"Must one smash their ears before they learn to listen with their eyes? Must one clatter like kettledrums and preachers of repentance?"
- Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra
The Texas Senate Finance Committee released its own draft budget yesterday, and according to initial reports it was more generous overall than the starkly sparse House budget. (See the Legislative Budget Board for all the relevant documents.) The Senate draft, like its House counterpart relying mostly on suggestions from agencies, continues to focus most cuts at TDCJ in community supervision instead of suggesting more prison closures (with the exception of the Central Unit, which is slated for elimination in both), but it does restore some of the treatment and diversion funding proposed for deletion in HB 1.
According to a summary provided to Grits by a local probation director, while the House bill would cut 21.7% of state funding for local probation departments (or $122.9 million), the Senate version would "only" cut 12.8% (or $72.7 million). Basic supervision, diversion programs, community corrections, and treatment alternatives to incarceration would all be slashed under the senate draft, but with less severity than what the House proposed. Also suggested for elimination was drug treatment funding for probationers from the Department of State Health Services.
Regular readers know I think even this level of cuts to community supervision is a mistake, particularly when the budget envisions closing just one of the state's 112 prison units, which soak up the vast majority of TDCJ's budget. If Texas is going to close schools and even community colleges (the House draft would close four community colleges; the Senate's kept them funded), TDCJ can damn well suck up and accept more prison closures. That's the only way to safely cut TDCJ's budget by hundreds of millions of dollars, which is the level of savings required under both budgets. And to reduce incarceration safely, the state must both change its policies and increase investment in precisely the programs targeted for cuts. The resultant savings from closing a half dozen prison units or more would be greater, even, than the paltry savings from eliminating probation funding, which is less like rational budget cutting and more like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm incredibly frustrated by these first two proposed budget drafts because they set up a false debate regarding criminal justice funding: "Should we cut community supervision programs more, or less?" That's the wrong question because it ignores the third, more sensible option: To save much more money, both in the short and long term, by expanding community supervision funding, emphasizing evidence-based diversion programs and progressive sanctions, and to take all the budget savings out of prison closures, with the added bonus of revenue from land sales in addition to reducing the number of state employees.
To do that, however, would require changes in policy to reduce incarceration levels in addition to lowering TDCJ's budget. In this recent post Grits suggested a number of policy changes that would help them achieve that goal:
- Adjust drug sentences downward by one level
- Adjust theft categories for inflation
- Expand funding for (much less expensive) community-based treatment and diversion programs
- Repeal post-'93 "boutique" enhancements passed on behalf of special interests
- Make medical parole more widely available for geriatric inmates (whose healthcare costs are greatest)
- Parole and deport most illegal immigrant inmates after they've completed their minimum sentences.
- Mandate that the parole board apply good-time and earned-time credits against time served in release decisions for certain offenders
Ironically, this morning I noticed a couple of stories about a delegation from Florida who visited Texas yesterday to learn about our community supervision and diversion programs, hoping to emulate the state's investments to avoid more prison building the Sunshine state cannot afford. Of course, those are precisely the programs the House and Senate budgets place on the chopping block, despite warnings from their own number crunchers that doing so would increase overall incarceration costs.
See related, recent Grits posts:
- Whither Texas prison healthcare with 24% budget cuts?
- Adult probation cuts detailed from just-filed House budget bll
- Texas corrections budget at second glance
- Corrections budget cuts concentrated in community supervision, set TDCJ up to fail
- Sugar Land anxious to get rid of 'unwelcome neighbor'
- Justice solutions offered at TPPF orientation
- Texas budget shortfall dwarfs corrections budgets
.jpg)
36 comments:
Absolutely agree with you Grits. This is less of a "cutting" and more of a "gutting". Coming from community corrections, you can't ask us to take these type cuts, AND attempt at keeping the revocation numbers/TDCJ referrals down. We were mandated a 7% over the biennium raise that was state funded, which now falls to the departments to either cut the salaries back by 7% and risk losing employees, or swallow that increase as well as reduced fundings from every side, and still perform some sort of "supervision" and "rehabilitation". Take the complete and total cutting of any Misdemeanor funding. That in essence reduces your misdemeanor supervision to nothing but mailed in forms and fee collections to fund the other "programs" in your department.
I don't know how they dont see this as lose lose for everyone involved.
Grits, you could have just merged your seven policy change recommendations into one umbrella suggestion:"coddle criminals," and we would have got the gist of it.
8:28, we all eagerly await your budget cutting suggestions. And when you give them, I just know you'll grow some cojones and sign your name to your proposals, right? Punk.
