ISSUE BRIEF
Office of Colorado’s Child Protection Ombudsman

Contents
Introduction  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 1
Recommendation
and Agency Response
Locator .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 3
Overview of Current
Process: Internal
Policy Approval . .  .  .  . 4
The Alternative:
Notice-and-Comment
Rulemaking  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7
Conclusion and
Recommendations .  10
Appendix 1
Colorado Department
of Human Services
(CDHS) and Division
of Youth Services
(OCYF-DYS)
Organizational Charts
Appendix 2
Division of Youth
Services (DYS) Policy
Index
Appendix 3
Division of Youth
Services (DYS) Policy
Approval Guide
Appendix 4
Colorado Rulemaking
Process: Deadlines
and Timelines
Appendix 5
Rulemaking in
California Division of
Juvenile Justice
Appendix 6
Colorado Department
of Human Services
Response to CPO
Recommendations

AUGUST 20, 2019

INADEQUATE ACCESS: Improving
Transparency and Participation in
the Division of Youth Services’
Rulemaking Process
Introduction
In February 2017, a coalition of juvenile
advocates published a startling report on
the “culture of violence” inside Colorado’s
youth correctional facilities.1 The report
detailed the overuse of physical force and
solitary confinement to control youth who
are acting out. To illustrate the damaging
effects of these practices, the report
focused on one particularly degrading
technique that utilizes a patented device
called the WRAP.2 When the WRAP was
applied, youth were placed in a helmet,
handcuffs and ankle strap while a mesh
restraint was wrapped around their
legs. Youth interviewed for the report
consistently described the device as
frightening, humiliating and painful.3
The coalition called for the prohibition
of “physical management techniques
that harm and re-traumatize children,”
including the WRAP.4
The revelations contained in the
coalition’s report made headlines and
became the catalyst for a series of
reforms targeting Colorado’s juvenile
facilities. The most immediate was a bill,

passed within months of the report’s
publication, to clarify and codify the
“rehabilitative purpose” of Colorado’s
juvenile justice system.5 The bill created
an acknowledgment in state law that
mechanical restraints like the WRAP are
“physically and psychologically harmful” to
juveniles and inconsistent with the stated
goals of youth corrections.6
In response to this scrutiny from
lawmakers and the media, the Colorado
Department of Human Services (CDHS),
which oversees the Division of Youth
Services (DYS), announced that it would
immediately begin phasing out the use
of the WRAP. In a letter sent to members
of the Colorado General Assembly, the
executive director of CDHS stated that use
of the technique would cease altogether
by July 2018.7
Nearly six months later, in November 2018,
the Office of Colorado’s Child Protection
Ombudsman (CPO) was contacted by
juvenile advocates who believed that
youth were once again being subjected to
dangerous, violent mechanical restraints
in state facilities. These advocates were
concerned that, despite the CDHS’ public

  
Bound and Broken: How DYC’s Culture of Violence is Hurting Colorado Kids and What We Can Do About It, Colorado Child
Safety Coalition (February 2017): http://static.aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Bound-and-Broken-report-Feb17complete.pdf

1

  The WRAP is produced and distributed by Safe Restraints, Inc.: http://www.saferestraints.com/

2

  Bound and Broken, pgs. 9-11.

3

  Bound and Broken, pg. 27.

4

  Act passed as House Bill 17-1329, Concerning the treatment of youths within the Division of Youth Corrections…, 2017 Colorado
Session Laws Chap. 381.

5

 C.R.S. §19-2-203(4)(X)

6

  April 28, 2017 letter from CDHS director Reggie Bicha (https://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/28/colorado-youth-correctionswrap-restraint/)

7

  

PAGE 2

INADEOUATE ACCESS: IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES RULEMAKING PROCESS

disavowal of the WRAP, its internal
physical management practices remained
largely unchanged.

In reviewing these concerns, the CPO
learned that in phasing out the WRAP,
the DYS had phased in a new and only
technique called the
"side hold." Like the WRAP, the side hold
utilizes a helmet, handcuffs and ankle
straps to immobilize the limbs. Instead of
the patented mesh device, staff members
physically restrain a youth?s legs. Among
staff and youth inside facilities, this
technique is referred to colloquially as a
"modified 

Through its correspondence with DYS
leadership, the CPO learned that use of
the side hold technique was authorized
in a recent revision to the DYS policy on
physical restraints.8 The new policy was
developed internally and implemented in
April 2018. There was no opportunity for
stakeholders outside of DYS to participate
in the development of the policy, nor
was there any notice provided to juvenile
advocates, lawmakers or the public when
it took effect.

In subsequent conversations with the
CPO, stakeholders from multiple agencies
and juvenile advocacy organizations were
surprised to learn that the side hold was
an officially sanctioned DYS technique.
Though they closely monitor conditions
inside DYS facilities, these stakeholders
were not familiar with the specific policy
nor the larger policymaking process
through which it had been created.

Through inquiries from citizens, the

CPO has encountered similar surprise,
confusion and frustration surrounding
revisions to other DYS policies, including:

- Policies addressing the process by
which youth, family members and

attorneys access juvenile records that
are relevant for treatment planning and
defense.9

. A policy addressing the use of pat-
down and strip searches to prevent
contraband in facilities.?0

. A policy addressing the individuals who
can participate in the multi-disciplinary
team meetings to develop a youth?s
treatment program."

. A policy narrowly specifying the
purposes for which youth can consent
to be photographed.12

In all these cases, stakeholders believed
that substantive regulatory changes

were implemented suddenly without
consultation with, or notification to,
parties who would be impacted by the
change. Among families, advocates, DYS
staff and other members of the public,
these experiences contribute to a broader
perception that the DYS is secretive and
unresponsive to their concerns.

Unlike most state agencies in Colorado,
the DYS develops its policies internally
among agency leadership with no
opportunity for outside entities to
participate or observe. This raises
questions about whether the DYS is
operating in compliance with state laws
that require agencies provide notice and
accept feedback on proposals for new
rules.

Regardless of any possible legal
obligations, the DYS should take steps to
increase transparency and participation in
its rulemaking. There are many examples
of notice-and-comment procedures that
could serve as a model for a new way

of doing things. This brief identifies and
recommends several strategies that would
constitute positive first steps.

 

9 Colorado Department of Human Services. Division of Youth Services. Policy "Physical Response. Protective Devices."

(current version effective April 1. 2018).

Colorado Department of Human Services. Division of Youth Services. Policy "Content. Use. Transfer. Security and Release
of Youth Records," (current version effective March 31. 2017).

Colorado Department of Human Services. Division of Youth Services. Policy $9.13. "Searches of Youth and Facilities." (current

version effective February 1. 2018).

:1

version effective October 1. 2018).

I:

(current version effective February 15, 2019).

Colorado Department of Human Services. Division of Youth Services. Policy $17.18, "Multi-Disciplinary Team (current

Colorado Department of Human Services. Division of Youth Services. official form. "Special Request To Photograph Youth."

INADEOUATE ACCESS: IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES RULEMAKING PROCESS

 

Recommendation and Agency Response Locator

 

CPO Recommendation 1 Page 10

CDHS-DYS Response Page 10

CPO Recommendation 2 Page 11

CDHS-DYS Response Page 1 1

CPO Recommendation 3 Page 12

 

 

 

 

CDHS-DYS Response Page 12

 

 

PAGE 3

 

PAGE A

INADEOUATE ACCESS: IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES RULEMAKING PROCESS

Overview of Current Process:
Internal Policy Approval

DYS Structure Authority

Under state law, the Colorado Department
of Human Services (CDHS) is "the single
state agency responsible for the oversight
of the administration of juvenile programs
and the delivery of services for juveniles
and their families.?3 This includes the
creation and operation of secure facilities
to care for youth at various stages in

their juvenile cases.14 The Division of
Youth Services (DYS) is the departmental
division created to carry out these
responsibilities in accordance with five
guiding principles that emphasize safety
and rehabilitation:15

1. Promoting the safety of youth and staff.

2. Providing rehabilitative treatment to
help youth prepare for the transition
back to society.

3. Creating a safe, structured environment
with well-trained, caring staff.

4. Enabling youth to develop healthy
relationships with peers, adults and
community members.

5. Providing youth with tools to become
contributing members of their
communities.

To house the youth in its custody, the
DYS maintains 10 secure facilities. The
DYS also contracts with approximately
30 community providers across the state
to serve youth in a less restrictive setting.
(See APPENDIX 7 for the organ/zationa/
charts of the CDHS and DYS.)

