, whenespecially looking at the data broken down in other ways such as by in represented trends any interpret to hard extremely is it 1999-2010, from filed the mind number district.in each filed direct of cases When fewerin than 10 to 15 werecases keep to important very is it data, district-level interpreting When considered non-violent. to be were types case other All weapons. and offenses, sex robbery, kidnapping, cide, Violent offenses included casescoded with the followingassault, types: case homi 20 (Boulder),and 21(Mesa). other All districts were considered rural. 19 (Arapahoe), 18 (Weld), (Broomfield), 17 (El Paso), (Denver), 4 2 (Jefferson), 1 included: districts Urban SCAO). Zender, Jessicacommunication, (personal SCAO from and are consistent information with prior analyses of metro districts versus on non-metro districts based categorized were districts rural and Urban the calculation ofthe averagefor both the YOS and the Probation columns. defendant was sentenced to both YOS and Probation, their sentence is included in a if example, For exclusive. mutually not are sentencing categories following The tables. sentencing the in averages of calculations the in included were upheld were that sentences those Only analyses. from excluded Waivedwere Vacated,or Served, Sentences that were marked as Back-loaded, Revoked, Set Aside, Suspended, Time Community Corrections, Deferred Sentence, or Probation). YOS, SOIS, DYC, DOC, (including tablethe in reported categories seventhe in received a sentence (the case was not dismissed) but the cases sentence 117 is remaining not The represented dismissed. was case the because excluded are cases 381 cases, these Of sentencing the in tables. included not that are cases 498 There are Relative Rate Index Rate Relative It important is very that the population or total sample size for each group (RRI) is a calculation used to detect disproportionate detect to used calculation a is (RRI) - - - - 65 APPENDIX

Youthful Offender System Appropriations, Bell Policy Center, January 2012 Total Corrections Youth Offender Fiscal Year Long Bill Number FTE Aftercare FTE Appropriations System 2011‐2012 SB 11‐209 $727,033,553 $11,064,407 162.7 $1,839,547 8 2010‐2011 HB 10‐1376 $733,185,685 $10,723,596 171.9 $1,836,010 9.5 2009‐2010 SB 09‐259 $759,875,487 $10,836,460 172.9 $1,849,949 9.5 2008‐2009 HB 08‐1375 $759,502,556 $10,549,437 172.9 $1,814,537 9.5 2007‐2008 SB07‐239 $702,876,269 $10,232,494 172.9 $1,777,580 9.5 2006‐2007 HB 06‐1385 $643,770,510 $10,123,456 172.9 $1,765,968 9.5 2005‐2006 SB 05‐209 $589,304,017 $10,507,023 172.9 $1,743,726 9.5 2004‐2005 HB 04‐1422 $555,455,487 $10,357,252 174.4 $1,710,272 9.5 2003‐2004 SB 03‐258 $546,572,117 $10,860,754 183.4 $1,710,272 9.5 2002‐2003 HB 02‐1420 $562,287,191 $11,476,821 202.7 $1,887,262 10 2001‐2002 SB 01‐212 $538,906,402 $10,817,156 202.7 $2,081,799 10 2000‐2001 HB 00‐1451 $477,540,150 $11,026,575 221 $1,734,630 10 1999‐2000 SB 99‐215 $432,006,172 $9,940,399 221.3 $3,268,882 10 1998‐1999 HB 98‐1401 $406,393,889 $10,943,989 231.3 $2,512,738 8 1997‐1998 SB 97‐215 $337,612,360 $10,551,178 78 $1,381,725 5.5 1996‐1997 HB 96‐1366 $288,909,937 $8,171,159 78 $819,871 4.5 1995‐1996 SB 95‐214 $271,185,703 $5,608,306 78 $383,738 3.5 1994‐1995 HB 94‐1356 $231,544,544 $2,566,162 80 ‐‐ 1993‐1994 SB 94‐234 $208,437,791 ‐‐‐‐