The nutty part about 8:28's comment is that it's the House and Senate who want to eliminate ALL funding for supervising misdemeanor probation - you know, like first and second DWIs, shoplifters, spousal abusers - but somehow it's GRITS who wants to "coddle criminals"!!
I don't always agree with Grits, but let's be real. If he wrote on this blog that the sun sets in the West, 8:28 would say it proved he's "soft on crime," "coddles criminals," or whatever.
I agree, TxCSO. Scott, since we all know that what we are seeing now in these initial salvos is not what we are going to end up with. I know you don't have a crystal ball, but, in your considerably educated opinion, what would be your best guess scenario for these CJ cuts, when the rubber finally meets the road, I guess in May. BTW, are we required to have a budget bill in the regular session, or can that extend to any a special session, say, if one were called for another reason? Ok, think I just discovered that that was a dumb question. Anyway,your loyal and admiring readers hereby give you permission to ignore idiots like 8:28. (hard to resist responding to them, though, isn't it?)
What is hilarious is Misdemeanor Offenders are often the most difficult to supervise. For example, the hot check writer who is really addicted to illict substances or the possession of marijuana offender who is really an alcoholic in serious need of residential treatment. The examples really could go on forever.
It isn't about the crime that was committed, it is about the behavior leading up to the offense against the laws of the State. It is about the criminogenic need that is being met for the offender through the non-law abiding behavior.
What I mean by hilarious is no funding for the supervision of the misdemeanor which was already underfunded is actually sad, not funny. What may happen is many courts will stop probating misdemeanor offenders and the misdemeanant will go directly to jail causing a silly explosion of county jail confinement.
Additionally, the jail sentences for these misdemeanors will most likley by for 15 days, 30 days, maybe 90 days but they will all be released for good time, something like 3 for 1 credit. So, the defendant will get off the County Court at Law Docket only to return to the docket soon and all the while there never was a supervision plan developed by a community corrections professional with the intent to stop the non-law abiding behavior.
Who knows, maybe these misdemeanants will continue to be probated, but it is inevitable that adult probation will decide to undersupervise them (i.e., just collect a form and a payment), with that decision being made based on funding. So sad.
Don, I have no idea where we'll end up. These budgets frame the debate in an unfortunate way, and TDCJ, by simply refusing to propose scenarios that include prison closures, has so far succeeded in keeping them (mostly) off the table.
For that to change, legislators will have to impose the idea on the agency from without. TDCJ clearly is not going to suggest more prison closures or even supply information for legislators to make that analysis unless they're absolutely forced to. They're banking on the fact that the cuts they've suggested are untenable, no doubt hoping they'll get away in the end with no cuts at all. IMO that sort of brinkmanship places internal bureaucratic priorities over public safety. If they're going to cut, cutting the institutional division, where most of the jobs are, makes a lot more sense in terms of both savings and safety.
9:31, be sure to tell that to your state rep and senator. If you don't know who they are, check here.
If legislators expect the counties to pick up funding for misdemeanors, they need to be UA'd to see what they're smoking. Do they think CSCDs will supervise the misdemeanors for free? Do they want misdemeanor DWI and Domestic Assault defendants walking around without any supervision? Even though misdemeanor funding is only something like 70 cents per day for 182 days ($127.40), it ultimately adds up, especially in medium and large sized departments.
The longer you keep people incarcerated, the less they can contribute to society by means of working and paying taxes, supporting their families etc. Keep people incarcerated until they are too old or sick to work simply builds a further dependent state for your own future.
Could prison Officers retrain as parole officers? Somehow I doubt it, simply because it takes a different mind set. Parole and probation officers should not be of the mind set to punish, but to supervise and to aid rehabilitative behaviour.
How do Texans expect the corrections system they keep demanding to be paid for without a state income tax?
Good points Grits you're right on.
Scott - obviously I should only try and comment during the week and not Saturdays!
While the Senate version make me feel a little better, I'm still pissed about probation being on the low end of the food chain. Back in 2003, when a 52% cut to probation was recommended, the argument was that it was a ploy to show the legislature what could happen to the prison population if probation was cut in half. Perhaps we are once again being offered up on the altar. I contacted our local MADD representative yesterday to make sure she understood about the possible implications of cutting all misdemeanor funding. She expressed her strong concern about the cuts and promised to advise her colleagues. This is only a starting point. A lot of work is ahead of us, but it saddens me to know that we still have to fight so hard to prove what we are doing is helping to solve the problem.
•Parole and deport most illegal immigrant inmates after they've completed their minimum sentences.
