from the desk of Pamela Bisceglia, Executive Director

November 29, 2025, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Public Law 94-142 Education for all Handicapped Children Act and reauthorized in 1990 and 2004 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. May 12, 2025, ADVOCACYDENVER celebrated our 71st anniversary. The Denver County Chapter was established in 1954, by parents to address the lack of access for children with disabilities to public education.

We stand on the shoulders of the parents before us.

My journey: I am the parent of a child who was identified as having a disability at birth. My daughter was premature; her health was fragile. I took life one day at a time, I did not think about or plan for her future because I wasn’t sure if she would be with me tomorrow. 

When my daughter was about two years old, a friend invited me to have lunch at her home. For the first time I left my daughter under the care of a grandparent. When I arrived for lunch, there were several other guests, but my friend said, “I want you to meet June. You and her have a lot in common.”  I looked at this woman, many years my senior, but soon learned what we had in common was we were both parents of children with disabilities. 

As we talked, I had reason to wonder out loud what school would look like for my child. She said your child will have every opportunity because of parents like me. She remembered when her son was young, he attended kindergarten at a Denver Public School. The next year, on the first day of school he insisted that he walk to school with the other children in the neighborhood. She watched as he walked down the path of their house, pencil box in one hand and writing tablet in the other. Each day at the evening meal he would talk about school; the teacher said this, a boy did this, a girl did that; today we learned…  He was excited about his learning. 

About two weeks into the school year his mom saw him walk up the path to the house. He had his writing tablet in one hand, but she noticed he had his pencil box in his other hand. This puzzled her because the pencil box always remained in his desk at school. When he walked through the door, she noticed a note pinned to the collar of his shirt. The note said “We have determined that your child cannot be educated. You will need to make other arrangements for him.”  The note was signed by the principal. She was outraged. 

She and her husband went to the school the next day and met with the principal. The principal said it is obvious that your child is an “imbecile” and as principal of this school, I have the authority to refuse enrollment. The parents reached out to district leadership, the Colorado Department of Education and everyone stood firm supporting the principal and the school district’s decision. The year was 1954, and in 1954, children with disabilities did not have a right to a public education.

June joined the movement and lobbied first at a local level and then at a national level for policy that would afford her child, and all children with disabilities, a public education. In today’s history classes educators teach our children the important history of the Civil Rights movement/demonstrations in the 50s and in particular the 60s. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. were leaders who led the community forwarding change. Because parents saw these leaders discussing civil rights, they recognized their own permission to talk about the human rights of their children with disabilities. 

 Public Law 94-142 Education for all Handicapped Children Act was passed in 1975. For the parents who stood firm in the 50s and 60s, their children were too old to go to school, but nevertheless they took pride in the fact that they had opened the door to public education for future generations of children with disabilities.

We stand on the shoulders of the parents who advocated, lobbied and brought litigation to demand that all children be provided a public education. 

 We stand on the shoulders of the generation of parents and educators who brought our children out of separate classrooms in the basements of public schools and into mainstream classrooms. 

We stand with the parents, teachers and educational leaders who refuse to compromise the promise made to our children 5 decades ago, the promise of a free appropriate public education. 

The post 50th Anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

More than 8 million students with disabilities are served by our nation’s public schools. Since its creation in 1980, the U.S. Department of Education has provided expertise, funding, and enforcement for federal laws that provide protections and services for students with disabilities.

These laws, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), initially passed in 1975, established civil rights protections for students with disabilities and put in place procedures and safeguards to ensure that each of these students has access to an education tailored to their specific needs.

Recent actions taken by the federal government are a direct threat to federal ability to carry out both Section 504 and IDEA. These actions include:

• The elimination of entire departments that oversee special education. Without the staff of these departments, few, if any, experts in special education remain in the federal government.
• Proposals of reassigning special education to the Department of Health and Human Services(HHS). HHS is not an appropriate placement for special education oversight. HHS is equipped to cure disease, not to educate. We demand that the oversight of special education remain with the Department of Education.

If carried out, these actions would irreparably harm the students with disabilities who benefit from these laws.

