This notice from the Texas Criminal Justice Coaltion (TCJC) arrived in my Inbox this morning:
New TCJC Report Provides Solutions to Address Jail Overcrowding in Texas
TCJC proudly announces the release of Costly Confinement & Sensible Solutions: Jail Overcrowding in Texas.
This report offers more than 60 front-end and corrections-level solutions to help system stakeholders identify smart-on-crime strategies that will reduce jail populations among Texas' 235 jails. Specifically, the report serves as a go-to guide for county officials, policy-makers, law enforcement executives, attorneys and judges, pre-trial services staff, probation and parole heads, treatment providers, corrections personnel, re-entry specialists, and other agencies and organizations interested in creating more efficient and cost-effective corrections and diversion models throughout Texas.
With approximately 70,000 individuals incarcerated in Texas county jails - almost 11,000 of which are misdemeanants - Texas has six of the 50 largest national jail populations. At an average per-inmate cost of $45 per day, counties are spending drastic portions of their budgets on the confinement of oftentimes low-risk, nonviolent individuals. Alarmingly, more than half of all inmates have not yet been convicted of a crime. In the absence of jail population management strategies, further jail construction will become a reality, and it will necessitate significant, additional resources at both the county and state levels.
Especially in light of an ongoing statewide budget shortfall, it is crucial that state and local leadership implement public safety-driven, cost-effective policies that tackle the root causes of crime and deliver taxpayers a return on their investment.
Please click here to download this report, and please forward it to your colleagues or others who may benefit!
Click here to download TCJC's press release announcing our new report.
An introductory letter from Adan Munoz of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards which declares the report is:
certainly one of the most useful tools for criminal justice planners and should be required reading for each stakeholder within the criminal justice community.
As counties face budget restrictions that will require them to make tough decisions, the information and recommendations contained within this report will provide officials with data and options to make informed decisions while still ensuring public safety. Brandi Grissom of the Texas Tribune was Johnny-on-the-spot with initial coverage of this detailed, 116 page report.
I read and provided comments over the summer on an earlier draft of this document (and appreciate TCJC's thanks expressed in the acknowledgments), and will likely have more to say about the report after I've had a chance to read the final version. In the meantime, local officials owe a debt of gratitude to our friends at TCJC for highlighting solutions besides new jail construction to this intractable, budget-busting problem for county government.
|
Is this report being sent to all country officials who have skin in this game?
ReplyDeleteI was told they're emailing it to stakeholders in the larger counties. Be sure to email the link to local officials where you live. :)
ReplyDeleteYeah, my husband is in their jail system for a bad check written over 20 years ago, and he was on parole, his parole officer disappeared and he dropped through the cracks (the parole office told him "dont call us, we'll call you!" and never did!) He had not committed a crime in over 20 years and TDCJ came and got him! He has been in prison for over a year and a half and goes up for parole in December. Another guy I know was picked up in CA for a parole violation when his parole was ended, and brought back-- his wife is in CA with 3 kids she is struggling to support! These guys are 'light offenders.' Let our husbands come home to their families!
ReplyDeleteOvercrowding huh? Then tell me why a young man who was sentenced to 3 years at TYC for a sexual assualt as a very young teenager, who he himself was sexually abused by his mother, was finally released to half-way house (well beyond the 3 years he was sentenced to). He spent another 9 months at the halfway house (they should of simply released him to other family members), but then he broke a "no cell phone" rule at the halfway house on 2 occassions. Not a big serious crime, but due to that he has now been sentenced to 5 years at a state penatentiary? He actually wanted to start college and was a bright kid.
ReplyDeleteThis report doesn’t seem to hold any real solutions to (spending) or (cutting cost).
ReplyDeleteIn fact it only advocates more government oversight and more government spending which is something the American people and Texans are sincerely sick and tired of being burdened with economically.
It makes claim to offer effective solutions which will in turn reduce jail overcrowding and help stem the tide of recidivism. But in the end if all or any of these suggestions come to fruition it would appear that nothing is actually cut from (existing government agencies) and a great deal would be added.
The different solutions of pre-arrest or diversion appear to be immediate temporary band aids that offer little more than a pat on the back for criminal behavior and will require adding something else to the budget, (for what?)