Which ones do you advocate not deporting?
Reference to misdemeanor probation, why not just do away with it all together. It's kind of like the jail commission, I'm good when I see you, bad when I don't.
11:15, I don't have a strong opinion about where you draw the bright line on parole/deportation. It sorta depends on what you think is the purpose of punishment. If you think it's for retribution, you want people punished regardless of immigration status. If you're solely worried about incapacitation or utility, you're more likely to favor wider application, especially for those with no history of illegal reentry.
I phrased it that way because I know that for murderers and (even more so) certain sex offenders, there are some folks key legislators want locked up as long as possible for purely retributive reasons. So I don't think it's an idea that can or will be applied to every illegal immigrant in TDCJ (which btw is not a large number, percentage-wise - in the low single digits). But for those in for DWI, for example, or low-level drug and property crimes, I'd rather deport them when their minimum sentences are up than close more neighborhood schools so the state can pay to incarcerate them.
On eliminating misdemeanor probation, it's not politically possible for DWI and a few other Culture-Waresque touchstones, but it's probably a good idea in most cases - certainly a better idea than trying to do the same job without state funding or getting all your money from already too-high probationer fees.
Is there any hardcore data that suggests misdemeanor probation lowers reoffending?
Steve, I agree with you that they must be smoking something, and also about the totally shortsightedness of 0 funding misdemeanor probation. On the other hand, if they are going to cut every program that probation has to work with, diversion programs, substance abuse treatment and counseling, things like TAIP, education programs, vocational programs, shoplifting programs, domestic violence programs, and on and on ad nauseum, then that leaves little point in continuing the measly 70 cents per day. Not? And, don't forget, this is just the CJAD side. They will also be cutting programs funded through TDSHS. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Education; possibly the DWI Education Programs and DWI Intervention Programs like I provide in Lubbock. Also something to think about. If, as most of us hope, the DRP is repealed, we will see more misdemeanor DWI's being prosecuted as DWI's. If we don't have these programs; indeed even misdemeanor probation, many of these people will just serve jail time and get no supervision or programming at all, thus insuring an increase in your felony caseload, in the future. Guess my point is, there are so many ancillary and untended consequences to all this it makes your head swim. Anyway, thanks for commenting, Steve. We have some, but not too many, Lubbock and area folks who participate in this great blog.
To anon. 12:24. Of course not. We just do it to keep a few CSO's employed and irritate some offenders and their families. Why do you suppose TDCJ always chooses this to cut? Could it be because they know that it ultimately increases their prized prison population? Holy Cow.
Could somebody answer me a question? Out of this string of comments, we have 4 people who are willing to let anybody know who they are. Sometimes, even a smaller percentage. Why is that?
Thanks Grits for your informative response.
Thanks for the sarcasm Don and good luck keeping your job. :)
Twas ever thus, Don @ 12:56. Mostly it's because people are afraid, for various reasons, usually of losing their job.
That said, to me, if you're writing in anonymity out of fear, that should carry with it a dose of humility, and the understanding that anonymous speech is less likely to be taken seriously. Anonymous writers must demonstrate they know what they're talking about, as exemplified by the first comment in this string from TxCSO. Giving that kind of informed perspective a voice is worth the cost of admission.
What's objectionable is someone who writes anonymously because their goal is to become a disruption, hiding behind anonymity like their mother's skirt to lob insults and lampooned pejoratives. Such cowards deserve no more respect or regard than a cow turd in one's path - noticed only insofar as to be avoided.
Anonymity allows for constructive speech from those who wouldn't/couldn't speak otherwise, but regrettably it also seems to invite the taunts and tirades of the schoolyard bully from the least mature among us. Over the years I've decided that the volume of constructive anonymous commentary justifies living with the garbage spewed out by pusillanimous trolls, but there are certainly days when it's a borderline call.
To Anon. 1:18:
What sarcasm?
What job? :/
Thanks for the explanation, Scott.
Scott:
Excellent job of explanation and motivation on the projected cuts. One area that seems to being overlooked is the proposed $2000,000.00 cut to TDCJ victim services Division.
This would virtually eliminate the Division.
While victims of crime, by that I am referring to immediate victims, not the John Donne ripple variety, are not usually a focus of your posts, They have evolved into one of the pillars of the criminal justice process. It isn't just about the offender.The Victim Services Division provides immediate services to victim's of crime,as well as providing a necessary liaison between the public and TDCJ. While we can debate the necessity of victim's input into such things as parole decisions and release conditions,
The projected cuts to the most significant inter-active organization providing guidance and a myriad of other services to crime victim's are unconscionable, and should be taken off the table immediately.