A group of national organizations, including The Arc of the United States, are collaborating in efforts to preserve federal protections for students with disabilities. ADVOCACYDENVER is supporting this effort and encourages you to do so as well. A group of national organizations, including The Arc of the United States, are collaborating in efforts to preserve federal protections for students with disabilities. ADVOCACYDENVER is supporting this effort and encourages you to do so as well.

What Can You Do?

• Contact your members of Congress and ask for the complete rehiring of special education staffing at the Department of Education and oppose any efforts to move federal oversight of special education to HHS. The Arc U.S. provides this webpage that easily allows you to do this. 
• Inform yourself and take action. Collaborating organizations hosted a Town Hall on this issue on November 4, which you can watch here. They have also created a toolkit that contains position statements from participating organizations and other steps parents, educators, and other advocacy organizations can take to support this effort, including contacting other elected officials. 
• Spread the word. Tell others about what’s happening to federal support for special education and ask them to join you in this effort. Share this newsletter with others as well. If you use social media, consider posting about this issue.

“For 50 years, IDEA has had strong bipartisan support, and we are counting on Congress to ensure these firings are reversed. If not, the firings will have a devastating impact on babies, toddlers, and all children with disabilities, as well as on adults with disabilities who depend on these offices for employment supports. We must act now  to reverse these harmful firings!” — National Downs Syndrome Congress

Policy Perspective is a publication of ADVOCACYDENVER. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Baumann, Policy Outreach Specialist, at pbaumann@advocacydenver.org or 303.974.2535.

The post ACTION ALERT: Preserve Protections for Students with Disabilities appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

from the desk of Pamela Bisceglia

When Donald Trump was elected in 2017 my daughter said she was scared because “he doesn’t like people with disabilities”. I hugged her and said I would do what I could to keep her safe. Flash forward 8 years 7 months. July 3rd my daughter walked into the kitchen, clearly upset and said that they passed “Orange’s Big Ugly”. No disrespect for the president, she calls them as she sees him “Orange”; she understands that the bill forwards deep cuts to one of her lifelines, disability benefits. I hugged her and said I would do what I can to keep her safe.

Readers Digest version, of the “Big Beautiful Bill”:

• Nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts. (Approximately 17 million children and adults will lose coverage).
• Nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP food assistance.
• Defines a new private school voucher program that redirects public education funding to private schools. Private schools will not be required to provide protections to children with disabilities or to adhere to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and/or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Note: a state can opt out/choose not to participate in the program.

This morning, I put on my big girl panties in preparation for ongoing fight for disability rights. In anticipation of this bill, Colorado advocates started meeting months ago with public agencies to begin to define priorities for Colorado’s disability community. Although we will not immediately feel the impact of the decisions of this bill we know in the months to come, city, state and national budgets will need to be modified, worked, and reworked. We know that everyone will be touched by these cuts. ADVOCACYDENVER just celebrated our 71st anniversary, then and now a priority is to keep our children and adults in their home and community; then and now we spend our days and evenings advocating for the civil rights of individuals with disabilities. Today our work is to mitigate harm and to protect the human rights of individuals with disabilities.

For more information please read: The Arc US Budget Reconciliation Provisions Related to Medicaid, SNAP and Education

The post Big Beautiful Bill appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

It is important to know where you have been in order to know where you are going. The student pictured is a client. He is a Denver Public School (DPS) student, diagnosed with autism. In 2011 the student was assigned to an affective needs (AN) center program. The AN program is said to be designed for students with emotional disabilities, not students with autism, intellectual disabilities, other health impairments (e.g. ADHD) or other disabilities.

Each day, the bus ride home for the student was 45 minutes. One day he started crying “it’s too long”, got out of his seat and kicked the paraprofessional on the bus. The bus was minutes from the parents’ home, but the driver turned the bus around and returned to the school. The principal called the police and then the parents. When the parents arrived, their young child was in handcuffs. The police said that they could not take the handcuffs off, they loaded him into the police car, and because of his young age, drove him the hospital; they removed the handcuffs once he was in the care of a doctor. AdvocacyDenver worked with the family and district and the student was moved to a program designed for children with autism.