DYS Rules Regulations

Under state law, the CDHS is required

to "develop such rules and regulations

as may be necessary for imparting
instruction, preserving health, and
enforcing discipline" inside juvenile
facilities.?6 Accordingly, the DYS has
developed more than 800 pages, referred
to as "policies," that address all aspects

of its administration, programming and
practice. The current version of each
policy is accessible online on the CDHS
website.17 These 181 individual documents
are organized into 23 different chapters of
varying 

DYS policies span a wide variety of topics,
from matters of fiscal and administrative
concern to the fundamental rights of
juveniles. Among those of greatest public
interest are policies addressing the use

of seclusion and restraint, contraband,
educational programming, family visitation
and communication, medication and
behavioral healthcare. For the youth

who spend every day locked inside DYS
facilities, isolated from the outside world,
the practices and procedures laid out in
DYS policies impact every aspect of their
lives. The content of these policies matters
greatly not only to the youth and staff,

but also to the families, communities and
advocates that care about their health,
safety and well-being. (See APPENDIX 2
for a full index of current DYS policies.)

DYS Rulemaking Process

The current process by which the DYS
creates and revises its policies is opaque,
inconsistent and inaccessible. Currently,
there is no way for outside stakeholders to
contribute input to proposed changes, nor
is there any way for members of the public
to receive notice that a statewide policy
has been created or revised. In effect, the
only way to learn about a change in DYS
policy is to discover it incidentally on the
CDHS website or to hear about it directly
from youth once it has already been
implemented.

While the individual policies themselves
are publicly posted on the CDHS website,
there is no publicly available description
of the process by which new policies

are developed, finalized or distributed.
According to the DYS, policy revisions are
currently developed internally with the
oversight of division leadership through

 

?3 C.R.S. ?19-2-202

C.R.S. ?19-2-402 (both pre and post-adjudication detention); ?19-2-403 (commitment)
?5 See C.R.S. ?lQ-2-203(b) for the five enumerated "pu rposes of the division"

?5 C.R.S. 

?7 See "Policy Index: State Programs" tab on "Policies" page: 

 

PAGE 5

INADEOUATE ACCESS: IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES RULEMAKING PROCESS

an 11-member ?Policy Review Committee?
(PRC) comprised of high level DYS
employees. These procedures are laid

out in its ?Policy Approval Guide.? This
document is not currently available to the
public, but was provided upon request to
the 

According to the Guide, the PRC works
with subject matter experts within the
DYS to develop ideas for new policies and
policy revisions. When permission to draft
a revision is granted by DYS executive
leadership, the PRC works to draft and
refine the actual text of the proposed
change in a shared document or over
email. Members of the PRC meet 
to discuss and vote on proposed policies
in person.?9

Once the text of a proposal is finalized by
the PRC, it is returned to the DYS director
for approval. Depending on the content,
the policy may also be submitted to the
Colorado Office of the Attorney General
and/or the CDHS Director of the Office of
Children, Youth and Families for review.
Upon final approval, the new or revised
policy is disseminated to DYS staff, who
have 30 days to review and digest the
revision before it becomes it effective. It
is posted online and becomes available to
the public on the day it becomes effective.

In a meeting with the CPO, DYS leadership
explained that this flexible and informal
process, which can be expedited or drawn
out depending on the policy, enables them
to respond appropriately when specific
incidents highlight a need for change.20
This high level of discretion is reflected

in the Guide, which includes a broad
exception that enables the DYS Director
to implement a policy unilaterally "when it
is deemed to be in the best interest of the

Agency?? The guidelines do not provide
additional clarification about when or how
such a determination may be made. (See
APPENDIX 3 for full text of DYS Policy
Approval Guide.)

In describing the formation of new policies
to the CPO, DYS leaders emphasized
their reliance on outside expertise and
?best practices" throughout the policy
approval process.22 According to the DYS,
commonly consulted sources include

the Council of Juvenile Correctional
Administrators (CJCA), the Annie E.
Casey Foundation?s Juvenile Detention
Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) and the
regulatory schemes of other states.
Additionally, the DYS indicated that

it occasionally contracts with outside
experts to develop a tailored policy to
address matters of particularly technical
and/or urgent concern.23

Currently, however, any consultation of
outside authorities during the policy
approval process is not memorialized or
formally documented.24 Without a record
of research and/or deliberations,

it is difficult for outside entities to trace
the history and rationale of any individual
policy. When concerns are raised about a
policy?s content, members of the public
have no way to know which policies

are grounded in evidence, research or
institutional experience and which are not.

Gaps Weaknesses in Current Process

Under the current rulemaking
process the flow of information, feedback
and dialogue is confined to a small

group of agency leaders. It does not
include official access points for other
stakeholders, including youth, juvenile
advocates or facility staff to participate in
any stage of the process.25 Specifically, the

 

?9 "Division of Youth Services Policy Approval Guide.? Colorado Office of Children. Youth Families (Revised November 2017).

Document provided electronically to the CPO on 4/19/2019.

?9 Additional information about the policy approval process was provided in meeting between the CPO and DYS leadership held

on May 14. 2019 at the DYS Central Office.
2? Meeting. May 14. 2019.

2' "Division of Youth Services Policy Approval Guide." (2017): Page 2.

22 Meeting. May 14. 2019.

23 As an example, the DYS cited its recently revised policy on "Suicide Assessment. Monitoring. and Intervention" (Policy 5 15.2.
current version effective May 1. 2019). This policy was developed in collaboration with a subject matter expert on suicide in
secure facilities.

2? In the past, DYS policies included citations of underlying data and sources. According to leadership. these were removed to
create clearer. more consistent formatting. These sources have not been made available elsewhere.

?5 DYS Leadership indicated that advocates and other members of the public could contact them individually to articulate policy
recommendations or concerns. Information about how and where to initiate direct contact. however. is not publicly available or
otherwise memorialized. Meeting. May 14. 2019.

 

PAGE 6

INADEOUATE ACCESS: IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES RULEMAKING PROCESS

current guidelines lack elements that are
common in the participatory notice-and-
comment rulemaking processes of other
state agencies.26 These include:

- No stakeholder process that includes
interested parties from outside of the
DYS.

. No public notice of proposed changes.

- No public hearing or other opportunity
for public input on proposed changes.

- No publication of the underlying
research, evidence or rationale that
supports a policy change.

- No guidance on the DYS director's
authority to override the standard
process.

In conversations with the CPO, DYS
leadership described internal deliberations
that include robust dialogue and rigorous
research. Without mechanisms for

others to participate in or observe these
deliberations, however, there is no way

for outside entities to know what was
discussed or considered.

Impact of Current Process

While the current process may enable the
DYS to streamline its regulatory agenda,
the lack of transparency causes confusion
and suspicion about its end results. Under
these circumstances, the failure to engage
other constituencies in the rulemaking
process undermines the ability to
serve youth collaboratively with families
and communities.

