For nearly 15 years, Colorado’s Child Protection Ombudsman Office (CPO) has been charged with ensuring first-rate services are being provided by the state’s child protection system to children and families.
However, the office’s new issue brief, “Surveillance Within the Division of Youth Services: How Current Efforts to Monitor the Use of Physical Restraints Fall Short,” reveals a significant weakness in their practice. It points to a lack of direct access to youth centers and the youth residing in state-run facilities. This absence is a dereliction of duty and a pressing issue that demands immediate attention.
The present ombudsman office’s approach of waiting for young people, their families, and youth advocates to initiate contact to help it identify trends is insufficient. This passive approach contrasts with best practices in other states, where ombudsmen or inspector general offices actively interact with youth within facilities and initiate inquiries immediately following events. Quick problem resolution and guaranteeing youth safety and well-being depend on proactive involvement.
The ombudsman office’s lack of consistent lobbying for Division of Youth Services reform highlights its incapacity to carry out its responsibility. A fundamental responsibility of the ombudsman is advocacy for legislative reforms, thereby ensuring that policies are developed to satisfy the needs of vulnerable youth. Without this advocacy, systematic problems go unidentified, and circumstances where DYS youth are at risk remain in place.
The lack of success coming from the ombudsman office’s efforts brings doubt about its general impact and efficiency. As shown in the August 2019 issue brief “Inadequate Access: Improving Transparency and Participation in the Division of Youth Services’ Rulemaking Process,” the Division of Youth Services — more specifically, the Department of Human Services — has ignored the ombudsman’s recommendations. Also ignored are its recommendations over the past two years, calling for installing and using surveillance technologies with audio capacity. This disrespect of the ombudsman’s recommendations compromises its authority, therefore widening the gap in implementing safeguards for DYS youth.
Either the ombudsman’s office must recommend the establishment of an inspector general within its office to manage this important duty or adopt and apply policies allowing qualified staff members to supervise youth safety and rights through direct access to youth facilities. Direct access would result in an immediate response to any problems and real-time monitoring. Protecting the state’s most vulnerable young people depends on this proactive approach.
The 15-year silence of the ombudsman’s office must be broken to restore confidence in Colorado’s child protection mechanism. This entails pushing policies to guarantee a consistent presence in youth centers and introducing and supporting legislative reforms. The office has no teeth to ensure the Division of Youth Services follows recommendations and performs required improvements. The present passive engagement strategy does not meet top standards in the juvenile justice sector and fails to satisfy the well-being of these vulnerable youth.
The ombudsman’s recent recommendations for better surveillance equipment inside the youth centers must be responded to by the state government. One sensible action that can improve transparency and accountability is deploying audio surveillance devices, including staff body-worn cameras. Still, these steps must be part of a larger reform plan, including direct involvement and advocacy.
Natasha Mitchell is an adjunct professor in the Department of Social Work at the Metropolitan State University of Denver. She has a 25-year career in the juvenile justice system.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.