Harris County probation department making big improvements, but it's still probation

As part of reforms implemented with its MacArthur grant, Harris County consolidated all of its state jail cases into one district-court docket called the "Responsive Intervention for Change (RIC) Docket." According to the Texas Comptroller:

Before the reforms, a disproportionate share of Texas' state jail felons (SJFs) were from Harris County — 26 percent in 2014, well in excess of the county's 16 percent share of the state's population. Five years later, its share of the total had declined by 90 percent, from 5,817 to 611. Harris County still sends more felons to state jail than any other county, but its overall share of the SJF population has fallen to 10 percent

The difference, May explains, is that the county has increased the number of defendants willing to accept probation through its RIC Docket, specialized caseloads (e.g., for substance abusers) and pre-trial diversion (PTD) programs offering mental healthcare, drug rehabilitation and work-release programs rather than prosecution. The county also significantly reduced the time defendants spend in jail awaiting trial, which greatly curtailed “good time” credit, removing the incentive to just sit idle or plead out to state jail, thereby reducing incarceration costs. 

"When defendants are not racking up a substantial amount of back time in jail awaiting disposition," May says, "they are more open to diversion or community supervision." 

Before their cases are decided, defendants' risk levels are assessed and their needs identified to target what's causing their criminal behaviors. The most common contributing factors, according to the CSCD, are attitude, peers, personality, family, education/employment, activities and substance abuse. 

On the back end, greater community supervision has helped to halve the re-arrest rate of the county's released SJFs, from more than 60 percent to less than 30 percent.

These are excellent outcomes and a great improvement over past practices. Grits finds particularly interesting the correlation between reduced pretrial detention and people's willingness to accept probation in a plea bargain. Reducing inefficiencies in one part of the system generated ancillary benefits in another.

Even so, there are moments when Harris County reminds us even the best probation departments are still doling out harm. This week, they tweeted out a success story of a woman named Sarah who completed probation and was released five-months early. HCCSCD praised her for having paid money to complete an "Effective Decision Making" class, then patted themselves on the back that, now that she has no fees, she can afford a new child's seat for her infant!

"How many people still paying fees are making similar tradeoffs to complete probation requirements?" Grits wondered aloud on Twitter. Certainly, more than a few.

The department's use of early release for successful probationers is commendable and deserving of praise, as is the new state-jail docket. But the perverse choices forced on this successful probationer - whether to pay for an "Effective Decision Making" class or a car seat for her infant daughter - are commonplace throughout the system. At this point, they're more a feature than a bug.

RELATED: From the state comptroller, "Texas state jails: Time for a reboot?"

Modifying 3-strikes theft enhancement would ↓ TX state-jail population

On Monday, the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee will hear a good little decarceration bill modifying the enhancement for misdemeanor three-strikes theft. This one should have been changed long ago.

Under current Texas law, if at any time in your life you commit three incidents of misdemeanor theft, regardless of the value of the property, prosecutors can charge it as a state-jail felony. Even if the third "strike" is stealing candy from the grocery-store check-out line, prosecutors can seek a felony conviction and sentence.

HB 1240 by Rep. Yvonne Davis would revise this statute in two important ways: First, it would require that the lower-level thefts be within five years of one another to count toward a penalty enhancement. Piecing together a new, theft with two others that are decades old will no longer be allowed.

Second, the penalty increase stemming from a third "strike" would only bump the charge up by one category. So if the third strike were a Class A misdemeanor ($750 to $2,499.99), it would make no difference. But if it were a Class C or B misdemeanor, the penalty would still be a misdemeanor.

This change will further reduce the number of inmates entering Texas state jails, which notoriously have the highest recidivism rates of any facilities in the system.

Just Liberty reviewed Texas Department of Criminal Justice datasets and discovered that three-strikes theft accounted for almost 2,400 state-jail admissions in the 2018 fiscal year. This is the second most common reason for a state-jail sentence after possession of a controlled substance.