YOS TOTAL $176,356,624 AFTERCARE TOTAL $30,118,506

YOS + Aftercare: $206,475,130 Link http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2011A/csl.nsf/lbcontainer/913CB6597C987B648725786A00028043/$FILE/cor_act.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/lbcontainer/DE16BC2C984C6089872576F300493A2E/$FILE/cor_act.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2009A/csl.nsf/lbcontainer/DFDFEF43C5BD19D38725759000562E28/$FILE/cor_act.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2008A/csl.nsf/lbcontainer/697FE6C5355E6ACE87257416006AD1F3/$FILE/cor_act.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2007A/csl.nsf/lbcontainer/19DFA61EA1918253872572AA0070F154/$FILE/cor_act.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS2006A/csl.nsf/lbcontainer/958582F676307A138725713E005D6724/$FILE/cor_act.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS2005A/csl.nsf/lbcontainer/05976F88B00981AA87256FDC007293A9/$FILE/cor_act.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS2004A/csl.nsf/lbcontainer/D0D4C9D3A92050F387256E6700581B7F/$FILE/cor_act.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/inetcbill.nsf/lbcontainer/D6308D9F6FA8BA2787256CFA0060DC8F/$FILE/cor_act.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/2002a/inetcbill.nsf/lbcontainer/3AF46D8E3641559587256BA3004F0E6F/$FILE/cor_act.pdf http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl2001/sl_363.pdf http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl2000/sl_413.pdf http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl1999/sl_364.pdf http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/sess1998/hbills98/budget.htm http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl1996/sl_324.pdf Youthful Offender System ‐ Capital Construction Appropriations onfirmed Year Description Costs Bill Number Notes Source 1994 Original construction appropriation $25,249,500 HB94‐1340 1998 DOC Statistical Report: Table 6 Prison Expansion Additional construction appropriation to expand the total 1998 DOC Statistical Report: Table 6 Prison Expansion and 1997 Expand total # beds $11,085,824 HB97‐1244 number of beds by 180…480 total beds. ‐2002 Audit Construction Legislation PAID FOR BY FEDERAL DOLLARS. PMC/YOS. 84 beds.

SB05‐104 or SB04‐171 authorized use of Federal Funds. (or both: SB04‐171 = re: state agency contracts, SB05‐104 makes mention of the $ from the Jobs & Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. Both are mentioned in connection with SB04‐171 this appropriation). 04? 200 Move to PMC/LVCF $1,764,267 2006 & 2007 Statistical Reports. or SB05‐104 2006 Statistical Report: Federal funds received under the Jobs & Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 to facilitate the relocation of the YOS program.

2007 Statistical Report: Federal funds received in 2004 under the Jobs & Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 to facilitate the relocation of the YOS program. Spending Long Bill: Paid for by revenues earned by Correctional Industries; 2009 Phase I for Multi‐use Support Building $296,332 Long Bill 2009 ‐ Capital Construction ‐ DOC SB09‐259 Canteen Fund & inmate phone time. TOTAL = $38,395,923

Likely Year Description Costs Bill Number Notes Source Kori Donaldson: seems like a "safe bet" that these would be YOS expenditures. It is not capital so she does not have a record of the expenditure. She said it would be worth seeing Long bill: if DOC can confirm whether those are YOS expenditures. It 1994 "Min. R Expansion: Buildings 7, 8, 10 at CMHIP" $1,633,166 Long Bill 1994 ‐ Capital Construction ‐ DOC HB94‐1356 would be YOS money unless they were doing something else on the campus. Currently the highest security forensic facility is on the CMHIP campus, but Kori is not sure if it was there in the 1990s. Lizzy wrote to DOC to confirm expenditures on 1/12/12 Mr. Allen saw a new appropriation, dated July 1 1994, that seems to have at least partially been for YOS. "Dual construction: wireless fence." Kori Donaldson (Capital Development Committee Staff) could not see this in her records, but if it was an expenditure on the Operations side 1994 DRDC Modulars/Fence YOS $488,000 x Steve Allen, JBC, Corrections Specialist she wouldn't be tracking it anyway. If it was a capital construction cost she should have it recorded. YOS was originally in DRDC while the Pueblo facility was being constructed, so perhaps the modulars would be for the temporary housing of the program. Long bill: 1995 "CMHIP Planning & Design" $823,800 See note for 1994 CMHIP expansion above. Long Bill 1995 ‐ Capital Construction ‐ DOC SB95‐214 TOTAL = $2,944,966

NOTE:

*February 2011: DOC withdrew its request for funding for Phase II of the Multi‐use Support Building. The request was for $2,321,724.

