|
Chapter 11: Public Safety and Corrections
Improve the Effectiveness of Probation Services
Summary
Incarceration costs the state 20 times more than basic probation, yet state
funding for probation services has fallen since fiscal 1994, while the demands
on probation departments have increased. A successful probation system is
demonstrably more cost-effective than additional prison construction, and it
allows offenders to work, care for their families and pay taxes. Texas should
consider additional funding for basic supervision and victim services to improve
the effectiveness of its probation programs.
Background
The goal of probation is to provide an alternative to traditional prison
incarceration by supervising criminal offenders in their communities. Texas
operates 122 probation departments, called community supervision and corrections
departments (CSCDs), which are organized within judicial districts in 254 Texas
counties. CSCDs employ about 3,400 community supervision officers to supervise
adult offenders placed on pretrial supervision, community supervision
(probation), or deferred adjudication (a form of probation that prevents a final
conviction from appearing on an offender’s record if completed
successfully). A monthly average of 251,000 felony offenders and 198,000
misdemeanor offenders served probation time in fiscal
1999.[1] More than 613,669 total offenders served
time on community supervision in fiscal 1999. Some are confined temporarily in
one of 39 CSCD residential facilities, while others must report to their
probation officers by a court order based on the offender’s criminal risk
and needs assessment.[2]
In fiscal 1999, 278,000 offenders were under direct supervision each day.
About 156,000 were under indirect supervision; 14,000 were under pretrial
supervision; and 3,000 lived in residential
facilities.[3] Community supervision officers use
many methods to supervise and rehabilitate offenders, including urinalysis,
electronic monitoring, restitution centers, boot camps, continuing education,
job and life skills training, and substance abuse treatment.
CSCDs apply to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) Community
Justice Assistance Division (CJAD) for funds by submitting a community justice
plan outlining current and proposed probation programs and services. TDCJ-CJAD
allocates funds based on legislative formulas and the degree to which programs
meet offender needs. CJAD also tracks and evaluates CSCD programs to monitor
their operations.
Increased Responsibilities and Caseloads for CSCDs
For fiscal 2000, the Legislature appropriated $205 million for felony
probation services, down almost $15 million or 7 percent from fiscal
1994’s total.[4] From fiscal 1994 to fiscal
1999, the felony population increased 13.3 percent, while the number of
probation officers rose by only 11.9 percent.[5]
While a 1.4 percent difference may not appear significant, probation officers at
a Texas Probation Association meeting noted that these statistics include as
probation officers CSCD supervisors and managers who oversee as few as one case
each. By contrast, the average probation officer oversees 294 cases, 110 of
which involve direct offender supervision.[6]
In addition to increased caseloads, probation departments must perform
additional tasks required by legislative mandates, including sex offender
registration, risk assessments, DNA testing, notification to victims of violent
offenders, additional data reporting requirements, community service
restitution, and literacy testing. In addition to meeting mandates and
supervising offenders, probation officers collect fines, child support,
victims’ payments, and court costs. While these mandates provide Texas
communities with valuable services, CSCDs receive no additional funding to
perform them.
Cost-Effectiveness of Probation
Probation is a cost-effective alternative to incarceration. Probation costs
the state $2 per day for basic supervision, compared to $38.71 per day for
incarceration.[7] During fiscal 1999, an average
of 251,000 felony offenders who otherwise would be housed in the Texas prison
system lived in their communities under CSCD
supervision.[8]
Probation is not as cost-effective as possible, however, because its funding
has not kept pace with its population growth. This disparity makes it difficult
for probation departments to provide adequate services to offenders, which in
turn leads to an increase in revocation—the removal of offenders from
probation and subsequent sentencing to jail or prison. A sample of 18 CSCDs
showed that the felony revocation rate increased from 6 percent in 1994 to 7.1
percent in 1999.[9] If this increase was mirrored
throughout the state, revocations resulted in an additional 4,120 individuals
being incarcerated in 1999, at an additional cost of more than $55 million per
year.
Given their caseloads and the new tasks allotted them, probation officers are
unable to spend adequate time in the community supervising high-risk offenders.
Carolyn Rickaway, assistant director of Brazoria County CSCD, has stated that
CSCDs are not able to ensure public safety because probation officers are
inundated with administrative responsibilities and do not have time to work in
the field. Some departments visit offenders in the community once a month, while
some do no fieldwork at all. On average, more than 85 percent of a probation
officer’s time is spent in the office instead of in the community, where
probationers live and work. Most probation officers feel that rising caseloads
and declining funding compromise their ability to adequately protect the public
and provide offenders with much-needed services. For example, the Brazoria
County CSCD has received inadequate funding for drug testing and consequently is
unable to provide any testing during much of the
year.[10]
Victim and Community Services
The 1995 Legislature required that CSCDs provide services to crime victims,
or their closest relatives if the victims are deceased. Victim services include
notification of the offender’s current status and conditions of community
supervision, as well as the date, time, and location of any hearing at which the
conditions of the offender’s community supervision may be modified,
revoked, or terminated.
