TDCJ closure of 'Intermediate Sanction Facilities' exactly the wrong budget cutting strategy

Regular readers know TDCJ recently released its finally approved cuts to be implemented the current fiscal year (i.e., immediately, in the current budget cycle; see this pdf summary). And yesterday I linked to a story quoting the probation chief in Beaumont, who argued that cuts to diversion programming will boost much more expensive prison costs. Especially troubling in that regard is the agency's decising to close one Intermediate Sanction Facility (ISF), put off opening another one, and eliminating Project RIO, the main employment assistance for ex-felons in Texas.

It's hard to overstate how precisely back-assward these cuts really are, literally the exact opposite of the approach the agency should be taking. And they bode ill regarding what priorities will be applied as TDCJ makes much larger cuts in its budget for the next biennium.

It's easy to see why cutting employment and reentry services is a bad idea because every offender when they leave prison has a choice to make whether to resume a life of crime. Having a job and a stable income make the right choices a lot easier to make. That first year to 18 months is pivotal in determining whether an offender will recidivate, with getting a job and staying off drugs among the most predictive factors. Given that, cutting job assistance for ex-offenders quite arguably could increase crime.

Texas has loads of prison capacity (155,000 beds, mas o menos), most of it full, but in many ways we have the wrong kind of facilities. In the '90s, Gov. Ann Richards and the Democrats pushed to triple Texas' prison capacity, building large warehouses designed to incapacitate offenders, but mostly (despite stated good intentions to the contrary, the type with which the road to hell is paved), they never provided treatment, rehabilitation or reentry services, much less an effective means for judges to apply short-term consequences for probation or parole violators. The result: Even technical violators were revoked for a full prison term.

Intermediate Sanction Facilities are new units created as part of the 2007 probation reforms to give judges somewhere to send probation and parole violators for short-term punishment without revoking them for their full prison for their full stint. That way, somebody with a string of technical violations but no new crimes, in theory, could be punished for their noncompliance with short-term incarceration without TDCJ and Texas taxpayers having to foot the bill for their full prison sentence. The problem has been that judges have been slow to use ISFs and continue to revoke offenders for technical violations at higher-than-reasonable rates. According to the latest data, "In FY2010, there were 24,239 felony revocations to TDCJ, of which 48.8% were a result of technical violations community supervision conditions."

Texas' 2007 probation reforms were permissive, giving judges new tools and options, but if so many judges refuse to utilize those tools, that amounts to an "unfunded mandate" in the other direction, from the county to the state, and it's in the state's interest to limit how much extra cost counties can inflict on the state coffers when cheaper options are available.

This is what Grits means when I've argued for "finishing" the 2007 probation reforms: We've created mechanisms that could help solve the problem, but the reforms' effectiveness appears to have hit a wall after achieving initial reductions, in part because of noncompliance by key counties and nonparticipation by others. But the strategy is still sound: Reduce the number of offenders revoked for their full sentences on technical violations by, say, an additional 30%, and that's more than 3,500 fewer prisoners entering TDCJ to serve long-term sentences every year. It's not a silver-bullet solution, but it's a piece of the puzzle that would go a long way toward allowing the agency to close more units and stave off predicted, short-term prison population increases.

To make that happen, IMO the law should be strengthened to require judges to use ISFs for technical-only violations (with defined exceptions for special circumstances) instead of merely creating the facilities and giving judges discretion to do so. Too many - especially in Collin and Bexar Counties, but also elsewhere - just won't use that discretion and still revoke lots of technical-only offenders to TDCJ. If somebody's committed a new crime, fine, then revoke them. But if a probationer had dirty UAs, missed meetings, didn't pay fees, or even absconded, short-term incarceration in ISFs is often the better option. It's both cheaper for the state and gives the offender a chance to change their behavior instead of punishing them for years at the taxpayers' expense.

Regrettably, TDCJ's 2011 budget cuts go in the opposite direction, closing the North Texas ISF (whose contract expired yesterday) because, "Based on utilization trends and available beds, this facility is currently not required in order to meet program demand." Same goes for an ISF facility in Jones County which was slated to open last fall, but "Due to the slower than anticipated growth in SAFP/ISF utilization, this facility has not been opened and is not needed at this time."

The solution here isn't to close ISF capacity but to force the system to use them where appropriate, overruling recalcitrant judges by statute for certain classes of technical-only violators, even absconders when there is no other criminal charge (again, with exceptions for special circumstances, which I'm sure our friends the DAs and probation directors would immediately point out for us). Don't eliminate diversion resources because they're underutilized, force judges to use them before revoking people to prison. That would let the agency reduce reliance on long-term facilities in order to shut down older, more expensive units, as well as those with chronic understaffing.

I'd also like to see judges compelled instead of merely authorized to grant early release from probation for successful probationers sentenced on lower-level offenses. The 2007 reforms required judges to consider it halfway through the sentence, and the number of early releases climbed dramatically, though from a very low starting point. Much more, however, could be done. The main reason such probationers are kept on the rolls is that they pay fees that sustain the department's budget, a motive that will become even stronger if TDCJ's suggested cuts to CSCDs are enacted. But petty offenders clog up caseloads and divert focus from supervising more dangerous folk, and caseload sizes are about to skyrocket under the proposed House and Senate budgets. Plus, keeping low-risk probationers on the rolls heightens the chance that a minor incident years after the fact will result in a long prison sentence. Letting probationers earn their way off supervision through good behavior just makes good sense from the standpoint of managerial efficiency, reduced recidivism and simple economics.

There are plenty of other policy changes that could be made to reduce Texas' prison population without harming public safety, but strengthening diversion programming instead of eliminating it should be at the top of the Legislature's list. This round of FY 2011 cuts takes the knife to the wrong part of TDCJ's budget.

RELATED: From the Dallas News Crime Blog, "Dallas county officials warn that state cuts to probation will fill jails and prisons."