Thursday, June 19, 2014

Juvenile crime, incarceration down; extra capacity at TDCJ?

Mistakenly thinking the Legislative Budget Board had finally released its much-anticipated long-term prison population projections, I clicked on this link on their site only to find myself staring at a routine Monthly Tracking Report for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and the Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). Ho hum. Glancing quickly through it, I did see a couple of interesting items I didn't know.

Extra capacity at TDCJ?
From the bottom of page 1:
  • As of May 2014, the agency had 1,473 beds temporarily removed from capacity due to staffing shortages.
  • Also in May, 849 Substance Abuse Felony Punishment (SAFP) beds were temporarily converted into Intermediate Sanctions Facilty (ISF) beds. 
The report doesn't say which units shut down capacity because of understaffing, but 1,473 is a significant number. That makes me think the agency has yet more capacity it could shed, perhaps starting with units that can't keep their staffing up. TDCJ's monthly population reduced slowly over the last year, from 150,931 to 150,461, so basically flat.

That's where the long-term projections I was looking for come in. Sometime in June, LBB is scheduled to come out with an important set of official prison population projections on which legislative appropriators must base their various funding schemes. At a recent House Appropriations Committee hearing, LBB staff implied that the new projections would not show long-term growth in prison populations to the same extent as their last projection, which is now 15 months old. But we won't know for sure until the document is released.

If the downward trend continues, the Lege should cut more prison capacity and use the savings for treatment, rehabilitation and reentry programs.

Juvenile crime plummeted after Texas de-incarcerated youth prisons
Another fascinating tidbit from the tracking report: Despite having reduced the population of Texas youth prisons by nearly 80 percent after the 2007 sex-assault scandals and closed most of them, the average daily population of juveniles on probation statewide declined by 30 percent in Texas over the last five years, from 35,645 in 2008 to 24,896 in 2013. Referrals to probation fell over the same period, from 97,584 in 2009 to 68,386 in 2013, according to the report. And in schools, the number of Mandatory Attendance Days at Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs (JJAEPs) also went down, from 110,189 in the '08-09 school year to 73,227 in 2012-13. And that's despite the Legislature mandating that school police write fewer Class C tickets to students who misbehave.

Since juvenile incarceration fell almost 80% from its height after the Legislature first reformed, then disbanded, the Texas Youth Commission, what caused juvenile referrals (read: new offenses) to decline so rapidly in the years that followed? Many people associate incarceration with crime reduction, assuming prison keeps us safe from predators who would harm us if they were out. So how does the tuff-on-crime crowd explain such a radical reduction in juvenile incarceration corresponding to a 30-percent drop in juvenile crime over the last several years period?

Grits finds the rapid but inexplicable drop in juvenile crime one of the most remarkable, yet little-remarked stories in Texas criminal justice. A tremendous achievement. Too bad nobody knows what caused it nor how if at all it related to government policies, so it can't be readily replicated.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

As a 25 year vet of the juvenile justice system I have seen ebbs and flows but nothing like the current trends. From my experience and knowledge, though, overall numbers have dropped but the severity of the offenses have risen and the mental health needs of the juveniles we are getting are severe. Misdemeanants are not referred near as often as in past years because alot of law enforcement agencies feel there is nothing going to be done with the juvenile so why bother arresting them. Years ago we saw alot more contempts coming from the JP and municiple courts also that were results of CINS offenses but they have stopped sending them across, especially for truancy cases. The legislature provided funding also a few sessions ago for prevention and intervention services designed to keep kids out of the juvenile justice system so a large emphasis has been placed on diversionary programs. Overall crime is still there but communities are handling it in a totally different manner. If a broader study were to be conducted I am sure you would find the lower risk juveniles who have been detained for a misdemeanor are more likely to be counseled and released or placed on a form of deferred prosecution probation, resulting in a lot fewer formal probation case loads. In a nutshell, probation departments are working harder than ever to keep kids from beining criminalized.
GH

Anonymous said...

GH,

Nice thoughtful response.

Thanks. :~)

Sam said...