If the overall result of this has an end purpose to effectively reduce recidivism and jail overcrowding the true ratios of cost per capita compared to effective meaningful results per capita will show overall a poor result of investment as is always the case when bureaucracy is allowed to grow even bigger.
Tax payers are so tired of the “we have to spend more to save more rhetoric,”
Stop adding to the cost and start cutting; let’s find the simple solutions even if they are contrary to popular opinion.
Where is the money going to come from…….?
We are truly tired of hearing about how we are going realize all the savings after the fact. This sounds exactly like, “jobs saved or created,” or “a jobless recovery,” please!
Let’s get back to the elected judges (being judges), the police being the (police), the prosecutors being the (prosecutors) and Lawyers being the (Lawyers).
The massive bureaucracy that has been created to assist this process needs to be completely (cut out) not added to and they need to work together in order to rein in spending. This isn’t rocket science; it is well within the power and authority of our elected officials to make adjustments to cut cost.
If the sentences are too harsh or if economics requires that we lighten up then lighten up; if the fines are too high then lower them; if the conditions of probation are too much then adjust them; if the bonds are too high then lower them. These are simple solutions that cost nothing extra and if the extra fat of drug testing and interviewing and monitoring and anything else big brother can come up with to spend money were eliminated maybe just maybe the funds would be available for rehab programs.
This report IMO simply echoes everything that street-level criminal justice professionals have been touting for years as a way to fix jail overcrowding utilizing progressive sanctions over "jail therapy." Sure, jail therapy works for those who are deathly afraid of incarceration, but doesn't matter a bit to someone who has been incarcerated many times before. TDCJ could help the counties (and put to rest finally many of these expanded jail bond referendum scams) if they would manage the prisons more efficiently (such as closing under-utilized facilities as recommended many times over on this blog) and getting sentenced offenders off the county dime, but they'd rather cut the diversion and sanction programs that have been proven time and time again. We in probation are sitting on egg shells afraid to say or do anything since we have already seen our budgets for FY2011 cut in preparation for the cuts sure to be made by the Lege in the spring. Lets see if any of the talking heads in Austin actually read this report and listen to those of us on the front-line actually having to deal with the problems.
ReplyDeleteWhat is simply amazing to an extent that is just simply (amazing) is that in your analysis your answers revolve around spending yet you readily acknowledge the fear and anxiety of looming budget cut possibilities.
ReplyDeleteI am in complete agreement with your analysis in that anything that receives more attention will in all likelihood produce better results, but that does not address the money issue. These are bad economical times; they are not going to get better anytime soon and Texas has not even started feeling the true ripple effect of how other states economic nightmares are going to play out in our own economic problems over time.
The answers cannot be spending to save, they have to be cut to save and this really is simple mathematics. We do not have the luxury of fixing things with money when there’s no money to fix it, the economic problems will obviously continue to perpetuate and control the tempo of the success or failure of everything.
It’s time to face the truth and the sooner the better; our approach to probation is going to have to be more lenience because we can’t afford to continue jailing people regardless of recidivism. And in the final analysis the truth is the possible reduction of recidivism ratios are negligible compared to overall cost.
Furthermore:
More people are going to have to be put on probation rather than being sentenced to jail.
Sentencing is going to have to be reduced in order to keep people out of jail.
Bonds need to be reduced and handled by the private bail bond industry in order to reduce government intervention that again cost way too much money to do something that is already being done much more effectively by private industry.
Drug testing presumed innocent people needs to come to an immediate halt and this is really a pet peeve of mine to the extent that probation and parolees need not be tested either.
It is a complete oxymoron for lawmakers and law enforcement to advocate the legalization of small amounts, or the ignoring of small amounts, or the reduction of crime classification of small amounts of (drugs) be it marijuana or narcotics and in the same instance conduct drug testing.
It is legal or it is not, either we are going to punish or we are not. I have no problem whatsoever with changing how we prosecute it or if we prosecute it but if that’s what we are going to do then (immediately stop) spending massive amounts of money on testing.