*Steve Allen from the JBC ‐ caution about the totals: Appropriations that you see will pick up PERA contributions but it doesn't include some of the employee benefits‐‐those would be in the management section of the Executive Director's office & are hard to pull out. There's no easy solution‐‐ you would need the budget submissions of the Department. JBC has back until 2003. These could add up to 10% to the total you're seeing. It would be inaccurate to use the numbers you will have to compare the expenditures to those from other states.

*More notes from Steve Allen: Oct. 2002: Still see $36 million. Only YOS. Continuing with construction. Feb. 2004: Flat plate cooling: Controlled maintenance reports. Submitted, removed, approved. For YOS. 2005: "gates installed." Trailer moved. Building 10 framing in progress. Feb. 2006: $1.764 million (this is the federal $$ for the move) June 2007: Still showing relocation money Colorado Direct Filings by Zip Code 1999-2010 Direct Filings by Zip Code 0 1 2 - 3 4 - 20 21 - 50 51 - 93

4 0 25 50 100 Miles

Created September 2011 by OMNI Denver Metro Area ii CJDC Direct Filings by District 1999-2010 Legend Direct Files 8 14 19 by District 4 - 8 20 13 9 - 29 30 - 72 9 17 1 2 5 73 - 182 183 - 310 18

21 11 4

10 15 16 12

3 22 6 20 14 17

2 0 25 50 100 Miles 5 1

4 18 11

4 Created December 2011 by OMNI Denver Metro Area Colorado Direct Files Judicial District 1: Gilpin and Jefferson Counties Total Number of Direct Files: 178 1999-2010

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never reviewed by a judge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 1824 110 0 0 0 Felony 238 0 3156 3 0 110 Felony 3590 0 24 18 114 11 Felony 4620 0 0 21 18 4 4 15 Felony 580 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 Felony 610 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Divi si on of YthYouth DttDepartment of YthYouth Offen der DfDeferre d Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 79% 75.7% ‐ 83.3% 80.9% 72.6% 0.0% 87.5% Black 2% 13.6% 2.52 16.7% 14.7% 19.4% 0.0% 4.2% Hispanic 14% 5.6% 0.57 0.0% 4.4% 3.2% 0.0% 8.3% Other 5% 5.1% 2.01 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never reviewed by a judge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

Highest Charge conviction

Felony Class Total Felony Felony Felony Felony Felony Felony Misdem. No Felony 1 1615621001 Felony 259053074 0013 Felony 3920034 3272017 Felony 4 320001340213 Felony 5 700003202 Felony 6 4 00000211 Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 30% 13.4% ‐ 0.0% 6.7% 13.8% 0.0% 12.9% Black 18% 31.7% 2.31 66.7% 38.3% 31.3% 50.0% 9.7% Hispanic 46% 53.0% 2.95 0.0% 53.3% 55.0% 50.0% 67.7% Other 6% 2.0% 1.88 33.3% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9.7%

Note: Trends for judicial districts that have less than 10 cases for the 11-year period are unreliable.

A majority of these cases result in Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as plea bargain so the child’s case is Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies never revidiewed by a jdjudge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Felony 220 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Felony 3 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 410 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Felony 5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 6 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 51% 66.7% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Black 1% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 43% 33.3% 1.83 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% Other 5% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never reviewed by a judge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 1 16242510 0 2 Felony 2400 11710 8 0 13 Felony 3 7900242981 116 Felony 4390 0 0 10 12 1 3 13 Felony 560 0 0 0 120 3 Felony 620 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 72% 47.0% ‐ 66.7% 42.0% 52.9% 57.1% 38.9% Black 10% 28.0% 1.55 33.3% 36.0% 27.5% 28.6% 30.6% Hispanic 13% 13.4% 1.22 0.0% 16.0% 9.8% 0.0% 16.7% Other 5% 11.6% 2.95 0.0% 6.0% 9.8% 14.3% 13.9%

Note: Trends for judicial districts that have less than 10 cases for the 11-year period are unreliable.