In 2011 and today a disproportionate number of Black male students are placed in the DPS AN center programs. AdvocacyDenver tried to work for systemic change with each superintendent and each special education director. We saw momentum in 2020 when the District initiated Project DISRUPT as a means to dismantle institutionalized racism. In the fall of 2020, DPS forwarded the following Problem Statement to district/school staff:

Affective Needs Center based programming is one of our most glaring examples of institutionalized racism with Denver Public Schools, which disproportionately impacts Black male students. In order to break historical and contemporary patterns of inequity, this system needs to be abolished, and we must reimagine how we serve Black students with known and suspected disabilities by designing and committing to the implementation of anti-racist, anti-ableist policies, structures, and mindsets.

The special education director promised systemic change. The project was established in 2020 and shut down June 2021. No steps were taken to resolve admitted issues of race and disability discrimination. Then and now the district admits that Black students are consistently overrepresented in AN center programs. AdvocacyDenver exhausted school and administrative remedies to try to resolve issues. AdvocacyDenver forwarded and resolved formal and informal complaints on behalf of individual students; however, outcomes did not result in systemic change.

On August 2, 2021 AdvocacyDenver filed a complaint of discrimination with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. The complaint was accepted, the investigation is pending.

On March 24, 2022, AdvocacyDenver filed a state-level complaint against Denver Public Schools on behalf of parents of Black students identified as children with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and placed in affective needs (“AN”) programs. The State Complaints Officer determined that AdvocacyDenver identified five systemic allegations subject to the jurisdiction of the state-level complaint process under the IDEA and its implementing regulations. Due to the significant number of identified Students and the voluminous documentation required to resolve the systemic allegations, the State Complaints Officer extended the 60-day investigation timeline due to exceptional circumstances. The decision was issued September 7, 2022.

• Conclusion to Allegation No. 1: District systematically failed to conduct comprehensive evaluations or make appropriate eligibility determinations for Students, in violation of 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.304 and 300.306(c).
• Conclusion to Allegation No. 2: District systematically failed to educate Students in their least restrictive environment, in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.114. District also systematically failed to ensure Students could participate in nonacademic and extracurricular activities to the greatest extent possible, in violation of and 300.116 and ECEA Rule 4.03(8)(a) and 300.117.
• Conclusion to Allegation No. 3: District included Parents in discussions about placement changes, consistent 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.116(a)(1) and 300.327. However, District systemically failed to issue prior written notice of placement changes, in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.503.
• Conclusion to Allegation No. 4: District failed to ensure teachers at two AN programs and (District) Facility School possessed required certifications and licenses, in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.156 and ECEA Rule 3.03.
• Conclusion to Allegation No. 5: District systematically failed to develop, review, and revise IEPs tailored to Students’ individualized needs, in violation of 34 C.F.R §§ 300.320(a)(2), 300.324(a), and 300.324(b)(1)(ii)(A).

The State Complaints Officer provided the district a long list of corrective actions and the timeline for completing those actions. The Decision, when published can be found at: https://www.cde.state.co.us/spedlaw/decisions

The decision is far reaching and provides a long list of corrective actions including training facilitated by Colorado Department of Education to all special education leadership (e.g. Executive Director, Directors, Managers or any other central District staff who support building leaders at schools with AN programs), school building leaders at with AN programs, AN Program Teachers, Facility School Teachers and School Psychologists and Social Workers who support these programs.

No doubt, the Superintendent will honor the order issued by the State Complaints Officer. We are all lifelong learners, and we are certain that the training will be welcomed by many; the training will offer staff additional tools needed to appropriately serve marginalized communities of learners. Now that we have talked about where we have been, looking forward, professional development cannot and should not be a one-time activity. Denver Public Schools Superintendent has the opportunity to make a decision that will serve students well into the future. The Superintendent can honor school autonomy on some matters, but firmly forward a culture/procedures that demand professional learning and compliance when it comes to Individuals with Disabilities Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Denver Public Schools’ Consent Decree.

