Showing posts with label Bell County. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bell County. Show all posts

Friday, February 05, 2016

More on mulcting probationers for fees in Bell County, Texas

In a recent post ("Probation Fines Contribute to 'Debtor's Prison' Problem in Texas"), Grits contributing writer Sandra Guerra Thompson linked to a report from the Robina Institute analyzing the Bell County probation system based on an analysis of records and interviews with dozens of probation and court officials, plus multiple focus groups with probationers. The whole thing is worth reading, but I thought it worthwhile to pull out a few highlights from the densely packed 25-page document.

For Bell County, "In 2014, the average length of probation sentences pronounced for misdemeanor cases was 14 months; for felonies it was 74 months or approximately 6 years."

The report cites a statute allowing courts to extend the length of probation for nonpayment of fees. In particular, the authors noted, "If the term of community supervision is extended, the term for a first, second, or third degree felony cannot exceed ten years. For a misdemeanor, an extension may not cause the defendant’s term to exceed three years unless the  extension is based on the defendant’s failure to pay fines, costs, or restitution, in which case the term may be extended for a further two years if the court finds an extension would increase the likelihood of payment. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12 §§ 21(b-2), 22."

Here's a bit of salient  detail about probation revocations:
In a two-month sample of violations hearings in Bell County during September and October 2013, probationers were revoked in more than 87 percent of all hearings. Nearly one-third of the revocations were for “technical-only” violations. Among probationers revoked and incarcerated for more than six months, more than a third were for technical-only violations. Statewide, about half of revocations for felony probation cases are a result of technical violations, while the other half are for subsequent new offense convictions or arrests. In fiscal year 2012, revocations of felony probation cases in the state accounted for thirty percent of prison admissions and forty-three percent of state jail admissions.
Overall:
In the year ending August 31st, 2014, eighteen percent of the felony direct supervision probation caseload ended in revocation and thirty-nine percent of the misdemeanor direct supervision caseload resulted in a revocation. The rate for the felony caseload is similar to the statewide rate: in fiscal year 2012 (the most recent available data), the revocation rate was 14.5% for the state.
Both probation officials and probationers agreed that, "Too many conditions are imposed during probation and conditions are not personalized at sentencing."
In Bell County, there are approximately 25 standard conditions for all probationers (see Appendix A). Additional conditions, such as attending a treatment program or increased reporting, are sometimes added as sanctions for noncompliance. While misdemeanants can initially be assessed as low risk and report less frequently, those convicted of felonies must be supervised for six months before they can be moved to a less frequent reporting  status.
Moreover:
probation officials felt that the conditions are sometimes are too “cookie-cutter,” and not tailored properly to individual probationers. For example, these officials commented that probationers who do not have alcohol or drug problems should not be required to attend substance abuse programming. The judicial perspective was similar: there are many conditions, and while the judges would like to be able to personalize them, there is often not the time or resources to do so. One noted exception was specialty courts, such as mental health court.  Interviewees expressed the belief that because specialty courts involve smaller caseloads, probation officers are better able to make individualized recommendations to the court.
Probation officers and probationers both emphasized how "Having too many probation conditions can also interfere with employment. The probationers at one site felt that the high number of conditions were too onerous to abide by them all."

Said one probation officer: "Probation is not just about punishment. If courts wanted to just punish, they would just send them to prison. Probation, especially for the young probationers, is a learning process. If you just are hard on probationers and it seems unrealistic, they just won’t come back."

For these reasons, "The numerous conditions can cause probation to be perceived as more difficult than incarceration." Indeed, "One probation officer suggested that a jail or prison sentence can be easier than a probation sentence as probation sentences are longer, more expensive (because of probationer fees), and have more requirements — a perspective that was echoed by many of the people we interviewed." Remarkably, inmates in jail advise one another to eschew probation for incarceration:
One probationer, after being on supervision for some time, felt that the conditions were better than being incarcerated, though others in the county jail told him that he should not take probation because of all of the conditions that would be imposed on him. He accepted probation anyway, since he had five children and did not want to be incarcerated away from them.
Early release provisions in Texas' 2007 probation reforms aren't being promoted by the department but judges are apt to grant them when they receive a qualifying petition. The report found that, "The ability of probationers to petition for early release appears to serve as an incentive once probationers are aware of the possibility." However, probationers say their POs don't inform them about the possibility of early release, and probation officials "do not keep records of the frequency of petitions or grants of early termination." Clearly this isn't a departmental priority, probably because every probationer released from supervision early reduces the department's budget.