A majority of these cases result in Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as plea bargain so the child’s case is Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies never revidiewed by a jdjudge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 1 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 350 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 Felony 430 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Felony 5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 6 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Misdemeanor 000000000 Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 69% 80.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% Black 1% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 29% 20.0% 1.23 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% Other 2% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never reviewed by a judge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 1 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 210 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Felony 3150 0 750 0 0 3 Felony 4 1000051004 Felony 530 0 0 0 0 0 21 Felony 620 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 79% 69.0% ‐ 0.0% 62.5% 42.9% 100.0% 85.7% Black 1% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 12% 17.2% 1.15 0.0% 37.5% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% Other 8% 13.8% 0.87 100.0% 0.0% 42.9% 0.0% 0.0%

A majority of these cases result in Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as plea bargain so the child’s case is Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies never revidiewed by a jjdudge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

Highest Charge conviction

isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 1 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 2 401000012 Felony 3 1300332014 Felony 4 700030013 Felony 5 500001004 Felony 6 200000002 Misdemeanor 100000010 Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 80% 78.8% ‐ 0.0% 80.0% 87.5% 100.0% 75.0% Black 1% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 17% 21.2% 1.50 0.0% 20.0% 12.5% 0.0% 25.0% Other 2% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never reviewed by a judge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 130 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Felony 2100 0 3310 12 Felony 3520 0 12 17 8 3 2 10 Felony 4340 0 0 13 11 0 28 Felony 5 600002013 Felony 680 0 0 0 0 215 Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 84% 90.6% ‐ 80.0% 91.7% 76.0% 100.0% 100.0% Black 2% 5.1% 1.74 20.0% 6.3% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 12% 3.4% 0.75 0.0% 2.1% 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other 3% 0.9% 0.71 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never reviewed by a judge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 1 100010000 Felony 2 201100000 Felony 3 1000522001 Felony 4 200000002 Felony 5 100001000 Felony 6 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 77% 73.3% ‐ 0.0% 57.1% 75.0% 100.0% 100.0% Black 1% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 20% 26.7% 1.95 0.0% 42.9% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other 2% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never reviewed by a judge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

Highest Charge conviction

isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 11014310 0 0 1 Felony 2210 310 0 0 0 0 8 Felony 3460 0 15 16 410 10 Felony 4270 0 0 750 69 Felony 5100 0 0 0 5 0 23 Felony 6 200000101 Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 49% 71.8% ‐ 100.0% 66.7% 63.2% 66.7% 61.9% Black 3% 6.0% 1.75 0.0% 3.0% 2.6% 0.0% 4.8% Hispanic 44% 17.9% 1.15 0.0% 24.2% 23.7% 33.3% 33.3% Other 3% 4.3% 2.12 0.0% 6.1% 10.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never reviewed by a judge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 120 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Felony 2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 3 300010002 Felony 470 0 0 210 13 Felony 510 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Felony 610 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Misdemeanor 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 88% 86.7% ‐ 100.0% 80.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0% Black 1% 6.7% 5.41 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 9% 6.7% 2.59 0.0% 20.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% Other 2% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

A majority of these cases result in Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as plea bargain so the child’s case is Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies never revidiewed by a jjdudge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 110 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Felony 220 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Felony 360 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 Felony 440 0 0 0 0 0 13 Felony 5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 630 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 44% 82.4% ‐ 50.0% 50.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% Black 1% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 50% 17.6% 0.63 50.0% 50.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other 4% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

A majority of these cases result in Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as plea bargain so the child’s case is Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies never revidiewed by a jjdudge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 120 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Felony 240 110 0 0 11 Felony 3100 0 230 0 0 5 Felony 4 400011002 Felony 510 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Felony 610 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 69% 87.5% ‐ 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Black 1% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 28% 12.5% 0.94 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Other 2% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Note: Trends for judicial districts that have less than 10 cases for the 11-year period are unreliable.