The post Students Prevail in Systemic Complaint Against Denver Public Schools appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

From The Desk of Pamela Bisceglia

On February 6, 2020, a complaint of discrimination was filed by a member of Denver Public School (“DPS”) staff against the Principal of Inspire Elementary School. The complaint was filed in accordance with DPS Board of Education policy AC. The complainant alleged that the Principal discriminated against the student based on race (Black) and disability. AdvocacyDenver appreciates the staff that stood firm advocating for the appropriate treatment of the student and forwarded the complaint of discrimination.

The District conducted an internal investigation.  The investigation included a review of documentary evidence and interview of individual witnesses including the principal, the student, and his guardian.

June 16, 2020, the Investigator issued the findings; specifically, the Investigator found that the Principal used her authority to discriminate against the student based on his race, in violation of Board Policy AC and AC-R1, as evidenced by the following non-exhaustive list of incidents.

• The Principal used her authority to try to prevent the student from attending Inspire. The guardian provided the school with evidence of address.  Steps were taken by the Principal and her staff in contacting the Manager of the Apartment Complex in “Stapleton”, and informed them that the family was using that address as their place of residency, which caused the family to receive a ten-day eviction notice.
• The Principal documented the student’s behaviors in the District’s student reporting system, Infinite Campus, in a manner that appeared to build a case for removing him from the school under the appearance of safety concerns for staff and students. However, a white student with the same or similar behaviors was not documented in this same fashion.
• The Principal used improper student discipline and thereby failed to use the District’s discipline matrix outlined in Board Policy JK and JK-R.
• The Principal failed to follow hold/restraint protocols and implement Non-Crisis Intervention (NCI) guidelines which provide the circumstances under which holds and restraints may be used. The Principal failed to report the physical holds that were administered to the student’s guardian and failed to properly document the restraints as required by Board Policy JKA and JKA-R.
• The Principal repeatedly called DPS Safety and Security about the student. She also called the Denver Police Department (DPD), even though the student was only eight years old, and she allowed a DPD officer to interrogate this and other elementary students, without notifying parents in violation of Board Policy JIH. This led to the DPD Officer confronting the guardian and student and threatening the guardian about the possibility of her child being arrested and charged in the future. 
• The Principal demanded that school-based and District-based staff proceed with the testing process for an Individualized Education Program on an accelerated timeline so that the student could be placed in an intensive needs program outside of Inspire Elementary School.
• The Principal reported the guardian to the Denver Human Services on three separate occasions based on her assumptions that the student was not being picked up at the bus stop after school, being left alone until 9:00 p.m. and her own medical diagnoses of the student needing to be on medication and receive outside therapy.
• The Principal constantly called the guardian regarding the student’s behavior, asking that she come to the school in the middle of the day, knowing that if she came to the school the guardian would take him home because of the guardian’s concern for his safety and wellbeing. The guardian’s concern for his safety was amplified when she learned that he was being put in hold/restraints by the Principal and other staff at Inspire which caused her to keep him home and later request that be transferred to another school.

AdvocacyDenver understands that corrective measures were taken.  The Principal can appeal if she disagrees with the District’s findings.  Having said that, AdvocacyDenver expects that District leaders and the Board of Education will stand firm and will not entertain bringing this principal back to DPS in any capacity.  It is the guardian’s wish that the Principal, not be employed by any school district; the social, emotional, and educational harm caused by this staff is immense.  The student has always enjoyed school and although he expects he will no longer attend Inspire, he does not demonstrate the same thirst/love for learning.  It will take time for the District to restore their working relationship with the family.  It will take time for the family to trust that school is a safe, welcoming place.

The post Finding That Inspire Elementary School Principal Discriminated Against a Student Based on Race appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

From The Desk of Pamela Bisceglia

Dear Denver Public Schools Board of Education:

We are writing as advocates in the disability community to ask that you support the call of your colleagues, Tay Anderson and Jennifer Bacon, to end the human rights violations of school policing. In this historic moment spurred by the murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police, we call on you to do what is right and just and vote to terminate the Denver Public Schools’ (DPS) contract with the Denver Police Department and remove all police from the DPS.