Shorter probation lengths make more sense from the perspective of determining the likelihood of reform. "Many criminal justice officials feel that they know early on in a sentence whether someone will be successful on probation," according to the report.

"One perspective from the prosecutor’s office was that a probationer’s success could be determined in the first few years of supervision: “We need [a term of probation] long enough to see if people will be successful, and we need about two years to see that. Most recidivism studies are based on three to five years.”

Noted the authors:
About half of the probation department’s budget, including salaries, comes from probationers’ payments. This degree of reliance on fee collection from probationers to meet basic operating needs is consistent across the state. Regular probation supervision costs the state $1.63 per day and costs the probationer $1.57 per day.

The state pays more for intensive supervision probation and specialized caseloads, while the burden on the probationer remains roughly the same. Fees were an important and salient issue throughout the interviews. Respondents stated that probationers are required to pay for pre-sentence investigations, supervision fees, drug testing, counseling, and fees added by the state legislature as well as restitution and fines.
Nonpayment of fees is the central conundrum of community supervision:
One officer stated that only a very small percentage of probationers stay current in making their payments. Officers often reported feeling like “bill collectors.” One officer stated, “It is such a challenge for most [probationers] who don’t have a car or have six kids. [It] is an uphill battle [to collect fees] from the first day.”
Said one probation officer:
Money is the hardest thing about probation, collecting money. We have a collection compliance class. It’s a sanction for people who are behind on their payments. This is one of the hardest things to talk to our clients about and then you have these situations when people say they only have enough money to put food on the table and take care of their family and what do you want me to do? They just don’t have any money. There is no income. A lot of them have problems getting employment because of their criminal history and that makes it difficult and if they do have a job, it is minimum wage and what takes precedent? Or, they’re on a fixed income and they can only pay so much.
The authors specifically found that, "Fees reduce the incentive and ability to grant early termination and may cause sentences to be extended or lead to sanctions."
Probationers who are successfully complying with their conditions (including paying their fees) are the ones for whom early termination is possible. However, once probation is terminated, no more supervision fees can be collected—meaning that every early termination deprives the probation agency of a portion of its anticipated budget. Several criminal justice officials noted that probation sentences are extended in order to collect unpaid fees (and restitution). Sometimes fees or community service can be reduced. However, there are some cases where probationers meet all of their conditions but are unable to pay all of their fees. Sometimes these cases are revoked and sometimes probation is extended until the fees are paid.
Grotesquely, probation officers reported "filing a revocation at the end of supervision if fees were unpaid."

While at the Legislature you'll often hear probation departments say the "never" revoke probationers over nonpayment of fees, the reality is more complex. Probation officers overtly tell their clients that they'll go to jail if they can't pay their fees, so when they cannot pay, sometimes they won't show up. A judge tied together the full picture:
A judge tied fees to other types of noncompliance and suggested the probationers abscond when they cannot pay their fees, and the absconding leads to revocation: “I’m not going to revoke someone over money especially if that’s the only violation, but that is usually coupled with failure to report because they were told, if they don’t pay, they would be revoked.”
Among those paying the freight, "Probationers viewed fees as more burdensome and more punitive than did criminal justice officials."
While the criminal justice officials were divided on their opinion of fees and payments, probationers overall felt that the fees were burdensome and led to more negative repercussions. If they didn’t pay, they were threatened with incarceration, told to complete classes, and had to report more frequently. One stated, “The only thing I don’t like [about the conditions of probation] are the payments. They don’t go off your incomes.” Another said, “They just expect you to come up with the money. . . I work but it’s not easy.”

The amounts owed varied, but were not insubstantial. In one site, one probationer reported owing an $1,800 balance. At the beginning, the payment was $60 a month, then around $200. The probationer didn’t know why the payment amounts changed or for what the money was owed, and was simply given a paper by his probation officer indicating how much to pay each month. Another reported paying $285 a month to probation and $200 a week for child support. Many of the probationers expressed the difficulty they had finding a job with their records.