*Note: there is no district 14 figure as there were no direct file cases with sentencing in this district.

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never revidiewed by a jdjudge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 1 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Felony 420 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Felony 5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 6 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Misdemeanor 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 91% 100.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Black 1% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 8% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other 1% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Note: Trends for judicial districts that have less than 10 cases for the 11-year period are unreliable.

A majority of these cases result in Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as plea bargain so the child’s case is Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies never reviewed by a judge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

dem. conviction al ony ony ony ony ony ony

Highest Charge s t

Felony Class To Fel Fel Fel Fel Fel Fel Mi No Felony 1 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 230 210 0 0 0 0 Felony 3 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 420 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Felony 5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 6 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relilative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 67% 40.0% ‐ 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Black 1% 40.0% 67.00 0.0% 66.7% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 30% 20.0% 1.22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other 2% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Note: Trends for judicial districts that have less than 10 cases for the 11-year period are unreliable.

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never revidiewed by a jdjudge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 1 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 2 100001000 Felony 320 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Felony 430 0 0 110 1 0 Felony 510 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Felony 6 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 54% 62.5% ‐ 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% Black 2% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 39% 37.5% 2.01 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% Other 4% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never reviewed by a judge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 1 112620 0 0 0 1 Felony 2350 31762133 Felony 3900 0 28 36 5 0 516 Felony 4450 0 0 20 10 249 Felony 5100 0 0 0 5113 Felony 620 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 55% 71.0% ‐ 50.0% 71.4% 63.0% 100.0% 70.0% Black 5% 17.6% 1.86 0.0% 19.6% 23.9% 0.0% 10.0% Hispanic 34% 7.8% 0.62 37.5% 7.1% 7.6% 0.0% 15.0% Other 6% 3.6% 1.39 12.5% 1.8% 5.4% 0.0% 5.0%

A majority of these cases result in Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as plea bargain so the child’s case is Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies never revidiewed by a jjdudge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 6 5 4 3 2 1

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o elony elony elony elony elony otal elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 150 1210 0 0 1 Felony 2590 629114 0 0 9 Felony 31630 0 55 27 15 0 759 Felony 4540 0 0 19 9 2 9 15 Felony 5140 0 0 0 6116 Felony 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 220 Misdemeanor 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 73% 50.6% ‐ 62.5% 49.2% 41.5% 57.1% 53.2% Black 9% 38.6% 2.44 37.5% 36.5% 45.8% 42.9% 31.9% Hispanic 13% 6.8% 1.56 0.0% 7.9% 8.5% 0.0% 6.4% Other 5% 3.9% 2.03 0.0% 6.3% 4.2% 0.0% 8.5%

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never reviewed by a judge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 150 0 230 0 0 0 Felony 2160 16420 12 Felony 3890 0 27 38 1 0 122 Felony 4460 0 0 23 7 1 1 14 Felony 5140 0 0 0 830 3 Felony 670 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 62% 93.3% ‐ 87.5% 92.9% 93.2% 100.0% 93.3% Black 2% 3.4% 2.11 0.0% 5.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 34% 3.4% 0.18 12.5% 1.8% 5.4% 0.0% 6.7% Other 3% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never reviewed by a judge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 130 210 0 0 0 0 Felony 2110 220 2 0 14 Felony 3340 0 4139314 Felony 4130 0 0 130 27 Felony 540 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 Felony 6 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 78% 76.9% ‐ 100.0% 78.6% 85.7% 71.4% 77.3% Black 2% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 16% 16.9% 1.07 0.0% 7.1% 7.1% 14.3% 18.2% Other 5% 6.2% 3.32 0.0% 14.3% 7.1% 14.3% 4.5%

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never reviewed by a judge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 1 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 260 1110 0 0 3 Felony 3400 0 14 13 4 0 0 9 Felony 4190 0 0 63118 Felony 550 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 Felony 630 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Misdemeanor 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 82% 79.5% ‐ 100.0% 86.7% 62.5% 100.0% 58.3% Black 2% 8.2% 3.11 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 8.3% Hispanic 14% 11.0% 0.86 0.0% 13.3% 18.8% 0.0% 25.0% Other 2% 1.4% 0.58 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 8.3%

Note: Trends for judicial districts that have less than 10 cases for the 11-year period are unreliable.