A few of those folks would have still gone to state jail under HB 1240. But because most theft involves low-value items, many more people would have been charged with misdemeanors instead of felonies. Grits wouldn't be surprised if HB 1240 all but eliminated three-strike theft offenders in Texas state jails.

Hard to argue with this one: Reduces incarceration in state jails where recidivism is high, reduces public perceptions of unfairness, but still sends a message that repeat theft won't be tolerated. Grits is delighted Rep. Davis proposed the bill and pleased that Chairwoman Nicole Collier is taking it up on the early side this session. HB 1240 deserves strong, bipartisan support from criminal-justice reformers.

Schaefer: What's the point of state jail felonies?

At the Texas House Corrections Committee hearing this morning, meeting jointly with the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, Rep. Matt Schaefer asked Judge John Creuzot out of Dallas what is the point of the classification "state jail felony" if the results are poor? Why not have some sort of "Super Class A" misdemeanor that keeps people on probation for two years and just "focus on programming?," Schafer wanted to know, or else make everything a third-degree felony so people would be on supervision longer.

Judge Creuzot, who the Democratic candidate for DA in Dallas and one of the architects of the state jail system a quarter century ago, said he didn't understand what it would mean to get rid of state jail felonies unless the Legislature was going to a) mandate strong probation and b) provide funding. Programming inside state jails had been largely de-funded over the years, he noted.

Criminal Jurisprudence Committee Chairman Joe Moody later elaborated that getting rid of state jail felonies would really mean parsing the code to decide which things should be Class A misdemeanors and which offenses would become third-degree felonies, predicting most offenses would likely go down instead of up.

Grits largely agrees with Chairman Moody, and with Rep. Schaefer's Super-Class-A suggestion. The most important change would be to shift most state-jail felonies - starting with drug offenders possessing less than a gram (Grits would recommend up to 1-4 grams as well) - to Class A misdemeanors, perhaps expanding the amount of time they could remain on probation if drug treatment is necessary, per Rep. Schaefer.

Savings from reduced incarceration could be used to pay for expanded drug treatment and other programming. Indeed, it's hard to imagine another source from which money for treatment might come.

MORE: Lauren McGaughy from the Dallas News gave highlights of the hearing on Twitter. See also tweets from the Texas Tribune's Jolie McCullough.

Implementing Texas' new diligent-participation credit law

See an "implementation guide" from the Smart on Crime Coalition for a new bill, HB 1546 (Allen/Rodriguez), which "gives judges the option to streamline the process for granting diligent participation credits to individuals confined in state jails who participate in rehabilitative programs. The new law requires the judge to decide at sentencing whether the defendant is eligible to automatically earn credits for participating in these programs."

According to the criminal justice impact statement for the bill:

For offenders who received the presumptive finding, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) would be required to credit up to one-fifth of the sentence against any time a state jail inmate was required to serve for diligent participation in certain programs. For offenders who did not receive the presumptive finding, TDCJ would continue to provide judicial notification of diligent participation credit eligibility and judges would maintain discretion in awarding diligent participation credit.

The House Research Organization analysis of the bill predicted that, "As a result of inmates serving less time in state jails, the state would save money. The bill could have a positive impact of $81.3 million for fiscal 2016-17."

The Smart on Crime Coalition implementation guide provided specific recommendations for judges and defense attorneys.

In particular, "Defense attorneys should ask the judge to make an affirmative finding that the sentenced individual should be presumptively entitled to earn diligent participation credits in state jail."

Meanwhile, the coalition encouraged judges "to make an affirmative finding at sentencing for all defendants so such individuals can earn credits automatically for participating in rehabilitative programs." And TDCJ must create the capacity to track those judges' rulings so offenders who earn sufficient credits can be released sooner.

Saving money by encouraging offenders to participate more diligently in work, education and treatment programs: That's a policy worthy of the moniker, "Smart on Crime." If it works, next session the idea should be expanded to offenders convicted of higher-level felonies, who would equally benefit from incentives for self-improvement while incarcerated.