Wednesday, February 03, 2016

Probation Fines Contribute to "Debtor's Prison" Problem in Texas

The University of Minnesota's Robina Institute has just published a new study on the probation system in Bell County, Texas.  It sheds light on yet another piece of the "debtor's prison" issue.  The report details the causes of probation revocations and the role that fines play in straining, and even ruining, probationers lives.

The authors conducted 43 interviews of probationers, probation officials, judges, defense attorneys, and prosecutors in the Bell County.  What the report uncovers is that judge are seen to impose probation conditions that inadvertently set people up for failure by being too onerous and not taking into account a person's unique circumstances.

The report concludes:"The picture [this study] paints is one of a complex system, tasked with ensuring that those under supervision abide by a lengthy list of conditions and remain crime-free, all while working within the realities of probationers' daily lives."

More distressing is the fact that the legislature's penchant for extracting money from criminal defendants has turned probationer officers into "bill collectors."  The report states: "Though many of the probationers had limited financial means, the probation system in Bell County--and across the state--is largely funded by probationers' fees, turning probation officers into "bill collectors" to finance the system and burdening the probationers who already struggle with financial instability."

Another new report by the Robina Institute also finds that the United States has a "mass probation" problem as compared to Europe, similar to the mass incarceration problem with which we are more familiar.

Taken together, the two reports mean that the state's use of high probation fines over many years destabilizes people's lives, AND that we do this to an alarming number of people.

Sunday, April 14, 2013

TCLEOSE licensed felon who allegedly took cartel bribes, LE agencies faked training

If you've never heard of the Texas Commission of Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education, with its awkward acronym TCLEOSE, you couldn't be blamed. They're the licensing agency in Texas for state and local cops and enforce police training criteria, but their activities rarely enter the public eye. Lately, though, the agency's oversight or lack thereof has been getting more attention.

Bell County
In February it was reported that the Bell County Sheriff's Office had allegedly faked test results from its training program on a wide scale. TCLEOSE's own inspectors hadn't caught the discrepancy and the agency only took action after receiving an independent report.

Bexar County
The previous month, a former deputy constable from Bexar County Precinct Four was extradited from New Hampshire, charged with "allegedly reporting state mandated training credit for individuals who did not attend the training." The episode received little publicity: A San Antonio TV station covered it but the Express-News did not. WOAI reported that, Parrish "allegedly charged for the courses, and pocketed the cash, while working as a reserve deputy constable with the Precinct 4 Constable's office."

Freestone County
Then last month, reported the Corsicana Sun (March 28) Freestone County Sheriff Thomas Don Anderson and a captain in their department face charges after they allegedly "routinely submitted falsified documents to TCLEOSE claiming that Deputies received law enforcement training when they actually had not attended the training." Said the Sun:
Sheriff Anderson was elected in the 2012 general election and took office in January of 2013, after the previous sheriff, Ralph Billings, retired. At the time of the offenses alleged in the indictments, Anderson was the department's Training Coordinator responsible for the administration of all training at the Freestone County Sheriff’s Office and Travis Robertson was the primary instructor for most of the training given by the Freestone County Sheriff’s Office.
See a TCLEOSE press release about the Freestone County officials who will be prosecute by the Travis County Public Integrity Unit in Austin.

Starr County
Just as disturbing, though unrelated to training, in March Starr County Sheriff's Capt. Romeo Javier “Compadre Nacho” Ramirez pled guilty to accepting $30,000 in bribes from the Gulf Cartel in exchange for transmitting sensitive law enforcement information, reported the McAllen Monitor. But there's also a TCLEOSE angle: It turned out he had a prior felony conviction from the '90s that should have barred him from ever receiving a peace officer's license. Notably, this is the same jurisdiction where former Starr County Sheriff Reymundo Guerra was convicted in 2009 of assisting drug traffickers. Ramirez at the time was in charge of running the Starr County Jail. See a copy of his federal indictment (pdf).

* * *

The training episodes follow a common theme: Training was reported that officers never received. Intentional fraud like that would be hard to catch via after-the-fact auditing procedures, particularly at smaller agencies. In some ways, such oversight lapses are understandable. Delivery of training is highly decentralized, there are more than 2,600 law enforcement agencies in the state of Texas, and TCLEOSE doesn't remotely have the staff or resources to provide comprehensive oversight. The failure to catch Ramirez's felony conviction in his background check, though, is harder to justify.