Youth and their advocates are not the
only people who care about the content
of policymaking. DYS frontline staff,

who work directly with youth, are also
dramatically impacted by both the
content of these policies and the process
by which they are changed. In the past
year, the CPO has received inquiries from

staff at multiple facilities who believe
that the current policymaking process is
not working. In one case, a frontline staff
member called to express concern that
DYS leadership was ignoring an uptick in
violence in response to its new behavior
management policies.27 In another case,
a teacher who works in a facility school
expressed concern that leadership was
resistant to collective feedback from
school staff regarding policies impacting
youths' access to contraband.28

Not only do these cases raise concerns
about the content of certain DYS policies;
the feelings expressed in conversations
with the CPO suggest that aspects of the
policymaking process itself leave frontline
staff feeling excluded, disrespected and
unheard.29

The CPO's analysis revealed problems
with morale that have been identified

by others. An outside performance
assessment conducted in 2018 identified
similar sentiments across the 

The assessment, which was mandated
by legislation, was conducted by third-
party researchers to study factors that
impact the safety in DYS facilities. Based
on hundreds of interviews with staff and
focus groups, the researchers concluded
that the current style of policy change,
which is not inclusive or transparent,
was a common source of frustration and
confusion among facility staff who work
directly with youth. The final report found:

?Numerous frontline staff members
expressed frustration about the

lack of engagement with them by
DYS administration. Many of the
frontline staff report feelings that
they have had no input into the
changes and that no one has solicited
their feedback, which makes buy-in
difficult.?

 

2" The concept of "notice-and-comment" rulemaking is derived from the Federal Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et

seq). which is detailed in the subsequent section of this brief.

27 CPO case #2018-03413
?9 CPO case #2019-03673

?9 In accordance with its authorizing statute. the CPO keeps identifying information contained in complaints confidential. See

C.R.S. 

3? This report, completed by the Development Services Group. Inc.. is not currently posted online. Copies of both the Executive
Summary (Volume I) and the Main Findings (Volume II) were provided to the CPO upon request by the DYS.

3" DYS Program Performance Evaluation: Volume N. Main Findings." submitted by Development Services Group, Inc. (June

30. 2018): page 94.

 

PAGE 7

INADEOUATE ACCESS: IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES RULEMAKING PROCESS

In response to these findings, the
researchers recommended that DYS
leadership work more collaboratively
with staff at all levels ?to find out what is
working well and not as well, and explore
reasons why."32 The DYS could mitigate
these concerns by developing a more
transparent rulemaking process with
access points for other stakeholders,
including staff, to participate. A

more participatory process would
provide an opportunity for DYS to

put the recommendations of the 2018
independent assessment into action.

THE ALTERNATIVE: Notice-and-
Comment Rulemaking Proceedures

Frustration with the rulemaking

is not inevitable. In fact, the procedural
gaps identified in the DYS's current policy
approval process are relatively rare among
state agencies, most of which conform the
requirements of the State Administrative
Procedure Act These agencies
vary drastically in size, structure and
purpose. Among them, there are many
models of public rulemaking that could
serve as examples for a more participatory
process in the DYS.

For reasons that are not clear, the DYS
does not have a process for formulating
rules, regulations or policies in accordance
with the APA. In its independent review
of Colorado law, the CPO was unable to
identify any provisions that would exclude
the DYS from the Act?s requirements.

The applicability of the APA to the DYS
presents complex legal questions that

are beyond the scope of this brief. The
CDHS should consider these questions in
consultation with the Colorado Office of
the Attorney General.

The benefits of notice-and-comment
rulemaking, however, do not depend
on the resolution of these questions.

Transparency and collaboration are
worth pursuing regardless of any legal
obligations.

Agency Rulemaking Under the
Administrative Procedures Act

Under state law, most state agencies in
Colorado develop the rules that govern
their practice through a transparent
process in accordance with the state
APA.34 Agencies subject to the Act

are required to establish rulemaking
procedures that include public notification,
distribution and hearings on all proposed
changes.

The Colorado Legislature first passed

the state APA in 1959 to promote
transparency and create an access point
for citizens to participate in government.35
Colorado's law was closely modeled on
the federal Administrative Procedure

Act, designed as a check on the growing
power of executive branch agencies as a
result of the New Deal.36 The passage of
both the state and federal APAs signaled
a recognition that rules and regulations
are critical in shaping the character and
quality of government. The expansion of
notice-and-comment rulemaking, which
emphasizes transparency, has transformed
agency rules and regulations into an
important domain for advocacy, litigation
and dialogue about public policy.

Today, the central provisions of Colorado?s
original APA remain intact and govern
?any agency [that] is required or
permitted by law to make rules" to
establish a public notice-and-comment
rulemaking process that allows ?interested
persons the opportunity to participate
therein."37 For the purposes of the APA,
"rule? and "regulation" are synonymous.38

To comply with the APA, a state agency?s
rulemaking process must include the
following elements:

 

?2 Performance Evaluation: Volume (2018): page. 177.
33 3? C.R.S. et seq.

35 Act passed as HB 59-212, Concerning procedure of state administrative agencies in making rules, licensing and other matters,
and review of their determinations: 1959 Colorado Session Laws Chap. 37.

3" Public Law 79-404 (60 Stat. 237; enacted June 11. 1946)
?7 C.R.S. 24-4-1030)

?9 "Rule" is defined as "the whole or any part of every agency statement of general applicability and future effect implementing.
interpreting, or declaring law or policy or setting forth the procedure or practice requirements of any agency," CR8. 5 24-4-

102(15).

 

PAGE 8

INADEOUATE ACCESS: IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES RULEMAKING PROCESS

. A preliminary process to gather input
from ?representatives of each of the
various stakeholder interests that
may be affected positively or
negatively" by any change that is
being 

. Public notice and distribution of the
proposed changes and underlying
rationale to anyone who has signed
up to receive notifications through the
Department of Regulatory Affairs.40

. A public hearing at which members
of the public can submit ?data, views,
or arguments." Drafts of the proposed
changes and agency rationale must be
made available to the public at least five
days prior to the hearing.?

- The publication of underlying data,
research, studies or reports that are
?used by the agency in the development
of the proposed rule."42

- The publication of the agency?s
reasoning any time it deems an issue
urgent enough to adopt a temporary,
emergency rule prior to holding a public
hearing.43

(See APPENDIX 4 for a visualization of
rulemaking in Colorado published by the
Secretary of State.)

These provisions apply broadly across the
executive branch of state government.
The only agencies exempted from its
requirements are those for which there a
specific statutory exemption that takes
precedence.45 These exemptions are
relatively few in Colorado law and do not
appear to encompass or otherwise impact
the DYS.46

Colorado agencies that perform notice-
and-comment rulemaking utilize online
systems maintained by the Secretary of
State and the Department of Regulatory
Agencies to disseminate information about
proposed rule changes and upcoming
hearings to the public.47 Agencies that
utilize these systems include the Colorado
Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the state
Board of Parole, the Public Employees'
Retirement Association (PERA) and

Health First Colorado (Colorado's Medicaid
Program).48

Models for Notice-and-Comment
Rulemaking in Other Agencies

There are many examples of notice-and-
comment rulemaking processes that could
serve as a model for DYS.

EXAMPLE: Colorado State Board of
Human Services

Perhaps the most relevant model of
participatory, notice-and-comment
rulemaking in Colorado comes from the
very agency of which the DYS is a part.
The State Board of Human Services (State
Board), which is comprised of county
officials and members of the public,
facilitates rulemaking for the divisions

and programs under the CDHS that
interface with local government. These
include the Division of Child Welfare,

the Office of Early Childhood, the Office
of Economic Security and the Office of
Behavioral Health. The State Board was
initially created to ensure coordination and
procedural equity among state and local

 

?9 C.R.S. 

4? C.R.S. 

C.R.S. 
?2 C.R.S. 
?3 C.R.S. 

The State Administrative Procedures Act does not bind the legislative or judicial branches. See C.R.S. 24-4-107.

?5 C.R.S. 24-4-103

?5 One notable exception does exist for the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC), which serves adults and is explicitly
exempt from the Act's requirements in developing rules "relating to the placement, assignment, management. discipline, and
classification of inmates" (C.R.S. This exemption was passed as stand-alone provision in 1983 (HB 83-1422) as part of
a broader movement to toughen laws surrounding criminal sentencing and confinement. This exemption does not impact the
DYS, which is not part of the DOC.

?7 See the Colorado Register, online eDocket on the Secretary of State's website: See Regulatory
Notice page on the Department of Regulatory Agencies website: web.siqnup form.