Before anyone gets too excited and gets out in front of the data, the drop in juvenile crime is for the most part a national trend. I’ve seen some people try to take credit for the drop based on local policies. For most part these, in my opinion, are dubious claims. What is causing the drop in juvenile crime? Maybe quite a number of things; parents not permitting their children outside as much, smaller families, abortion, computer games, the phenomenal use of smartphones by youth, lower complaint rates from ethnic communities and the aging of our population. While there can be no doubt that locking up dangerous repeat offenders protects the community the juvenile crime trend itself is due to much broader changes in the demographics of our society.

Anonymous said...

Sam Said.... I don't keep up with national statistics because every state runs their juvenile system differently.
GH... you are right on the money. and to add to that if you look at the rate of referrals of juvenile age population you will see a trend downward in overall referrals but a trend upward in rate of referrals per juvenile aged population. Referral statistics will show the smaller communities have seen the more drastic reduction, percentage wise, in rates of referrals. Medium sized counties have the highest rates of referrals per juvenile aged population while the large and mega counties have about average rates. A number of factors play into that, but predominantely larger counties have many more services than medium and small have available. Even amomng medium and small counties there is a big voide in services in rural far west Texas, south Texas and the panhandle VS small counties in central, north, northeast and southeast regions because there are at least large counties somewhat close to their areas. We get back to the same statements made in many years before now, each county is different and has different needs. Some counties do a better job of keeping kids out of the system VS those that don't have the means available to do so. I agree with GH statement of law enforcement not referring as many class B and some A misd offenses as they used to.

Anonymous said...

There is no true drop in juvenile crime. What is happening in the state level is that the larger counties are no longer sending youth TJJD because the lockup are so poorly run and corrupt. The counties are keeping the youth nearer to home and also the money stays in the county. If you look at how many youth have been sent to TJJD in the past year you may be surprised. I believe that Travis county only sent One youth to TJJD. The counties are starving TJJD to the death that it deserves by keep and treating youth near home and keeping the money in their on pockets.

Anonymous said...

In reality, it is all about the money, how much is funded, where the money goes, who benefits from the funding, etc.

The reason SAFPF beds are being converted to ISF beds is because
SAFPF died a death a long time ago. It ceased to be what is was supposed to be the minute the length of stay changed, the TTCs began closing, funding for aftercare services diminished, etc. This has been ongoing for over a decade and a half. SAFPF is no longer a therapeutic community, it is a panacea. It sounds good, kind of like Boot Camp used to sound good. its not staffed or funded at the level that is needed for it to ever be what it was in the early 90's (the Ann Richard's vision, that is so diluted now that it no longer even close to its original intention).

ISF is shorter term than SAFPF, so it is much more palatable for all the parties to agree to a placement in an ISF. Its always about "how long will I be there", "how long will my client be there", etc. Its about the time, not about the need.

What needs to happen is the system needs to choose what they want, do they want SAFPF or do they want ISF? Having both only confuses things. Both of them are prison stints, both of them purportedly serve the need for an offender to receive cognitive training and substance abuse treatment. But, the sad reality is those sending offenders to ISF and SAFPF have no idea what is going on at those facilities. Judges don't know, District Attorney's don't know, defense attorneys don't know, probation officers know a little, .....

Anonymous said...

In reality, it is all about the money, how much is funded, where the money goes, who benefits from the funding, etc.

The reason SAFPF beds are being converted to ISF beds is because
SAFPF died a death a long time ago. It ceased to be what is was supposed to be the minute the length of stay changed, the TTCs began closing, funding for aftercare services diminished, etc. This has been ongoing for over a decade and a half. SAFPF is no longer a therapeutic community, it is a panacea. It sounds good, kind of like Boot Camp used to sound good. its not staffed or funded at the level that is needed for it to ever be what it was in the early 90's (the Ann Richard's vision, that is so diluted now that it no longer even close to its original intention).

ISF is shorter term than SAFPF, so it is much more palatable for all the parties to agree to a placement in an ISF. Its always about "how long will I be there", "how long will my client be there", etc. Its about the time, not about the need.

What needs to happen is the system needs to choose what they want, do they want SAFPF or do they want ISF? Having both only confuses things. Both of them are prison stints, both of them purportedly serve the need for an offender to receive cognitive training and substance abuse treatment. But, the sad reality is those sending offenders to ISF and SAFPF have no idea what is going on at those facilities. Judges don't know, District Attorney's don't know, defense attorneys don't know, probation officers know a little, .....