Colorado is Prosecuting Youth as A majority of these cases result in Adults for lower to mid‐level felonies plea bargain so the child’s case is never revidiewed by a jdjudge or jury.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 1 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 210 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Felony 350 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 Felony 410 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Felony 5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Felony 610 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Misdemeanor ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Among other injustices, the direct file process unduly affects black and Hispanic youth. Colorado needs to ensure the right to a hearing before a judge on the issue of whether the case should be in adult or juvenile court.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 71% 62.5% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 75.0% Black 1% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic 10% 37.5% 7.39 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0% Other 17% 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

85% of youth prosecuted in the adult Only 28 % of youth prosecuted as adults system are not accused of killing another are convicted as charged. 72% plead to person, and only 5% of all direct file cases lesser offenses in the adult system. are filed for first‐degree murder.

Highest Conviction Felony Class2 1 2 3 4 5 6

conviction

Highest Charge isdem. o otal elony elony elony elony elony elony

Felony Class T F F F F F F M N Felony 1 848 2922162 0 0 7 Felony 2 315 0 30 136 49 28 1 10 61 Felony 3 814 0 0 262 255 67 11 23 196 Felony 4 417 0 0 0 146 86 11 38 136 Felony 5 96 0 0 0 0 40 9 7 40 Felony 6 43000009727 Misdemeanor 500000032

Most youth prosecuted and incarcerated as adults in YOS have never been sentenced to the Department of Youth Corrections (DYC). Moreover, of the direct file youth who were admitted to YOS between 1999 and 2010, 82% are black and Hispanic.

% of Juvenile % of Direct File Relative Rate Division of Youth Department of Youth Offender Deferred Race4 Population5 Cases5 Index6 Corrections Corrections System Sentence Probation White 68% 63.8% ‐ 71.9% 63.7% 57.2% 67.4% 62.7% Black 6% 17.8% 1.62 14.0% 18.7% 22.4% 15.2% 12.2% Hispanic 22% 14.6% 1.07 8.8% 14.9% 15.8% 13.0% 19.7% Other 5% 3.7% 1.52 5.3% 2.6% 4.6% 4.3% 5.4%