The El Paso CSCD Victim Service Department makes an extensive effort to
locate victims, because contact information provided by the courts is not always
accurate. The El Paso CSCD also provides victims with additional services,
including restitution calculations and information about state and local
assistance programs, using grant money provided by the Governor’s Office
from the federal Victim Crime Act. Ten other CSCDs also receive federal grant
money, but the state has allocated no additional funds to help the departments
develop victim services programs and hire appropriate staff
members.[11]
As a condition of probation, a judge may order a defendant to pay restitution
to the victim for destruction or loss of property. If the offense harms the
victim, the court may order the defendant to pay the cost of necessary medical
and professional services. In fiscal 1999, CSCDs collected more than $43.1
million from offenders for victim restitution, an increase of more than $15
million from the $28 million collected in 1994, before the CSCD victim services
mandate.[12]
If a CSCD cannot locate a victim to receive the restitution payment, the
department deposits the money in an interest-bearing account. After five years,
the money is transmitted to the Comptroller’s office, to be deposited in
an auxiliary fund account to pay subsequent claims. In fiscal 2000, the fund,
worth more than $5 million, paid $18,000 in claims and collected $778,000 in
revenue.[13]
Along with victim restitution, probation officers must collect unpaid state
court costs from offenders. As of August 31, 2000, court fees have resulted in a
cash balance in the Compensation to Victims of Crime Fund of more than $234
million, an 83 percent increase from the fiscal 1997 balance of $128
million.[14] The fund has continued to receive
more from victim court costs than it pays out to victims.
Both the auxiliary fund and the Compensation to Victims of Crime Fund operate
as separate dedicated accounts within the General Revenue Fund.
Constitutionally, these funds may be expended only for victim-related
compensation, services, or assistance. Using a portion of this money to fund
CSCD victim services programs would allow CSCDs to provide enhanced services.
Some judges require offenders to perform community service work at
governmental offices or nonprofit organizations as a condition of probation.
About 212,000 offenders performed more than 8 million hours of community service
in fiscal 1999, contributing more than $43.7 million (calculated at minimum
wage) to their communities.[15] During fiscal
1999, offenders returned 42 percent or $86.9 million of the $205 million
appropriated to CSCDs to the community, either through direct victim restitution
or community service.
Problems with Probation
While probation can provide a successful alternative to incarceration, the
probation system nationwide faces serious challenges. A recent report, Broken
Windows’ Probation: The Next Step in Fighting Crime, states that the
current probation system has failed to ensure public safety, enforce court
orders, or help community-based offenders obtain necessary drug treatment and
other assistance they need to remain crime-free.
The main reason for these failures, according to the report, is that
probation programs are often inadequately funded and understaffed. Other reasons
include common office practices. For example, probation offices perform drug
testing infrequently, schedule tests well in advance, and do not provide results
to probationers until two or more weeks after testing. In addition, supervisors
frequently spend an average of only five to 20 minutes with offenders each
month. This does not and cannot constitute high-quality or even adequate
supervision, and does not protect the public from high-risk
offenders.[16]
Solutions to Probation’s Problems
The Broken Windows report recommends “reinventing”
probation to improve public safety. For probation programs to succeed, probation
officers must visit offenders in their homes day and night, checking curfews and
house-arrest compliance, and closely monitoring the actions of high-risk
offenders. Probation departments should work with criminal justice and law
enforcement agencies to offer comprehensive services to offenders. They also
should form partnerships with local community organizations, including churches,
schools, and mentoring groups, to help develop effective responses to
neighborhood criminal activity.
Collaborative efforts between probation and police agencies intensify
supervision and increase public safety. In a Boston program aimed at reducing
gang violence, police and probation officers share crime information and go on
joint patrols and curfew checks of high-risk probationers. By observing
offenders violating their probation, police and probation departments are able
to remove dangerous gang members from the community, reducing homicides and
assaults.[17]
The Texas Probation Association (TPA) has developed plans to demonstrate
that, with adequate funding, probation programs can decrease the number of
offenders entering state prisons. TPA recommends increased funding for basic
supervision services and residential programs, incentive funding for CSCDs that
reduce recidivism, and full funding for misdemeanor probation cases. TPA
believes that improving the quality of supervision in local CSCDs will improve
public safety and decrease the number of probation revocations. TPA also notes
that additional funding for residential facilities will provide judges with an
alternative to offender incarceration.[18]
Harris County offenders make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison
population. As of June 30, 2000, for example, state jail inmates from Harris
County comprised 29 percent of the prison population; by comparison, Dallas
County had the second-largest portion of the population with just 4.5 percent.
One reason for the large number of Harris County inmates is the area’s
limited number of residential probation facilities; Harris County has had to
close residential facilities due to a loss of funds connected with a state
lawsuit. Consequently, Harris County now operates only two residential
facilities, a “boot camp” with 384 beds for offenders 18 to 25 years
old, and a new residential substance abuse treatment facility with 100
beds.[19] This limited number of residential
beds leaves Harris County judges with few alternatives to incarceration for
nonviolent offenders.