?9 For a full list. see the table of contents of the Colorado Code of Regulations: MW
NumericalDeptListdo

 

PAGE 9

INADEOUATE ACCESS: IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES RULEMAKING PROCESS

officials during the rulemaking process.49
The DYS does not participate in the
proceedings of the State Board.

For participating agencies, the State
Board ensures compliance with the
notice-and-comment requirements of
the state APA. The State Board works in
coordination with the Colorado Secretary
of State to publish the text, rationale and
progression of all proposed changes and
distribute notice of upcoming hearings
and final rules to anyone who signs up
for updates.?

The State Board meets to hear
testimony and discuss proposed changes
to agency rules and regulations. Anyone
can sign up to provide testimony at these
meetings, which are open to the public
and broadcast live. Details and agendas
for upcoming meetings are advertised on
the CDHS website along with guidelines
for citizens who wish to participate in

the process.? To be finalized, each rule
must be approved by a majority vote of
its membership. These procedures are
laid out in great detail in a procedural
rulemaking manual that is also

available online.52

Meetings of the State Board are closely
monitored by stakeholders. hearings
serve as a venue for dialogue and debate
about important public policy questions
related to public welfare and service
delivery. Documentation of the State
Board's activities, including the testimony
of dissenting voices, creates a valuable
record for those seeking to interpret,
implement and improve rules and
regulations in the future.

The CPO does not offer this example as
a recommendation that the State Board

take over rulemaking for the DYS. The
State Board's robust structure, logistics
and communications protocols, however,
provide a model that is familiar to CDHS
leaders and stakeholders. Aspects of this
model could be easily replicated, adapted
and/or expanded to serve the needs

of the DYS.

Other States:

Because the regulatory powers of state
agencies are governed by each state?s
specific administrative laws, rulemaking
for juvenile correctional facilities varies
substantially from state to state. Among
states that do have a state-level APA, many
explicitly exempt their adult corrections
agencies from its requirements.53 Most of
these exemptions, however, do not extend
to juvenile corrections divisions. As such,
most states? juvenile justice agencies are
subject to the same general notice-and-
comment rulemaking requirements as
other state agencies.

To fulfill these requirements, states utilize
a variety of procedural mechanisms
depending on their unique legal
obligations, administrative structures

and agency cultures. These boards,
commissions, trackers and websites enable
transparency and public participation in
varying degrees. Any of these could be
adapted for use in Colorado.

Across the country, state juvenile justice
agencies share a difficult and demanding
charge. They are tasked with maintaining
facility environments that are rehabilitative
and trauma-informed while simultaneously
ensuring safety and security for youth and
staff. Under these circumstances, there
may be a time-limited need for regulatory
flexibility and discretion. These emergency

 

?9 The State Board was created in fulfillment by a 2011 Executive Order from the Governor's office. See E.O. 2011-005,
"Establishing a Policy to Enhance the Relationship between State and Local Government." The mandate was codified in 2012
with the passage of SB 12-26, Concerning a state agency rule that creates a state mandate on a local government," 2012

Colorado Session Laws Chap. 199.

Stakeholders can sign up for rulemaking updates for any agency or issue areas online through the office of the Colorado

Secretary of State. See webpage titled "Administrative Rule of State Agencies" for instructions and FAQs: 



5' The CDHS maintains a page on its website dedicated to the work of the State Board. The page includes the Board?s bylaws.
authorizing statute, operating procedures, information about upcoming meetings and minutes from past meetings: 


5? See "Standards and Procedures Manual for Rulemaking." developed by the administrator for the State Board of Human
Services (Revised March 2017), available online at: 

5'3 Colorado law has an exemption for adult corrections (see C.R.S. 17-1-111). The CPO was unable to identify a similar exemption

for juvenile corrections in Colorado.

INADEOUATE ACCESS: IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES RULEMAKING PROCESS

 

concerns must be balanced against the provide models that can be leveraged
need for transparency and accountability to help Colorado find this balance. (See

to outside entities. The notice-and- APPENDIX 5 for a description and example
comment procedures and associated of notice-and-comment rulemaking from
tools of other juvenile justice agencies the California Division of Juvenile Justice.)

Conclusion and Recommendations

The current process by which the DYS creates and revises its policies is not transparent
and does not include opportunities for outside entities to monitor or provide input.
The exclusion of outside eyes and voices creates confusion and suspicion and results in
policies that may not be adequate to protect youth and staff safety.

There are many examples, both in Colorado and in other states, of effective notice-
and-comment rulemaking by agencies that address urgent and sensitive issues.
These agencies balance the need for procedural efficiency with the benefits of public
participation and input.

In order to strengthen and demystify its policies, the CPO recommends that the DYS
adopt concrete measures to increase transparency and public participation in its
rulemaking process.

RECOMMENDATION 1

To increase transparency surrounding its rulemaking process the CPO recommends that
the DYS:
a. Publish its Policy Approval Guide online.

b. Publish any research, data or other rationale on which all future policies
and policy revisions are based.

c. Publish the rationale for any decision to "fast-track" future policies and
policy revisions.

d. Create a notification system by which stakeholders can receive alerts
when new DYS policies are finalized.

CDHS-DYS Response:
a) AGREE. The Division of Youth Services will post this material on their
public facing website by September 2019.

b) PARTIALLY AGREE. The Division of Youth Services will publish data
and/or research on relevant policies.

c) AGREE. The Division will add into its policy approval guide the
definition of a "fast-track" policy revision process and examples of
reasoning behind an expedited process. Should a stakeholder have
questions regarding the change, they can reach out to the Division and
inquire as to why the decision was made. A contact name, email, and
phone number will be provided on the policy approval guide should
any questions arise.

d) AGREE. The Division of Youth Services will create a system where
stakeholders can sign up to receive alerts on new policies that have
been released.

PAGE 10

INADEOUATE ACCESS: IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES RULEMAKING PROCESS

RECOMMENDATION 2

   

To expand and increase public participation in its rulemaking process, the CPO
recommends that the DYS:

a. Create an official process by which members of the public can submit
feedback and recommendations on existing policies. A description of
this process should be posted and easy to locate online and in DYS staff
and youth handbooks.

b. Convene a time-limited working group to identify ways to formally
incorporate input from stakeholders at various stages of its regulatory
process. The study should consider the role of various constituencies,
including youth, families, DYS staff, clinicians, juvenile advocates and
members of the public. Documentation of the group?s work, including
meeting minutes, findings, conclusions and recommendations of the
group should be made publicly available and posted online.

c. Create a notification system by which stakeholders can receive updates
about policy revisions as they are being contemplated, developed and
finalized. These notifications should include information about how and
where stakeholders can participate and/or provide input as determined
by the working group.

CDHS-DYS Response:

a) PARTIALLY AGREE. The Division of Youth Services will accomplish this
recommendation by posting online and in youth handbooks. There is no
staff handbook. The staff already has options to discuss policy related
issues and the Division of Youth Services has a plan to expand that
process to all staff.

b) INAPPLICABLE: The Division of Youth Services does not conduct a
regulatory process. It utilizes a committee to develop policies and
procedures for operations.

c) PARTIALLY AGREE. DYS agrees with CPO that stakeholder input is
valuable and important. DYS is concerned, however, that allowing
every policy proposal and revision to incorporate a stakeholder process
will hamstring DYS and potentially create unsafe conditions for staff
and youth. DYS believes that the following strikes the proper balance
between DYS receiving stakeholder input and DYS conducting its
business: under recommendation 1 stakeholders who have signed
up will receive notification of finalized policies. Under recommendation
2 members of the community can provide on-going feedback at
any time.

PAGE 11

INADEOUATE ACCESS: IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES RULEMAKING PROCESS

RECOMMENDATION 3

   

The CDHS should. in consultation with the Of?ce of the Attorney General, determine
whether the DYS is in compliance with the State Administrative Procedures Act for the
purpose of agency rulemaking. At minimum, such a determination should address:

a. Whether the DYS is subject to the provisions of the CPS. ?24-4-103.

b. Whether the DYS polices that are currently posted online constitute
"rules" as defined in C.R.S. ?24-4-102.