Looking at legislation filed related to the agency, no bills pending at the Texas Legislature would address the questions raised by these episodes, though both the House and Senate budgets include six more FTEs (full-time equivalent staff) than the agency had in the last biennium, bringing the total number of employees to 43.6. Perhaps the additional hands on deck will help TCLEOSE get in front of some of these problems.

MORE: A commenter points out that the Panola County Sheriff, a former TABC agent elected last year, was arrested in March for allegedly using money from a confidential informant fund to pay for his attendance at a new sheriffs school after the county refused to pay for the expenditure. Not exactly a TCLEOSE oversight issue, but related enough to mention.

AND MORE/CLARIFICATION: On Tuesday, TCLEOSE executive director Kim Vickers offered clarification regarding two of these cases. Grits commenters had asked why the Freestone Sheriff was indicted but the Bell County Sheriff was not. Vickers said the allegations in Bell County involved administrative violations stemming from the training coordinator allowing officers to do take-home tests instead of proctored exams. In Freestone, though, TCLEOSE has alleged straight up fraud, asserting that the Sheriff added names to lists of trainees who never participated in training at all. That's why the cases were handled differently, he said.

On Capt. Ramirez out of Starr County, the McAllen Monitor reported that TCLEOSE had improperly granted him a license despite a prior felony for which he'd received deferred adjudication. But Ramirez was licensed in 1999, said Vickers, and until 2001 when the law changed, officers could be licensed with a deferred felony conviction on their record. He said he'd seen other instances where he'd scratched his head and wondered how an officer was licensed but in this case there would have been no bar to making Ramirez a peace officer at the time he was commissioned. (Either way, given his guilty plea for taking drug-cartel bribes, his badge-wearing days are now over.)

Vickers also mentioned another case out of Alpine last year where a training coordinator based at Sul Ross University had allegedly assisted officers with exams, resulting in five currently pending felony indictments. He said that episode taught the agency that training coordinators should not also be proctors during testing.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Bell County Sheriff Office allegedly faked training results, TCLEOSE oversight failed to catch it

An investigative report by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education (TCLEOSE), which regulates peace officers' licensure and training, alleges that the Bell County Sheriff's Lt. Danny Kneese, the department's training coordinator, provided training for deputies and even officers from other agencies by letting them take materials home instead of sitting in a classroom, then faked test results that were sent to TCLEOSE. A local TV station reported that the agency "revoked the Bell County Sheriff's Department’s training license for two years," but looking at the full report (pdf), that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Just-elected Sheriff Eddie Lange first reported the problem to TCLEOSE last fall, but from the beginning investigating officer Mike Hobbs was "suspicious of his motives" and "his actions." Lange had allegedly promised Kneese a position as Jail Administrator and Kneese, anticipating Lange would become Sheriff and need the training hours for his license, allowed Lange to take the training materials home for credit. But Lange's role allegedly extended beyond that of a supposed whistleblower.

Upon interrogation, Lt. Kneese admitted to not holding classroom trainings as he'd reported to TCLEOSE but initially refused to give a written statement, instead requesting a lawyer. After consulting with Lange, who was then a county commissioner but at the time was running for Sheriff, Kneese came back later with a typed statement in which he took full blame and insisted Lange "did not know that being given a packet to learn core courses was illegal." However, wrote Hobbs, "it was clear to me that it was not a truthful statement but one that had been well thought out and prepared by either a legal team or someone other than Kneese." He also expressed the belief that Lange "is not being honest with me during this investigation. It is clear to me that he his coaching" Lt. Kneese, said the report. "It is clear to me at this point that Eddie Lang (sic) contacted TCLEOSE knowig that we would find issues with the training and that if we found issues we would have to investigate." Wrote Hobbs, "It is likely that Lang (sic) and Kneese were working together." He surmised that Lange, "became afraid of his campaign being affected" and "let Kneese take the fall for the entire incident." Kneese has since surrendered his peace officer's license.