It cannot be ok or just or in any way equitable when one individual is released or charged with a class c misdemeanor for possessing a minimum amount of drugs while others lives are drastically affected differently because of a drug test. Those caught with minimum amounts are just as guilty every time 100 percent of the time, “where there is smoke there is fire.”
These remedies will move court dockets quicker, reduce jail overcrowding, effectively reduce recidivism since all these people will not be counted by the bean counters because they will not be placed back in jail for various violations that now place them in jail immediately and reduce massive amounts of time and money spent seemingly without any other purpose other than to spend money for the sole purpose of overcrowding our jails, cut, cut, cut.
Changing the inconsistency of who to prosecute and how to prosecute for small amounts of drug possession whether it be possessed on your person or in your person and whether you be on parole or probation or and I can’t believe I’m even saying this (a presumed innocent person) or a non parolee or non probationer or a non pretrial criminal defendant and so therefore immediately (exonerated) from prosecution would by itself decrease recidivism rates dramatically.
So as anyone can plainly see there’s more than one way to spin what constitutes a successful study of crime and economics in relation to recidivism. Along those same lines I wonder how many probationers on probation for burglary have been tested to see if they have been burglarizing, is that something that’s in the blood?
What is simply amazing to an extent that is just simply (amazing) is that in your analysis your answers revolve around spending yet you readily acknowledge the fear and anxiety of looming budget cut possibilities.
ReplyDeleteI am in complete agreement with your analysis in that anything that receives more attention will in all likelihood produce better results, but that does not address the money issue.
These are bad economical times; they are not going to get better anytime soon and Texas has not even started feeling the true ripple effect of how other states economic nightmares are going to play out in our own economic problems over time.
The answers cannot be spending to save, they have to be cut to save and this really is simple mathematics. We do not have the luxury of fixing things with money when there’s no money to fix it, the economic problems will obviously continue to perpetuate and control the tempo of the success or failure of everything.
It’s time to face the truth and the sooner the better; our approach to probation is going to have to be more lenience because we can’t afford to continue jailing people regardless of recidivism. And in the final analysis the truth is the possible reduction of recidivism ratios are negligible compared to overall cost.
Furthermore:
More people are going to have to be put on probation rather than being sentenced to jail.
Sentencing is going to have to be reduced in order to keep people out of jail.
Bonds need to be reduced and handled by the private bail bond industry in order to reduce government intervention that again cost way too much money to do something that is already being done much more effectively by private industry.
Drug testing presumed innocent people needs to come to an immediate halt and this is really a pet peeve of mine to the extent that probation and parolees need not be tested either. It is a complete oxymoron for lawmakers and law enforcement to advocate the legalization of small amounts, or the ignoring of small amounts, or the reduction of crime classification of small amounts of (drugs) be it marijuana or narcotics and in the same instance conduct drug testing.
It is legal or it is not, either we are going to punish or we are not. I have no problem whatsoever with changing how we prosecute it or if we prosecute it but if that’s what we are going to do then (immediately stop) spending massive amounts of money on testing.
It cannot be ok or just or in any way equitable when one individual is released or charged with a class c misdemeanor for possessing a minimum amount of drugs while others lives are drastically affected differently because of a drug test. Those caught with minimum amounts are just as guilty every time 100 percent of the time, “where there is smoke there is fire.”
ReplyDeleteThese remedies will move court dockets quicker, reduce jail overcrowding, effectively reduce recidivism since all these people will not be counted by the bean counters because they will not be placed back in jail for various violations that now place them in jail immediately and reduce massive amounts of time and money spent seemingly without any other purpose other than to spend money for the sole purpose of overcrowding our jails, cut, cut, cut.
Changing the inconsistency of who to prosecute and how to prosecute for small amounts of drug possession whether it be possessed on your person or in your person and whether you be on parole or probation or and I can’t believe I’m even saying this (a presumed innocent person) or a non parolee or non probationer or a non pretrial criminal defendant and so therefore immediately (exonerated) from prosecution would by itself decrease recidivism rates dramatically.
So as anyone can plainly see there’s more than one way to spin what constitutes a successful study of crime and economics in relation to recidivism. Along those same lines I wonder how many probationers on probation for burglary have been tested to see if they have been burglarizing, is that something that’s in the blood?