The outcome of this determination should be provided to the CPO and included in the
CDHS annual SMART Act Performance Plan, which is presented to the joint health and
human services committee.54

CDHS-DYS Response:

DYS policies currently posted online do not constitute rules as defined by the
Administrative Procedure Act.

 

5? House Bill 18-1335. "Concerning the Colorado child care assistance program. and. in connection therewith, establishing
eligibility requirements for all counties and creating a new formula to determine the amount of block grants to counties."

PAGE 12 available at 

 

PAGE 13

INADEOUATE ACCESS: IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES RULEMAKING PROCESS

The CPO would like to thank the CDHS and DYS for sharing their time and expertise.
Pursuant to C.R.S. the CPO respectfully submits this report to the
citizens of Colorado, child protection stakeholders and the Colorado General Assembly.

Caroline Parker

Policy and Legislative Analyst
Office of Colorado?s Child Protection Ombudsman

Approved By:

I
kM (0 VI gW
Stephanie Villafuerte

Child Protection Ombudsman
Office of Colorado?s Child Protection Ombudsman

?w

COLORADO

Department of Human Services

 

 

 

 

Deputy Executive
DirectorIChief Financial
Officer
Ronald Vestman

Colorado Department of Human Services
Michelle Barnes
Executive Director

 

Updated 6.13.2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deputy Executive
Director of Health
Facilities
Perry May

 

 

 

Financial Services
VACANT

 

 

Budget Policy
Sarah Devore

 

Chief Medical Officer
Dr. Renee Marquardt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deputy Executive
Director of Administrative
Solutions
Jeremy Hi  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Office of Community
Access 8. Independence
Mark Wester

 

 

 

Office of Children,
Youth Families
Minna Castillo Cohen

 

 

Deputy Director
Eric Johnson

 

 

Office of
Behavioral Health
Robert Werthwein

 

 

 

Deputy Executive
Director of Community
Partnerships
Jerene Petersen

 

 

 

 

 

 

Director of
Legislative Affairs
Vacant

 

 

 

 

 

Director of Operations
Clint Woodruff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deputy Director
Vacant

 

Deputy Director
Michael Tessean

Communications Director
Mark Techmeyer

 

Office of Early
Childhood
Mary Anne Snyder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Veterans Community
Living Centers
Vacant

 

Division of Performance 8.
Strategic Outcomes
Rob Jakubowski

Deputy Director
Vacant

 

 

 

Youth Services
Anders Jacobson

 

Behavioral Health
Task Force
Summer Gathercole

 

 

 

 

Disability Determination
Services
Thomas Haro

 

Chief Legal Director
Katie McLoughlin

Early Care Learning
Erin Mewhinney

 

 

 

Juvenile Parole Board
LeeAnn Brabec

 

Mental Health Institutes
Terese Sco?dio

 

 

 

Regional Centers
Georgia Edson

 

Human Resources
Mieke Thorson

 

Community Family
Support
Mary Alice Cohen

 

 

 

 

Child Welfare
Ann Rosales

 

Community Behavioral
Health
Camille Harding

 

 

 

 

 

Aging and Adult Services
Mindy Gates

 

Facilities Management
Eduardo Lucero

 

 

 

 

 

 

Domestic Violence Program
Brooke Ely?Milen

 

 

 

Strategy, Communications
Policy
Cristen Bates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Business Technology
Sarah Nelson

 

 

 

 

Of?ce of Economic
Security
Ki?i Powell

 

 

 

Deputy Director
Barry Pardus

 

 

Child Support Services
Larry Desbien

 

 

Employment and Benefits
Katie Griego

 

 

 

Food and Energy
Assistance
Lena Wilson

 

 

 

 

 

COLORADO

Office of Children, Minna Castillo Cohen

in

Youth 8 Families Director of the Of?ce of Children, Youth and Families

303.866.4544

Department Of Human Services 

Anders Jacobson

Director of the Division of Youth Services
303.866.7692
anders.jacobson@state.co.us

 

VACANT
Deputy Director of the Of?ce of Children Youth and Families
TBD

 

 

I Dunstan of Youth Sennces TBD

Mollie Bradlee

 

Brooke Ely-Mllen

Director of the Domestic Violence Program
303.866.3321
Brooke.ElyMilen@state.co.us

Domestic Vlolence Program Effec?ve January 31

TBD
TBD

 

 

Ann Rosales, MSW

Director of the Division of Child Welfare

303.866.3538
Ann.Rosales@state.co.us

Division of Child Welfare Brandy Harper

Assistant to Of?ce Director
303.866.4119
Brandy.Harper@state.co.us

 

 

 

Medical mm Gretchen J. Russo. RN. BSN, JD

VACANT
Medical Director
TBD

TBD

Lee Ann Brabec
Administrator
303-866-5977
Ieeann.brabec@state.co.us

 

 

Judicial and Legislative Administrator
303.866.3197
Gretchen.Russo@state.co.us

 

 

 

 

1

Colorado Juvenile
Parole Board

CDHS Of?ce of Children. Youth and Families Organizational Charts Updated April 29. 2019

 

VACANT
Communications Manager
TBD

TBD

 

Communications and
Outreach

 

 

 A 
. Division oi Youth Services
Office of Oiildren. Youth 6 Families Anders Jacobson

Diectorol'the DivisionoiYouth
Services

 

 

 

 

I

AiEetrada' Mm". 

a

Kristen Withrow 

Associate Director Community and
Client Services

Associate Director Youth Centers and
Education

Associate Director Operations

 

 

Heidi sauer-
Director Of Communications and
Legislative Aliairs

 

Maurice Williams?
Jeanine Martinez?

Central Region Director 
Director of Financial Services

VACANT

 

Director Of Facility Operations




Kyla Romero

Director of Facility Detention
Operations

 

DaveLoe'

Kristen Withrow
Region Di Kelli Bannister . 
Dire m, of Managemem and Director of Lookout Mountain YSC
- (Acting)

Analyses

 

 

 

Ashley ?Install"

Director of Behavioral Health and
Medical Services

w. Case Mari Shull

 

 

Director of Food gem Director of Mount View YSC

 

 

Tammy Schneiderman

Client Services Coordinator
Ed Waneuc

 

Matt Friesen Director of Research and Evaluation

Colorado Youth Detention Continuum
Coordinator

 

 

John Ferullo

 

Maria Camper
Northeast Region Director

Director of Stall Development

 

ComiePetereon'

Southern Region Director

 

 

OindyOwen

Director of Facility Operations

 

Jamie Muss

Director of Giliam YSC

 

Jel?i? Blackmon

Director Of Adams YSC

 

 



CDHS Of?ce of Children. Youth and Families Organizational Charts Updated June 21. 2019 

Joe Kurt:

Director of Spring Creek YSC

 

Charles 1yous

Director of Foote YSC



 

 

Annette Dietrich

Director of Pueblo YSC

 

Dan Beiiluss

Director of Zeb Pike YSC

Erin Jacobs

Director of Platte Valley YSC

SaraKahat

Executive Assistant

Erin Osterhaus

Director of Education

Diane Skui?ca

Director of Facility Operations
Support

 

Samantha Wilson

SAM Coordinator

 

Jacque Berry

Director of Grand Mesa YSC

 

Indicates DYS leadership team member.