A successful probation system is demonstrably more cost-effective than
additional prison construction. Keeping offenders in communities also generates
revenue, because probationers are able to pay court costs, fines, and
restitution. Finally, probation provides offenders with the opportunity to work,
care for their families, and pay taxes.
Recommendations
| A. | The Criminal Justice Policy Council (CJPC) should
perform a cost/benefit analysis of strengthening probation services in Texas and
report its findings to the 2003 Legislature.
The study should incorporate several scenarios including (but not limited to)
continuing existing funding levels and patterns of resource allocation;
targeting funding increases and resources to Community Supervision and
Corrections Departments (CSCD) that implement supervision strategies proposed by
the Texas Probation Association (e.g., less office communication and more home
visits, closely monitoring high-risk offenders, forming partnerships with local
community organizations and law enforcement agencies, and strengthening
residential or “halfway house” programs); and an across-the-board
funding increase to CSCDs to reduce caseloads and improve the overall quality of
basic supervision. |
| B. | The CJPC should study and make a recommendation to
the 2003 Legislature on the feasibility of upgrading victims services provided
by CSCDs by using dedicated funds from the Compensation to Victims of Crime Fund
and/or the Compensation to Victims of Crime Auxiliary Fund.
Constitutionally, both of these possible funding sources are dedicated
accounts that may only be used to provide victims services. As of August 31,
2000, the Compensation to Victims of Crime Fund Auxiliary Fund had a cash
balance of more than $5 million to pay restitution to victims who could not be
located by CSCDs after five years. For fiscal 2000, the state used the fund to
pay $18,000 in victim restitution. |
| C. | Appropriations for probation should be funded
based on four categories: Basic Supervision, Residential Services, Victim
Services, and Community Corrections Incentive Funding.
Currently, general funding for community supervision is divided into the
three strategies: Basic Supervision; Division Programs, which include
residential facilities; and Community Corrections, a strategy that provides
funding for alternatives to incarceration. The Division Program strategy should
be changed to fund only residential facilities based on the populations served
and types of programs offered. The current Community Corrections formula used to
allocate funding tends to favor suburban communities with large populations.
Instead, the Community Corrections strategy should provide incentive-based
grants for CSCDs that create programs to reduce recidivism. Victim Services
should be funded as a separate strategy because of the proposed new funding
sources. |
Fiscal Impact
These recommendations would have no fiscal impact. The CJPC cost/benefit
analysis and feasibility study should be conducted with current resources.
[1] Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Saluting our Employees: 1999 Annual Report (Austin,
Texas, March 2000), pp. 15-16.
[2] Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, “Statistical Summary, FY 99,” Austin, Texas,
February 2000.
[3] Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Saluting our Employees: 1999 Annual Report.
[4] Texas H.B. 1,
76th Leg., Reg. Sess., pp. V-9, I-77 (1999).
[5] Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Community
Supervision in Texas, Summary Statistics, by Wynde L. Brisbin (Austin,
Texas, January 2000), p. 6.
[6] Presentation on funding
allocations and caseloads by Jim Stott, Co-chair of the TPA Adult Legislative
Committee, before the Judicial Advisory Council Committee, Austin, Texas, July
13, 2000.
[7] Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, “Statistical Summary, FY 99.”
[8] Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Saluting our Employees: 1999 Annual Report, p. 15.
[9] Presentation by Jim Stott,
July 13, 2000.
[10] Presentation by Carolyn
Rickaway, assistant director of Brazoria County CSCD, before the Judicial
Advisory Council, Austin, Texas, July 13, 2000.
[11] Interview with Ray
Ramirez, victim services coordinator, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Community Justice Assistance Division, Austin, Texas, September 20,
2000.
[12] Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Community Service
Restitution and Victim Restitution Report: Fiscal Years 1998 & 1999
(Austin, Texas), Figure 5.
[13] Comptroller of Public
Accounts, 2000 Annual Cash Report, Revenue and Expenditures of State Funds
For the Year Ended August 31, 2000 (Austin, Texas), p. 156.
[14] Comptroller of Public
Accounts, 2000 Annual Cash Report, Revenue and Expenditures of State Funds
For the Year Ended August 31, 2000, p. 151; and Comptroller of Public
Accounts, 1997 Annual Cash Report, Revenue and Expenditures of State
Funds For the Year Ended August 31, 1997 (Austin, Texas), p. 321.
[15] Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Community Service
Restitution and Victim Restitution Report: Fiscal Years 1998 & 1999,
Figures 2-4.
[16] Center for Civic
Innovation at the Manhattan Institute, “‘Broken Windows’
Probation: The Next Step in Fighting Crime,” by the Reinventing Probation
Council, August 1999 (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_7.htm).
(Internet document.)
[17] Pioneer Institute for
Public Policy Research, Operation Night Light: An Emerging Model for
Public-Probation Partnership, by Ronald P. Corbett, Jr., Bernard L.
Fitzgerald, and James Jordan (Boston, Massachusetts, 1996), pp.
105-115.
[18] Presentation by Jim
Stott, July 13, 2000.
[19] Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, “State Jail Confinee – Sentence of Record,”
Austin, Texas, pp. 3-4.
|
