Civil Commitment
Civil commitment is extraordinarily costly and research does not show it significantly reduces reoffending risk.
Oppose Civil Commitment Due to Ineffectiveness & Cost
While aimed at protecting society, the civil commitment of individuals with sexual offenses has faced significant criticism for both its effectiveness and its extraordinary cost. Studies suggest that civil commitment alone does not significantly reduce the risk of reoffending — while consuming resources that could be far more effectively directed toward evidence-based treatment and prevention programs.
The Case Against Civil Commitment
Civil commitment is necessary to protect the public from the most dangerous offenders.
Research does not demonstrate that civil commitment significantly reduces reoffending risk. A Minnesota study estimated it reduced four-year sexual recidivism by only about 12%, while those not committed still had low recidivism rates (11.5%).
The cost of civil commitment is justified by the public safety benefits.
Civil commitment costs over $300,000 per person per year — totaling tens of millions annually for a small number of individuals. This enormous cost diverts funding from prevention, treatment, and community-based programs with stronger evidence of effectiveness.
Community-based cognitive-behavioral treatment programs reduce sexual recidivism more effectively. A meta-analysis found treated offenders had 10.9% sexual recidivism compared to 19.2% for untreated — and programs following Risk-Need-Responsivity principles showed the largest reductions.
Colorado’s Lifetime Supervision Act: A Closer Look
As of Dec 31, 2020, 1,649 inmates were serving indeterminate sentences under Colorado’s Lifetime Supervision Act — unable to be paroled without demonstrating “progress in treatment.” As of April 30, 2021, 1,101 inmates sat on the SOTMP Global Referral List awaiting treatment; 153 of them were past their parole eligibility date. At the FY2019–2020 per-day cost of $128.05, Colorado was spending $595,913 every month to house prisoners who could have been on parole had timely treatment been available.
Of the 285 LSA-sentenced inmates on the GRL who had been assessed, 50% were rated average risk or below. Only 14% were above average. Civil commitment by another name produces the same misallocation: scarce treatment resources locked behind queue and assessment failures, applied to a low-risk majority.
Civil Commitment in Colorado
Colorado’s Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Act (CRS 16-8.5-101 through 116) authorizes the civil commitment of individuals deemed sexually violent predators after they have completed their criminal sentences.
- Committed individuals are held in facilities operated by the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS), not the Department of Corrections — yet the conditions closely resemble incarceration.
- The process requires annual review hearings, but release is rare and the burden of proof falls on the committed individual to demonstrate they are no longer a risk.
- Colorado taxpayers bear the extraordinary cost — estimated at over $300,000 per person per year — for a program that research has not shown to significantly reduce reoffending compared to evidence-based community supervision.
- These resources could instead fund prevention programs, treatment, housing support, and community-based supervision — all of which have stronger evidence of reducing sexual harm.
Better Alternatives
The resources currently consumed by civil commitment programs could be redirected toward approaches that are proven to be more effective:
- Evidence-based treatment programs that address root causes and reduce recidivism risk
- Community-based supervision using validated risk assessment tools
- Prevention and education programs that stop harm before it occurs
- Reintegration support including housing, employment, and mental health services
Invest in What Works
Help us advocate for redirecting resources from ineffective civil commitment toward evidence-based treatment and prevention in Colorado.