The school to prison pipeline has been an issue that has been at the forefront of our work. This is an issue where AdvocacyDenver appreciates having an opportunity to collaborate with Padres, other community groups and Denver Public Schools to forward change. This is an issue that impacts black and brown male students and a growing number of female students, but it also significantly impacts students with disabilities. Students with disabilities are among the most acutely impacted by school policing, at risk of being criminalized at school. Between 40-60 percent of youth and adults in correction facilities have an identified disability. October 2019, we submitted a request to CDE and received a copy of what DPS submitted regarding referrals to law enforcement beginning in 2015. For 2018-2019 the available data confirms that that although 11 percent of the students enrolled in DPS are identified as having a disability, they make up 25% of the referrals to law enforcement.

Based on the advocacy referrals received by AdvocacyDenver and other community agencies, we suspect that the number of calls to law enforcement went up this year. That is, Denver Public Schools Safety and Security ended the practice of handcuffing children and instead elementary, middle and high schools were directed to call the police department. Parents report that they are called after the police and asked to come to the school campus. Fall 2019, the parent of a 5-year-old child with a disability was summoned to the elementary school, she was terrified to see two police officers with her 5-year-old black son.

We support a Board of Education Resolution that calls for the end of the contract with Denver Police Department. We support a Resolution that calls for a review of the role and responsibility of DPS Safety and Security officers. We support a Resolution that calls for an independent review when Safety and Security or the police are called to a campus. We support a decision to provide highly trained staff versed in working with a diverse urban population, positive behavior interventions and restorative practices.

It is time for DPS to invest in practices that improve outcomes for all students, including but not limited to restorative justice programs; increased use of school psychologists, social workers, and other mental health professionals; drug and alcohol treatment services; wraparound services for youth; and training for all school staff on restorative practices, conflict resolution techniques and trauma-informed approaches to meeting students’ developmental needs.

Respectfully,

Pamela Bisceglia
Executive Director

The post Community Endorses a Board Resolution to Remove School Resource Officers and Review of Role and Responsibility and Actions of Denver Public Schools Safety and Security appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

These meetings will be designed to garner feedback from the community on how these changes would impact them and will inform the Department’s implementation decisions. Each meeting will include a short presentation about current waiting list and enrollment practices and potential changes, and then time for open discussion, questions and comments.

DD Waiver Waiting List Stakeholders WEBINAR/CALL-IN Meetings

Dates and Times:

Tuesday, February 18, 2020
9 a.m. – 11 a.m. MST

Tuesday, February 18, 2020
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. MST

Wednesday, February 19, 2020
11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. MST

Call-in Information for all three meetings:

Local: 720-279-0026
Toll Free: 1-877-820-7831
Participant Code: 982280#

Webinar Link for all three meetings

DD Waiver Waiting List Stakeholders IN-PERSON ONLY Meeting

Date and Time:

Wednesday, February 19, 2020
2:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. MST

Where:
Community First Foundation
(free parking, accessible parking and facility)  
5855 Wadsworth Bypass, Arvada CO 80003
Unit A, Changemaker Room

The post Home and Community Based Services – Developmental Disabilities (HCBS-DD) Waiver – Waiting List Stakeholder Engagement Announcement appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

On July 1, a state law went into effect making it a class 6 felony to unlawfully confine an at-risk adult and a class 1 misdemeanor to abandon an at-risk adult. This law, enacting penalties for persons convicted of at-risk adult abuse crimes, was the result of hard-fought lobbying efforts of advocates within the Colorado disability community. Leading their fight for legislative change was Denver’s Director of Elder and At-Risk Protection, Jane Walsh. She says this law is a tool to get more abuse crimes reported and prosecuted.

Jane Walsh has been prosecuting crimes against at-risk adults since coming to the United States in 2007. Originally from Scotland, she has practiced law under three different legal systems to defend her passion. That passion is fighting inequities for vulnerable populations and protecting their right to live full and respectful lives.

How did you come to practice in three different legal systems?

In Scotland, you can start to train as a lawyer when you’re 18. That’s exactly what I did. I originally qualified as an attorney in the 1980’s. I practiced there for a short time and then I moved to England. I had to requalify because the Scottish and English legal systems are separate and quite different. I practiced there for about 20 years. I was finding my niche, learning a lot about how older adults with cognitive impairments and also people with disabilities were treated by the system and how little redress there was. Family circumstances brought me to the United States (USA) in 2007. I sat for the bar the same year I arrived. By the time you come to work in your third legal system, you have a lot of overview of how things are done elsewhere.