1. This figure represents the percent of direc t file d youth by senttiencing type. Groups are not muttllually exclliusive as youth may be senttdenced to more than one sentence type. 2. This figure represents the number of direct file cases by the felony class of the highest charge as compared to the felony class of the highest conviction. Direct file cases charged with “other” types of charges are not included. 3. This figure represents the percent of direct file cases convicted as charged (dark blue bars) and not convicted as charged (light blue bars) in the district from 1999‐2010 broken out by the highest felony class charged. Hashed bars, if present, represent groups for which there were no direct file cases reported. 4. This table represents the percent of direct filed youth by sentencing type and racial group. Groups are not mutually exclusive as youth may be sentenced to more than one sentence type. 5. These columns represent the overall district‐wide juvenile population by race from 1999‐2009 and the percent of direct file cases from 1999‐2010 by race. Disparity in percentages across the percent of juvenile population and percent of direct file cases reflects some degree of minority over‐ or under‐representation at the point of direct case filing. 6. For the RRI calculations, a value of 1.00 means that there is no difference in the proportion of white and minority youth filed on that are direct filed. A value of more than 1.00 means there is an over‐representation of the minority group such that the proportion of minority youth filed on that are direct filed is higher than the proportion of white youth filed on that are direct filed. 66 RE-DIRECTING JUSTICE Methodology ietr ad aia wno, eiltv Seils, f h Clrd Juvenile report for acknowledgements. full PleaseDefender see Coalition. Colorado the of Specialist, Legislative Swenson, Karina and Director, the Re-Directing attorneys and advocates. defensejuvenile for resources and seminars education continuinglegal providing by juveniledefense of practice the support and elevate strivesto also cacy.CJDC advo legislative non-partisan and and research building, coalition reformefforts, collaborative in engaging by system justice juvenile the in youth and children of treatmentimprovethe and rights the protect to seeks CJDC Colorado. in youth cated to excellence in juvenile defense and advocacy, and justice for all children and The www.cjdc.org|303.825.2044 670SantaFeDrive,Denver,CO80204 districts.22 judicial Colorado’s of each to specific adults as youth of prosecution the informationon with Snapshots” District “Judicial includes also report full the to appendix The descriptiontains adetailed ofthe for this data study. and methodologies con report full the to appendix The analyzed. separately and obtained was cases 2010-2011 year fiscal from data recent More analysis. this of part are that maps and graphs tables, created that Denver in firm analysis data and research science 1999 to 2010. This data was sentdirectly to theOMNI Institute, a reputable social includes more thanjuvenilesagainst filed 1,800 cases in adult criminalcourt from dataThe age. by earliest electronically provided information criminalcourtbe year could the is 1999 1985, to back dating cases gather to was intent the Though ofdefendants. age the for searching by electronically extracted be can but cases, criminal adult from prosecuted in adult criminal courts. This information is not maintained separately were 18 of age the under juveniles which in cases on Administrator Court State of the Office the from data requested Colorado Coalition Defender Juvenile The Need Colorado JuvenileDefenderCoalition Colorado to Restore Justice: Juvenile Judicial the Defender Consequences Review Coalition was prepared by Kim Dvorchak, Executive Dvorchak, preparedKimby was of is a non-profit organization dedi organization non-profit a is Prosecuting Youth as Adults and - - - Question Findings Recommendations How do kids end Direct File gives prosecutors sole Ensure the right to a hearing before up in criminal discretion to file a case against a a judge on the issue of whether the court? youth in adult criminal court based case should be in adult or juvenile upon age and offense charged court Are direct file 85% of direct file cases are not Restrict direct file eligibility to the cases confined to homicide cases most serious offenses; let judges the most serious Only 5% of direct file homicide review the youth’s circumstances offenses? cases are for first degree murder and all of the options for treatment Are direct file 28% of direct file cases are Balance the power of the original cases convicted convicted as charged charge that gets the case into adult as charged? 95% of direct file cases are plea court with a hearing to assess the bargained youth’s culpability and risk Where are direct- Most direct-filed youth who are not Keep youth out of adult jails. If a filed youth held convicted spend time in an isolation child is detained pending trial, keep pending trial? cell in an adult county jail and do the child in a juvenile detention not receive educational services facility where there is programming What are the Direct file unduly affects black and Collect better data on ethnicity. characteristics of Hispanic youth Engage experts to study the direct-filed youth? 82% of youth admitted to YOS are overrepresentation of youth of color black and Hispanic in the adult system and recommend 75% of direct file dismissals are policy and practice reforms white youth What is the We don’t know. YOS has cost a Evaluate YOS’ effectiveness as effectiveness quarter of a billion dollars and has required every two years. Use a of the Youthful not been evaluated since 2004. rigorous definition of recidivism. Offender System YOS had two poor evaluations Take inventory of whether YOS can (YOS) as an noting a lack programs for girls and serve girls and youth with mental intervention mentally ill youth illness program?

What are the Convicted direct-file youth receive Provide opportunities for formerly long-term a permanent felony conviction that direct filed youth to convert a consequences for makes it difficult to re-enter society felony conviction to a juvenile youth? adjudication What is missing in Information on prior juvenile Improve data collection systems the data? delinquency or child welfare history and provide regular reports on the was not readily accessible impact of prosecuting youth as adults