The reasons behind the revocation of training authority are flat-out startling, particularly the allegations of faked course examinations:
Almost all the examinations and evaluations were typed on the same computer and were all exactly the same. In almost every case I found a typo on the examinations and evaluations and all of them had the same typo. That means every student would have had to type the same typo. This is highly unlikely and with Kneese admitting to teaching courses by packets it is clear that the test and evaluations are made up on his computer and completed by him all at one time.
That's the sort of thing that could get somebody indicted - you'd think the local TV news coverage might have mentioned it! People were getting credit for physical fitness training by signing workout logs in the gym. Indeed, the scope of training-related misconduct was so great that TCLEOSE decided to limit its investigation so the results wouldn't impact the training hours of "every Jailer and every Peace Officer working for Bell County." Again from Hobbs' report:
As I continued my investigation I realized that every Jailer and every Peace Officer working for Bell County could be affected by this illegal training and could end up losing hours.If this were to occur then the most likely scenario would be that none of them would have time to catch up on hours. After discussing this with Deputy Director John Helenburg it was decided that we would focus only on Intermediate Courses and two other courses that Bell County reported to us. Those courses are 3512 Health and Safety, and 6012 Health and Physical.
So TCLEOSE is protecting the probably improper training hours of most of the Bell Sheriff's uniformed staff through essentially a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. If they dug deeper, it's possible few if any jailers or deputies or jailers would have sufficient training hours to justify their licensure. That decision seems problematic, though as a practical matter it's understandable as an alternative to, say, shutting down the jail while everyone retakes all the training they missed. If all or most of the training was faulty, how could the department ever make it all up? What a mess. Grits won't be surprised if defense counsel down the line begin challenging the legal  status of Bell County Sheriff's deputies based on failure to meet state training requirements.

One wonders, would TCLEOSE have ever discovered this if Lange hadn't contacted them? Are there other agencies doing the same thing, and if so, could TCLEOSE even tell? ¿Quien sabe?

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

'Nuther empty jail, built on spec, can't find contract prisoners

Another speculative county jail facility, this time in Bell County, can't find contract prisoners to fill it now that the project is complete, reports a local TV station:
More than $5 million has gone into remodeling a Bell County jail that remains vacant and may not have a need for inmates for at least two years.
The Central Jail on Central Avenue in Belton has undergone extensive renovation since inmates were transferred to the new Justice Complex in 2009.  However, the county had hoped the new-look, $5.7 million facility would bring in inmates from neighboring counties, and more revenue, but those counties are making other plans.
The reason for building a second jail instead of just rehabbing the old one was so the county could generate revenue from outside contracts, but that strategy has clearly (and predictably) backfired.

This is becoming repetitive. Just a few years ago counties across the state were seeking to build extra jail space, believing it would become a profit center through which they could compete with the private prison market for contract beds. Now, though, the incarceration bubble is beginning to burst and many of those facilities built on spec are sitting empty, with counties losing money hand over fist.

If it weren't such a catastrophe for taxpayers, I'd say it served them right.

See related Grits posts:

Friday, February 19, 2010

Fort Hood shooter may be housed in Bell County Jail

Some national politicos have worked themselves into a tizzy over whether alleged terrorists should be brought to New York City and put on trial for the 9/11 attacks. So it's an especially odd juxtaposition from that debate to learn that the Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan may end up awaiting trial in the Bell County Jail, according to KWTX TV:

Bell County Sheriff Dan Smith confirmed Friday that his office and Fort Hood officials have been talking for several weeks about transferring accused Fort Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan from a San Antonio military hospital to the Bell County Jail.

Hasan is charged with 13 counts of murder in the shooting rampage on Nov. 5, 2009 at the post’s Soldier Readiness Center that left 13 dead and 29 injured. He was left paralyzed in an exchange of gunfire with two civilian police officers who are credited with ending the massacre.

For 15 years, the Bell County Jail has had a contract with Fort Hood for housing military prisoners charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“Because of this existing contractual relationship,” Smith said, “Fort Hood has asked me to consider housing Hasan in our jail.”

I've never completely understood what folks are upset about regarding the 9/11 terrorists being brought to New York City, but if Bell County is up to the task, Mayor Bloomberg and Co. should be able to pull it off in the Big Apple. And you know what? I'm willing to bet it will work out just fine in Belton, just like it would in NYC.