Policy #
CHAPTER 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.11
1.12A
1.12B
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
CHAPTER 2

2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.1
2.12
CHAPTER 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5

Policy Subject
Administration, Organization and Management
Legal Authority and Division Mission
Internal and External Communications
Admission Criteria
Contract Programs
Facility Planning, Reporting and Review
Legal Representation and Assistance
Public Information/News Media
Detention Victim Notification Program
Committed Victim Notification Program
Employee Dress Code
Facility Administrative and Supervisory Personnel Support
Waivers
Detention Capacity
Fiscal Management
Purchase and Lease of Computer Hardware/Software, Cellular Phones, Pagers and Twoway Radios
Accounting for Appropriations and Expenditures of Funds
Youth Trust Funds
Youth Personal Funds
Internal Control and Monitoring of Accounting Procedures
Capital Assets Inventory Control
Warehouse Inventory and Expendable Program Supplies
Position Control
Insurance Coverage
Contracts and Grants
Personnel
Employee Grievances
Membership in Employee Organizations and Employee Representation
Outside Employment and Conflict of Interest
Administering Corrective and Disciplinary Actions
Drug Free Workplace/Substance Abuse and Tobacco Use

3.6

Leave, Timekeeping/KRONOS, Worker's Compensation, FMLA, FLSA, Administrative Leave

3.6A
3.8
3.9
3.1
3.11
3.12
3.14
3.15
3.18
3.2

Youth Center Scheduling
Appointing Authority
Certification, Licensure and Letters
Personnel Records
Policy Manual Establishment and Maintenance
Personnel Selection, Retention, Promotion and Layoff, Separation
Personnel Actions Related to Alleged Child Abuse
Client Managers/Parole Officers Carrying Badges and Dangerous Weapons
Employee Assistance Program
Relationships between Youth and Staff

3.21

Employee Background Search, Employee Reporting Responsibility, Trails Database Checks

3.25
3.28

Transitional Duty
Violence in the Workplace and Sexual Harassment

2.1

 Policy #
3.3
CHAPTER 4
4.1
4.2
CHAPTER 5
5.1
5.2
CHAPTER 6
6.1
6.2
CHAPTER 7
7.1
7.3
7.4
CHAPTER 8
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
CHAPTER 9
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.4A
9.5
9.6
9.8A
9.8B
9.9
9.9A
9.1
9.11
9.12
9.13
9.14
9.15
9.17
9.18
9.19
9.2
9.22
9.23
9.24
CHAPTER 10
10.2
10.3

Policy Subject
Professional Conduct
Training and Staff Development
Training Requirements-Facility Based
Training and Training Requirements- Non-Facility Based Employees
Management Information and Research
Colorado TRAILS Database
Research and Evaluation
Youth Records
Content, Use, Transfer, Security and Release of Youth Records
Closed Youth Records
Physical Plant
Existing Facility Requirements
Building and Equipment Maintenance
Assignment of Space
Safety and Emergency
Fire Safety Inspections and Prevention
Risk Management
Control and Use of Flammable, Toxic and Caustic Materials
Client Manager/Parole Officer Field Safety
Inclement Weather
Security and Control
Perimeter Security and Security Inspections
Control Center
Youth Supervision and Movement
Physical Response and Protective Devices
Physical Response Protective Devices
Count Policies and Procedures
Shift Assignments and Shift Logs
Reporting Critical Incidents
Reporting Critical Incidents
Dangerous Weapons
Active Threat Prevention
Key Control System
Tools, Culinary and Medical Equipment
Facility Emergency Plan
Searches of Youth and Facilities
Security, Assignment and Use of State Vehicles
Transportation of Youth Outside of the Facility
Reporting Child Abuse
Two-Way Communication
Sexual Contact Prevention
Hospital Security
Use of Personal Electronic Devices in Facilities
Safe Treatment of Pregnant Females
Video Monitoring and Surveillance
Food Service
Facility Food Service Program Management
Menu Planning and Meal Service

 Policy #
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
CHAPTER 11
11.1
11.2
11.3
CHAPTER 12
12.1
12.2
12.3A
12.3B
12.3C
12.4
12.5
12.6
12.7
12.8
12.9
12.10A
12.10B
12.10C
12.11
12.12
12.13
12.14
12.15
12.17
12.18
12.19
12.2
12.21
CHAPTER 13
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.5

Policy Subject
Work Experience Programs for Committed Youth
Staff / Guest Meals
Food from Outside Sources
Food-Borne Illness Prevention and Control
Sanitation and Hygiene
Housekeeping Plans and Sanitation Health Inspections
Waste Disposal and Pest Control
Personal Hygiene, Clothing, Bedding and Linen Supplies
Medical and Health Care Services
Medical Program Administration
Medical Supplies and Equipment
Receiving Screening and Mental Health Screening
Health Assessments, Physical Examinations, Transfer Screening and Discharge Planning
Dental Services
Medical Records
Access to Medical Services
Notification of Serious Illness or Injury
Medical Emergency Protocol
Medical Treatment for Injured or Ill Staff Members
Special Health Care
Use and Management of Pharmaceutical Products
Medical Experimentation or use of Pharmaceutical for Behavior Management
Qualified Medication Administration Personnel
Nursing Assessment Protocols Continuous Quality Improvement
Permission or Refusal of Treatment
Fatality Procedures
Communicable and Infectious Diseases
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
Panel of Medical Consultants
Youth Head Trauma Guidelines
Chronic Disease Services
Intoxication and Withdrawal
Protective Devices and Seclusion
Youth Rights
Basic Rights, Responsibilities, and Access to Services
Grievance Procedures
Access to Courts and Council
Rights, Responsibilities of Youth Regarding Personal Appearance
Non-Discriminatory Services to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, and
13.9
Intersex (LGBTQI) Youth
CHAPTER 14 Rules and Discipline
14.3A
Facility Rules
14.3B
Time-out, Seclusion and Program Refusal
CHAPTER 15 Mental Health Services
15.1
Access to Psychiatric Hospitalization
Suicide Assessment, Monitoring and Intervention NEW Policy to be implemented upon
15.2
facility training completion but no later than 5/1/19: Suicide Assessment, Monitoring and
Intervention

 Policy #
15.3
15.4
15.5
15.6
15.7
15.7A
15.8
15.9
CHAPTER 16
16.1
16.2
16.4
16.5
16.7
16.8
16.9
16.1
16.11
16.12
16.13
CHAPTER 17
17.1
17.2
17.4
17.5
17.8
17.1
17.11
17.12
17.15
17.16
17.17
17.18
17.19
17.21
CHAPTER 18
18.1
18.2
18.3
CHAPTER 19

Policy Subject
Access to Services for the Developmentally Disabled
Psychotropic Emergency Medications
Substance Abuse Assessment
Substance Abuse Services
Substance Use Analysis and Testing
Toxicology Screening and Reporting
Involuntary Medication Administration
Supervision, Services and Documentation
Admission, Transfer and Release
Admissions, Reception / Orientation
Personal Property
Release from Custody
Removal From Rolls
Pre-Parole Planning
Restitution / Supervision Levels - Parole
Parole Absconding / Violating / Modification / Rev.
Transfer & Supervision of Interstate Compact Youth
Sex Offender Registration
Parole Release, Discharge
Apprehension / Field Safety
Programs and Services
Scope of Programs and Serivces
Education Program
Library Services
Counseling
Educational and Career Technical Education Programs
Recreation
Faith / Religious Programming
Temporary Release
Restitution
Youth Wellness Policy, Canteen Accounts and Audit of the Canteen Accounts
Limited English Proficiency
Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT)
Room Time
Individual Growth and Change Program
Communications: Mail, Visits, and Telephone
Youth Visiting
Youth Correspondence
Telephone
Federal Entitlement Programs
Judicial Findings Regarding Reasonable Efforts and Eligibility Determination and Re19.1
determination
19.2
Youth Discrete Case Plans
19.3
Administrative Review
CHAPTER 20 Citizen Involvement and Volunteers
20.1
Volunteer / Intern Management
CHAPTER 21 Assessment and Classification
21.1
Risk Assessment, Classification and Reclassification

 Policy #
21.2
21.3
21.4
CHAPTER 22

Policy Subject
Length of Service (LOS) and Reclassification
Juvenile Photographing and Fingerprinting
Colorado Juvenile Risk Assessment
Information Technology
Use of Electronic Mail (E-mail), Use of Support of Hardware and Software, Internet /
22.1
Intranet Access
22.5
Computer Network and Internet Use in the Classroom
CHAPTER 23 State Owned Privately Operated Secure- Administrative Policies
23.1
Youth Personal Funds (Custodial)
23.2
Certification, Licensure and Letters
23.3
Policy Manuals Establishment And Maintenance
23.4
Training And Training Requirements Contract Program Employees
23.5
Research and Evaluation
23.6
Closed Youth Records
23.7
Control and Use of Flammable, Toxic and Caustic Materials
23.8
Facility Food Service Program Management
23.9
Menu Planning and Meal Service
23.1
Work Experience Program For Committed Youth
23.11
Food From Outside Sources
23.12
Housekeeping Plans and Sanitation Health Inspections

 Policy Approval Guide

This document serves as a guide for DYS staff in the
creation and implementation of DYS Policy.
Revised 11/2017

Page 1

 Division of Youth Services
Policy Approval Guide
Statement of Purpose:
The purpose of this guide is to outline the procedures for creating a Division of Youth
Services policy, gaining approval for the policy and communicating the policy to DYS
employees.
A review of the Division of Youth Services Policy shall occur on an on-going basis, or
when found otherwise necessary, to provide recommendations and maintain consistency
to the current applicable Evidence Based Practices, Division/Department Policy, State
Statutes, and Federal Regulations.
Scope:
All DYS employees seeking to create or revise a Division – wide policy must follow
these procedures.
The DYS Director may implement a DYS policy without following these procedures
when it is deemed to be in the best interest of the Agency.