What brought you to prosecuting crimes against individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities (I/DD)?

I wanted to be a prosecutor here because the system in the USA is very robust for the defendant. It is more robust than in Britain. I wanted to increase awareness of inequity.

I believe strongly in justice for all. Justice for all is not something you can take lightly. Just like in any other area of life, it will be the downtrodden who are the casualties of a system that doesn’t really mindfully try to protect vulnerable victims. We need to fight for people who are being abused. This is not a third world country. This is a first world country, so all of the citizens in this country deserve to be supported and not be mistreated.

How did your work in the states evolve?

My first real job in the USA was as a Deputy District Attorney in Boulder County. I developed a Felony Unit prosecuting crimes against seniors and crimes against people with disabilities. I worked on a bill to expand the I/DD hearsay exception because I had two cases at the same time, both involving victims with I/DD. In both, forensic interviews had taken place. The statute would permit me to use the forensic interview in the sex crime case but it would not permit me to use the forensic interviews in the abuse case. I thought, ‘We have to change that.’ It seemed like we needed justice there.

What does your work focus on now?

I was hired in January of 2018, specifically because Denver needed to create a Unit that was addressing crimes against at-risk populations in Colorado. I’m out in the community training people on what they need to do in regards to mandatory reporting and how to recognize abuse of at-risk persons. I’m also talking to the older residents of Denver on how to protect themselves from identity theft and fraud. A lot of these crimes are not going to be reported by the victims themselves. All of the people around the individual have to make a mandatory report. That report comes into the police department and the police detectives call me. We talk about the case facts and decide if the case is appropriate for charging or not.

What kind of abuse is most prevalent in the community of individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities?

For the I/DD community, we see physical abuse, neglect, sometimes financial exploitation. There might be people living independently in the community who have criminals living with them, or exploiting them, or intimidating them. Within the female population, there is a huge problem with sexual assault. I don’t think we have fully addressed that; however, I think that is going to be the area which helps this become more mainstream for prosecutors because those cases are very serious. They are actually prosecuted at a much higher felony level than our neglect cases. I think it will be the sex crime cases that bring this issue into mainstream prosecution.

What do you consider to be your major accomplishments in the Denver unit?

I wanted to criminalize abandonment of an at-risk person and confinement of an at-risk person. I can’t bear the idea we have host homes where people are being imprisoned. I’m excited we got the change in the law. We reached a great compromise with that legislation and I think it is going to be useful. I’d like there to be much stronger laws, but getting something as a felony on the books is tough. We did that. It’s a deterrent. It’s a tool that we can use. I think that is one of the really big things that has happened this year.

What are your goals for the Denver Unit going forward?

My goal is to continue to improve community relationships so we can make the providers aware we’re here. With confinement, we want to know about it if it’s happening. People can certainly feel free to call us directly if they believe it’s going on and we can tell them what they need to do.

Denver DA Hotline to Report Abuse 720-913-9179
https://www.denverda.org/consumer-protection/

Catherine Strode is Advocacy Denver’s Communications and Policy Specialist.  She holds a Masters degree in Public Administration with an emphasis in Health Care Policy. Catherine publishes Policy Perspective, featuring interviews with state policy makers on issues that affect the work and mission of Advocacy Denver.

The post Introducing Jane Walsh, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Denver District Attorney’s Office appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

Disability advocates and the state of Colorado reached agreement last month in a legal battle over the long wait times for court-ordered mental health competency proceedings.  A Consent Decree was entered into as a result of a lawsuit against the state by Disability Law Colorado.  A bill introduced this Session creates alignment with the Consent Decree’s competency proceeding requirements and helps the state avoid violations and penalties.

Entitled, “Actions Related to Competency To Proceed,” Senate Bill 19-223, is a revised version of a competency bill that failed to pass in the 2018 Session.  The bill’s sponsor, State Representative Mike Weissman, says the 2019 version has bipartisan support and has been worked on extensively over the past year. He is optimistic that it will win passage this year.