Furthermore, what attacks are being made to the Dedicated Crime Victim's Compensation fund?
"Furthermore, what attacks are being made to the Dedicated Crime Victim's Compensation fund?"
There would be more money in that pot if the TDCJ inmate phone system were expanded sensibly to include pre-paid overseas calls and to allow calls to registered cell phone numbers.
Can I ask something though, how does the Victim Services Division help those who are an inmate and also a victim?
Fly that flag properly or get rid of it.
Gritsforbreakfast said...
TDCJ clearly is not going to suggest more prison closures or even supply information for legislators to make that analysis unless they're absolutely forced to.
~~Scott, this is the REALITY of Texas politics as has been suggested here over and over again. It's time to call the people in charge of state government what they are, collectively. IDIOTS!~~
It's sad that we have sepnt all this money to establish programs that do work (even if not as well as we would like them to) and now we are faced with simply "warehousing" felons. I work in a prison but I'm not a CO or security. I work in education. Those programs give the felons who will be going home a chance to NOT come back. Yes they are not cheap but they are far cheaper than housing and caring for a person in prison. The various studies that have been done tout the success in providing both educational and job training for offenders who will be released. Many of them do NOT come back once they have attained a GED and job training or a degree.
My beef does come into play when we continue to "grandfather" offenders into progam that will NOT be of benefit to society. For those of you who do not know what this means, it is providing training and or education to someone who has little if any chance of ever being released. For example, I do not like the idea of providing state funds for a college degree or certificate to someone who is serving a capital murder conviction without possiblity of parole. It is fine with me if they PAY up front for their education, but I do not think the taxpayers should be paying for an education that the person will not be using to benefit anyone in society. Just because the money is there does not mean it should be used for this purpose. There are plenty of other offenders who WILL go home and who could pay back this money by paying taxes and also paying the state back in actual payments. Texas no longer has scads of money (if we ever really did ) to just throw into the air and see where it lands. Well not unless you are Gov Perry and live in a $10,0000 rental and have state funds to support yor style of living. Maybe his housing and living expense budget should be cut by the same amount he is wanting everyone else to cut theirs?
Isn't it raining yet????? If it's not raining when will it be raining? When there is no one left to pay taxes becasue we don't have job? That is no one but the e very rich?
You want to fix the phones then
Increase the minutes, and follow their own rules!! Once again it say's no MAJOR cases but most units take away phone calls due to the catch 21, I have tried to tell many about when a minor case says no recreation than no phone calls because of the phone locations in some units. To me it seems like any form of rehabilitation in the sytem ie, visitation, education and phone use is what the units discourage the most by taken it away or making it so difficult to use. You have to hire people with common sense to make anything work.
Don,
By the way, I don't post with my name just becasue it's not a good idea for me to do so because of where I work. While I am at home in front of my own computer and I am not using state funds or time to post this, I still don't know exactly who is reading this blog. I don't think I could be fired for expressing my opinion but you just never know. My first name is unusual enough that it could identify me.
Make the parole board follow the law. But wait they answer to no one even though everyone else in this country has to answer to some one. You see they think they are judges and sometimes even God almighty. They should be tried for crimes against humanity and put in prison.
I do not post with my name because TDCJ and the parole board does retaliate against people in prison. Oh they say they do not but they are a bunch of criminals you can't believe nothing they say.
The state lawmakers in 2007 pass legislation about offender phone use. Read the TDCJ policies on this. How can the warden at the Units break the law? The policies says only major cases can restrict phone use for 90 days. They do this under a catch 21 for minor cases and take the right of phones away for 30 days under minor cases. Their reasoning is the the phones are located in the recreation rooms and no recreation means no phone use. This is not what the law says.
The phone system is a cow cash; however, the people in charge of TDCJ are too stupid to see this. They do not have entrepenirship in their genee. Their genes are generational draconian that only can not see past abuse and human sufferage. They are not smart enough to take advantage of a real money making business because it does not involve human right abuses, degrading and humiliating pratices.
Our lawmakers will not force the people running TDCJ to follow the laws they pass because they have neither the courage or integrity.
Our lawmakers can not stomach the truth of what actually happens inside of TDCJ
Don,
Some of us too stay anonymous for a couple of reasons.
My two reasons are if I create a login to be able to comment then I must report it to authorities according to Art. 62 of the Texas Code. And secondly, My home has already been painted twice, and my bushes set on fire, and both of my cars damaged once due my inclusion on the registry. I will not open myself up to the next self-righteous asshole to come back a fourth time.
Post a Comment