Procedures:
1.

DYS Associate Directors/Director Approves Policy Revision Request. The policy
author must gain the approval of a DYS Associate Director/Director to revise a
Division Policy. Requests for revisions shall be submitted through one of two
different sources:
a.

Policy revision request for the Division of Youth Services policies shall be
submitted to the Associate Directors, or the DYS Director. The approving
Director will forward policy revision recommendations to the Policy
Coordinator for electronic copies of the policy for revision.

b.

Policy revisions may be developed within the context of a specific
Committee, Sub-Committee, or Work Group. The Committee Chair shall
contact the Associate Directors, or the DYS Director for approval to revise
the identified policy. The approving Director will assign a lead to draft the
DYS Policy revision.

2.

The Division of Youth Services Policy Coordinator will provide electronic drafts
of the identified policy(s) to the approved lead and initiate tracking the revision
on the DYS Policy Tracking Sheet using Smart Sheets.

3.

Subject Matter Experts (SME) shall be included in the process of making all
applicable revisions. When the revisions are completed and approved by the

Revised 11/2017

Page 2

 receiving Director, or Committee Chair, the revisions shall be forwarded to the
DYS Policy Coordinator for further review. (REVISIONS TO STATE AND
CONTRACT POLICIES OCCUR CONCURRENTLY TO MAINTAIN POLICY
CONSISTENCY).
4.

When the policy revision vetting, editing and formatting are complete the Policy
Coordinator will notify the Policy Review Committee (PRC) that the updated
policy draft is available for review on the DYS Policy Tracking Sheet and
confirm the date of the committee’s Policy Review Meeting and Agenda. Policies
placed on the agenda for review will be provided to PRC members in a timely
manner, 10 days prior to the monthly PRC meeting.
a.

In the event that a policy revision requires expedited approval (Priority
Fast Track ) the policy may be forwarded to the PRC Committee for
electronic review, with a specific deadline for review.

b.

All initial revisions, in addition to revisions recommended by the PRC,
shall be completed on the policy and a fully edited version shall be
disseminated back out to all PRC members and SME’s for final review.

5.

The DYS Policy Coordinator shall provide policy update notifications to the
approving Associate Director/ DYS Director for review and approval.

6.

Policy review's that are returned with feedback will be forwarded as updates to
the policy coordinator to make revisions and a updated notifications will be sent
to PRC member's and designated agency directors for final review before final
approval and signature.

7.

The Division of Youth Services Director shall forward the approved revisions to
the Attorney General's Office and to the Director of the Office of Children, Youth
and Families. Once the Policy revisions are approved by each agency designee
and signed by the DYS Director, the Policy Coordinator shall disseminated the
updated policy throughout the Division of Youth Services with a thirty day
training period prior to the policy effective date. The policy will be posted to the
DYS website on the policy effective date for implementation.

8.

Previous versions of the Policy and Procedure shall be removed from use
throughout the Division and associated contract programs.

Proposed Policy Revision Time Frames:
Recommend: Policy changes/revisions to any specific policy occur on a quarterly basis
(changes to same policy), unless revision requires Fast Track Approval.
•

Revision Source: Option I (Routine) 5-12 weeks (From the date the Draft is
received by the DYS Policy Coordinator).

•

Revision Source: Option II (Priority Fast Track) 2-5 weeks (From the date the
Draft is received by the DYS Policy Coordinator).

Revised 11/2017

Page 3

 Policy Revision Tracking Systems Utilized:
•

DYS Policy Tracking Sheet using Smart Sheets (Review, Editing, Tracking, and
Archive)

•

Updated DYS Key Terms

•

DYS Master’s (Hardcopy) Forms and Policies

•

CDHS/DYS Website

Revised 11/2017

Page 4

 Colorado Rulemaking Process: Deadlines and Timelines

 

 
  
      
 

   
 

 
   
     
      
  

     
    

 

 

   

 

  
 
   
 
   
   

 

 

 

    
 

 

 

guilt I gency makes - 
B?manen Notice published Progsjiegibgules mum 5 do;

File Notice . ,h in Register 25th of . . Hold

Of Rulemaking>Deadlme: 15 same month or Rulemaking
Hearing or end of month 10tht:f following 20 days Hearing
mon 
- may
request Cost- Minimum 20 

   
 
   
   
 

ene?t Analys'

  

If requested,
Agency ?les Cost-

ene?t Analysi

Minimum 5 days

 

 

Maximum 180 days FROM LAST HEARING
to adopt rules or terminate rulemaking

 
   
 

 

 

 

 

Continue
Permanent
Rules:

   
 

Rule published in
Register 25th of

   

File

   
 
 
 

  
 
   
 

  

    
   
 

 
     
  
 

 

 
 
  

 

 

 

Request AG AG Issues Adopted Rule Deadline: 15th same month or

A 09m" A 09m" A With 505 and 10th of following
OLLS [monthl*

Maximum 20 days TOTAL to Minimum 20 days

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 

request AG Opinion, receive after publication,
AG Opinion and ?le rule with rule becomes
SOS and OLLS effective
NOTE: The Colorado Register is published twice per month. .
Filings made from the 1st through the 15th will publish on the Rule PUbI'Shed
25th of the same month; ?lings made from the 16th through the In 0?
end of the month will publish on the 10th of the following month. effective date
Start
Emergency Notice published in
Bules: File Register 25th of

 

  

    
 

   
 

   
 

  
 
  

  
    

I eadlinez15th same month or
. rendofmonth 10th of fo  owing
month 

Request AG AG Issues Adopted Rule

Opinion A with SOS and
- OLLS

 

      
 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maximum 20 days TOTAL to
request AG Opinion, receive I I
AG Opinion and ?le rule with Deadline: Emergency
SOS and OLLS rules expire 120 days
after adoption date.
Rule becomes Exceptions:
effective on adoption PUC rules 210 days
or later date as stated WQCC rules 1 year
Rulemaking Agency in the rule
SOS Secretary of State

 

 

 

 

 

 

AG Attorney General 7 



OLLS Of?ce of Legislative Legal Services Rule removed from
Of?ce of Policy, Research,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and Regulatory Reform _Rule published CCR after expiration
ln CCR as close if not replaced or
Colorado Secretary of State - Administrative Rules Program to effective date superseded by new
1700 Broadway, Suite 200 - Denver CO 80290 as possible Perm or Emer Rule
303-894-2200 ext 6418 - rules@sos.state.co.us