Why is this bill important this year? 

It is important for all the same reasons the predecessor bill last year was important.  Bringing criminal proceedings against someone is one of the most fundamental exercises of power we can do in society.  It has to be done fairly and in accordance with the Constitution.  The Constitution requires a finding of competency before someone may continue to be involved in criminal proceedings.  Where there is not competency, it is not constitutional to proceed.  The state has been in a challenging place about those competency determinations for a long time.  It is even more important to resolve this issue and pass this bill this year because a federal court has now become involved.  We have a Consent Decree that is telling us to get our house in order.

What was the bill’s history in the 2018 Session?

In the 2018 legislative session, there were four bills to address the handling of cases where competency is at issue in Colorado courts. Senate Bills (“SB”) 249, 250, and 251 became law and are already underway.  The biggest of those four bills was SB 252.  That is the most direct predecessor to SB 223 this year.  There are some key differences.  There were some good things and some bad things about SB 252. The good things included ways to shorten timeframes and cause competency evaluations to be handled more efficiently.  Also, one of the good aspects (and this is preserved in SB 223) was the idea that after a certain amount of time has gone by and somebody is still not restored to competency, we should terminate criminal proceedings. The problem with the prior bill was the idea of providing competency restoration treatments in a jail setting.  The setting in which treatment is delivered matters a great deal.  There is not good research supporting jail restoration.  It is fundamentally not a clinical place designed for delivery of any kind of health care related service.  That aspect, coupled with some of the time frames, was the reason the bill did not become law.  

Why is what this bill proposes a better option?

There’s a strong preference throughout the bill for handling competency issues in the community. Community treatment and community restoration is appropriate because those can be provided in correct therapeutic settings.  It is not medically right to do this sort of thing in a jail setting.  Also, the time period (as specified in the bill) in which restoration services can be provided before a determination is made whether to continue the process or not is relatively minimal.  When necessary, there are inpatient beds as a backstop.  The state has a limited number of inpatient beds.  Those are to be used for the most needful cases.  The state has invested a significant amount of money over the past couple of years in bringing new competency beds and new personnel. Even so, there are never going to be enough beds (and there do not need to be) to address all of these questions in an intensive inpatient setting.

This bill contains a tiered system. Can you explain that?

What you’re referring to is the set of definitions in the bill about Tier One and Tier Two defendants.  There are a lot of people in the criminal justice system about whom a competency question is raised.  Being in a state of competency to proceed does not mean in a state of perfect mental or behavioral health.  Competency is a legal term but it is not the same as full health.  The bill talks about Tier One and Tier Two.  Tier One are folks with heightened risk and Tier Two is everybody else.  The bill attempts to set up ways in which Tier One defendants can be seen and evaluated more quickly. 

Who is this bill aimed at protecting?

It is aimed at protecting folks with a mental illness, intellectual or developmental disability, a history of substance abuse, people who have intersected with the criminal justice system about whom a question of competency to proceed is raised.  There is not necessarily one specific diagnosis.  The key point of constitutional law is if somebody is not aware enough to be able to assist in their own defense when criminal proceedings are in play, then we must not proceed with a criminal process against that person.  The way the criminal proceedings get started is an interaction with a law enforcement officer.  Somebody witnesses an attempted robbery, to use a simple example.  But, frankly, sometimes those interactions are not criminal in nature.  Somebody may just act out in some way that really does not have criminal intent.  They get pulled into the criminal process.  Where there is criminal intent, that is where the purpose of criminal proceedings is to protect public safety. Folks who may have those interactions on the front end of the system with law enforcement but are not doing so out of ill intent, that needs to be sorted out.  Timely competency determinations are a part of that.  

Catherine Strode is Advocacy Denver’s Communications and Policy Specialist.  She holds a Masters degree in Public Administration with an emphasis in Health Care Policy. Catherine publishes Policy Perspective, featuring interviews with state policy makers on issues that affect the work and mission of Advocacy Denver.

The post Competency Bill Will Implement Mental Health Consent Decree Orders appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

Last year, nearly one thousand cases of abuse against at-risk adults were reported in Colorado. In Denver, police report over a 200% increase in these types of crimes.  Adult Protective Services estimate for every report of abuse against an at-risk adult, many more cases go unreported.

A Colorado legislator has introduced a bill to strengthen efforts to decrease crimes against at-risk adults. Senator Jessie Danielson is sponsoring Senate Bill 19-172 which makes it a Class 6 Felony to unlawfully confine an at-risk adult and a Class 1 Misdemeanor to unlawfully abandon an at-risk adult.  Senator Danielson says this bill will cut down on this type of abuse of the most vulnerable Coloradans.

How did you come to be the sponsor on this bill?

I have worked on issues of elder abuse and at-risk adults since I was elected.  Having worked on elder abuse issues and having promoted the rights of Coloradans with disabilities, it was a good fit.  The issue of abandonment and confinement was brought to me by the District Attorneys (“DA’s”), area agencies on aging, and the senior lobby.  This is something that is happening in our community.    There are elder abuse statutes and statutes against at-risk adults. However, we are finding that these two particular types of abuse are not defined in statute as a crime.  We need to define them as crimes so that the DA’s can go after the people who are responsible for this type of abuse and prosecute them.  It attaches penalties to the crimes.

What kind of abuse does the bill specifically address?

 There are two types of abuse we are defining in the bill.  One is unlawful confinement; one is abandonment.  Denver District Attorneys showed me a photograph of a room where a grandmother was being kept every day. They left this individual in a little room under the stairs in the basement.  She was left with no food and no water, just a bucket.  That is an example of unlawful confinement.  When an at-risk adult is in the care of someone in this manner, we define it in the bill and attach a punishment to it. The purpose of this is to give law enforcement the tools to prosecute.  It is also an attempt to deter people from committing the crime in the first place.  The second thing in the bill is similar.  People are leaving, abandoning, dumping people they no longer wish to care for.  There was a high profile case picked up on the local news.  This man was put on a plane and sent to Denver.  When he got to DIA, there was no one to take care of him. He didn’t know who he was.  Ultimately, he got picked up and ended up at a hospital.  That is the type of abandonment happening that cannot be prosecuted under the current statute.

How do the bill’s amendments clarify the kind of caregivers it is targeting?

We don’t want to have any unintended consequences where good caregivers are somehow implicated in these crimes because that is not the intent.  The intent is to find the people who are doing the most serious kind of abuse and prosecute them.   Some of the language concerned the disability rights advocates and we have addressed their concerns.  The concept of the amendments is clarifying anything they see as problematic, where someone could be accused of this crime when they are not committing it.  We in no way want to implicate someone who has taken on the work of providing care in an ethical and caring way. When someone is a good quality caregiver, be they family or not, we want that care to continue.  We don’t want to intimidate caregivers.  We are not talking about safety measures in the home that are reasonable.  We are talking about people who abandon their loved ones.

How does this impact the community of individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities?

It impacts individuals with these types of disabilities because we say the crimes are against an at-risk person.  What I have seen is heartbreaking because these are vulnerable people.  For example, the case I described where the woman was kept under the stairs was one of the cases I reviewed to help with this bill.  She was a nonverbal adult.  When someone has an intellectual or developmental disability, they are disproportionately targeted for this type of abuse because they can’t stand up for themselves.  They cannot tell someone what happened.  It will have a positive impact in the sense that if this is happening to members of our community who have intellectual or developmental disabilities, we can stop it from happening because we can finally prosecute it.  We can deter it from happening in the future because of the penalties we put in place.   We do not currently give law enforcement the tools to stop it.  That’s what we are doing.  I think that is a crisis that needs to be solved.  It’s less common than other forms of abuse. However, it is still happening.  They need the legislature to do something about it.  

Catherine Strode is Advocacy Denver’s Communications and Policy Specialist.  She holds a Masters degree in Public Administration with an emphasis in Health Care Policy. Catherine publishes Policy Perspective, featuring interviews with state policy makers on issues that affect the work and mission of Advocacy Denver.

The post Bill Enacts Penalties Against At-Risk Adult Abuse Crimes appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.