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rulemaking in California Division of Juvenile Justice
California provides one useful example of notice-and-comment rulemaking within a state juvenile justice
system. The California Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), which oversees California’s juvenile facilities,
faces the same exigencies as the DYS. Like DYS’ policies, DJJ regulations address those aspects of facility
administration, programming and practice, including use of force, mechanical restraints, visitation,
contraband and cavity searches.1 In developing these regulations, the DJJ appears to have developed a
process that balances the need for urgency and efficiency in these matters against the need for rigor
and transparency. This process was put to use to develop revisions to DJJ use-of-force rules in response
to a 2003 lawsuit and subsequent court-ordered monitoring.
Under the California Administrative Procedures Act, the DJJ is required to conduct its rulemaking
through a process that includes public notice and an opportunity for public comments prior to the
adoption of a new rule or revision.2 When DJJ determines the need for an emergency rule without
holding public hearing it is required to publish a statement of “specific facts demonstrating the existence
of an emergency.”3 Unless these rules are subsequently approved through the normal notice-andcomment process, they expire after 180 days. The California Department of Corrections, which oversees
the DJJ, maintains a dedicated page on its website that lays out rulemaking authority, process and
stakeholder notification information for the DJJ.4
Like the State Board of Human Services in Colorado, DJJ rulemaking serves as an important public forum
for policy debates. Stakeholders with an interest in California’s justice system are able to track and
monitor changes to rules for both adult and juvenile facilities. Organizations and interest groups
representing a wide range of constituencies participate publicly in the process when urgent and/or
controversial issues are addressed.5 The Prison Law Office, a leading juvenile justice reform organization
in California, publishes information explaining the DJJ rulemaking process and its various public access
points to youth, families and other advocates who may have concerns about conditions or procedures
inside facilities.6
The value of the DJJ’s process has been demonstrated by the robust public dialogue that has played out
surrounding revisions to the DJJ’s use of force policies. In 2003 the DJJ began a review of its policies
surrounding use of force in response to concerns raised in a lawsuit.7 To complete this review, the DJJ
worked with juvenile justice experts to study and document the issue across its facilities. As issues were
identified, the DJJ implemented new policies unilaterally on an emergency basis. Each time, however,
1

DJJ rules and regulations comprise Division 4 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. The full Code is
accessible online:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?transitionType=Default&
contextData=%28sc.Default%29
2
For the full text of the California APA, see CA Government Code § 11340 et seq.
3
CA Government Code § 11346.1(b)(2)
4
See “DJJ Regulations” CDRC website: https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/regulations/Juvenile Justice/index.html
5
Organizations that monitor and/or participate in DJJ rulemaking include the Prison Law Office, Youth Law Center,
California Correctional Peace Officers Association and Children’s Advocacy Institute (see Children’s Regulatory Law
Reporter).
6
See The California Prison and Parole Law Handbook, “Chapter 2: Rights of People in Prison,” by Heather MacKay
and the Prison Law Office (2019): https://prisonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Handbook-Chapter-2.pdf
7
See Farrell v. Allen, County of Alameda, Case No. RG 03079344 (consent decree).

1

 the DJJ published a lengthy statement that included a “Statement of Emergency Facts” and “Policy
Statement Overview.” These documents laid out a clear rationale for the declaration of emergency and
a timeline for finalizing a permanent rule.8 California stakeholders monitoring the rulemaking process
received these statements in addition to regular updates for normal hearings. Once a complete set of
emergency use of force policies were developed by the DJJ, stakeholders had an opportunity to provide
feedback during two subsequent 45-day public comment periods. The DJJ was not procedurally required
to modify its final rule according to feedback received during these windows. In both cases, however, it
did so voluntarily. The final policy included input from organizations representing court-involved, DJJ
staff and vulnerable children.

8

For an example of a CDCR emergency statement, see DJJ “Use of Force” timeline:
https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Regulations/Juvenile Justice/Use of Force.pdf

2

 COLORADO

Office of Children,
Youth 8 Families

Div15ior. vouth Sen/ices
Anders Jacobson, Director

Ms. Stephanie Villafuerte

Office of Colorado?s Child Protection
Ombudsman

1300 Broadway, Suite 430

Denver, CO 80203

August 7, 2019

Dear Ms. Villafuerte,
To follow is the response to the Child Protection Ombudsman?s (CPO) investigation report_.
General Response to the Report

Responses to Recommendations

CPO Recommendation: To increase transparency surrounding its rulemaking process the CPO recommends that
the DYS:
a. Publish its Policy Approval Guide online. The Division of Youth Services will develop a system to have the
Policy Approval Guide posted online prior to August 1, 2019.

b. Publish any research, data or other rationale on which all future policies and policy revisions are
based.

c. Publish the rationale for any decision to ?fast-track" future policies and policy revisions.

d. Create a notification system by which stakeholders can receive alerts when new DYS policies are
finalized.

CDHS Response:
a. AGREE. The Division of Youth Services will post this material on their public facing website by
September 2019.

b. PARTIALLY AGREE. The Division of Youth Services will publish data and/or research on relevant
policies.

c. AGREE. The Division will add into its policy approval guide the definition of a ?fast-track" policy
revision process and examples of reasoning behind an expedited process. Should a stakeholder have
questions regarding the change, they can reach out to the Division and inquire as to why the decision

4255 S. Knox Court, Denver, CO 80236 303.866.7345 303.866.7344 
Jared Polis, Governor Michelle Barnes, Executive Director

 

Name Of recipient

Date

Page 2 of 3

was made. A contact name, email, and phone number will be provided on the policy approval guide
should any questions arise.

d. AGREE. The Division of Youth Services will create a system where stakeholders can sign up to
receive alerts on new policies that have been released.

 

Recommendation 2 - Agency: CDHS

 

CPO Recommendation: To expand and increase public participation in its rulemaking process, the CPO
recommends that the DYS:

a. Create an official process by which members of the public can submit feedback and recommendations
on existing policies. A description of this process should be posted and easy to locate online and in DYS
staff and youth handbooks.

b. Convene a time-limited working group to identify ways to formally incorporate input from stakeholders
at various stages of its regulatory process. The study should consider the role of various constituencies,
including youth, families, DYS staff, clinicians, juvenile advocates and members of the public.
Documentation of the group's work, including meeting minutes, findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the group should be made publicly available and posted online.

c. Create a notification system by which stakeholders can receive updates about policy revisions as they
are being contemplated, developed and finalized. These notifications should include information about
how and where stakeholders can participate and/ or provide input as determined by the working group.

CDHS Response:

a. PARTIALLY AGREE. The Division of Youth Services will accomplish this recommendation by posting
online and in youth handbooks. There is no staff handbook. The staff already has options to discuss
policy related issues and the Division of Youth Services has a plan to expand that process to all staff.

b. INAPPLICABLE: The Division of Youth Services does not conduct a regulatory process. It utilizes a
committee to develop policies and procedures for operations.

c. PARTIALLY AGREE. DYS agrees with CPO that stakeholder input is valuable and important. DYS is
concerned, however, that allowing every policy proposal and revision to incorporate a stakeholder
process will hamstring DYS and potentially create unsafe conditions for staff and youth. DYS believes
that the following strikes the proper balance between DYS receiving stakeholder input and DYS
conducting its business: under recommendation 1 stakeholders who have signed up will receive
notification of finalized policies. Under recommendation 2 members of the community can
provide on-going feedback at any time.

 

 

Recommendation 3 - Agency: cons

CPO Recommendation: The CDHS should, in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, determine
whether the DYS in compliance with the State Administrative Procedures Act for the purpose of agency
rulemaking. At minimum, such a determination should address:


810'. 
4255 S. Knox Court, Denver. CO 80236 303.866.7345 303.866.7344 5f 
Jared Polis, Governor Michelle Barnes. Executive Director a
't 

Name Of recipient
Date
Page 3 of 3
a. Whether the DYS is subject to the provisions of the C.R.S. §24-4-103.
DYS is not subject to the regulatory process when finalizing policies because DYS policies
are interpretive and therefore not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act.
b. Whether the DYS polices that are currently posted online constitute “rules” as defined in C.R.S.
§24-4-102.
DYS policies currently posted online do not constitute rules as defined by the Administrative
Procedure Act.
The outcome of this determination should be provided to the CPO and included in the CDHS annual SMART Act
Performance Plan, which is presented to the joint health and human services committee.

4255 S. Knox Court, Denver, CO 80236

P 303.866.7345 F 303.866.7344 www.colorado.gov/cdhs/dys
Jared Polis, Governor   Michelle Barnes, Executive Director