Bill to reduce recidivism, increase state-jail felon program participation would save state $227.7 million

The Texas House last week approved a nice little bill by Rep. Alma Allen, HB 1546, which would save the state $227.7 million over the next five years by reducing incarceration for state jail felons by a few months if they participate in programming, according the Legislative Budget Board. The savings in the first biennium would be $81 million. The proposed tweak to the law would have the state corrections agency apply "diligent participation credits" toward reduction of inmates' state jail felony sentences - up to 20 percent of the sentence - which are otherwise served day for day without possibility of parole or early release. (My colleague Sarah Pahl at the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition has been working hard on this bill.)

The bill passed 141-0 (with a couple of members recording opposition in the journal after the fact) and no opposition in committee. Its companion legislation, SB 589 by Rodriguez/Hinojosa, has already passed out of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and is on the Intent Calendar. So the Senate could finally approve this bill pretty quickly if the votes are there.

Presently, it's possible but unlikely for state jail inmates to receive sentence reductions based on participation in educational or treatment programs. TDCJ sends judges information about program participation months after the case is over when the defendant's sentence is almost complete, creating a cumbersome and time consuming extra process for the courts for this class of low-level, mostly non-violent offenders. "The court then has to receive and process the request, make a decision about awarding credit to the inmate, and return the report to TDCJ," explained the House Research Organization analysis. Presently, judges do not reply to TDCJ in more than half of cases and in others the decision comes too late to result in a meaningful reduction in the sentence. In other words, the process now is basically dysfunctional.

State jail felons have a higher recidivism rate than other inmates leaving TDCJ and also are not under supervision when they leave, having served a day-for-day sentence. So anything which can be done to reduce recidivism for this category of offenders would be welcome; presently the state has few tools to influence their behavior beyond locking them up for a short time. A few months reduction in state jail felony sentences - already measured in months, not years - is a significant incentive for inmates to participate in programming which reduces recidivism.

These folks will soon be released regardless after spending 6-24 months (max) incarcerated in a Texas state jail felony facility. So the question isn't whether we should "keep them locked up." They'll be released soon enough, either way. The question is whether they'll have done anything productive with their time while they're inside, which this bill incentivizes and prioritizes.

The Senate this year has been all about spending caps but we've heard barely a peep from them about budget cuts. Here's a chance to save nearly a quarter billion dollars over the next five years while reducing both incarceration and recidivism among nonviolent offenders. What's not to like?

Ring the bell for property threshold adjustments

Sometimes, an unrung bell resonates the loudest.

Such was the case last night when the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee heard state Sen. Konni Burton's SB 393, which would adjust for inflation the main theft categories delineating punishment ranges in Texas, updating the code for the first time since 1993. Your correspondent was there to (briefly) testify in favor of the bill on behalf of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, but the legislation didn't need much help.

Remarkably, particularly given the contentious hearing early over changes to truancy statutes, there was no opposition to this bill - none, zilch, zero. No cops, no prosecutors, no probation officials, nobody. Just crickets chirping. Even the police unions stayed off. Despite the state's "tough on crime" reputation, not one citizen out of 25 million plus thought to come to the capitol to oppose this bill. Who'da thought?

Shannon Edmonds from the state prosecutors association testified "on" the bill, as is his wont, warning the committee against indexing the thresholds so they automatically update every year, which Sen. Charles Perry had passingly suggested. He said it would create too much confusion, particularly in older cases if the thresholds change through the course of the statute of limitations.

I'm more sanguine than Shannon about Texas prosecutors' ability to adjust to indexed property thresholds. Think of how many things hinge on Federal Poverty Levels, which are updated every year. Indexing property thresholds would be similar - the number would change annually and everybody would use the new one but also have a list of what they were from the previous years.

Regardless, that's not the bill on the table, which envisions only a one-time increase to account for inflation since 1993. The threshold from a Class A misdemeanor to a state jail felony would rise from $1,500 to $2,500.

Sen. Joan Huffman entertained concern that the $2,500 threshold may be too high (though it's almost precisely where the inflation adjustment lands), but she voted for the bill in the end. Marc Levin of the Texas Public Policy Foundation attempted to reassure her by pointing out the enhancements for repeat misdemeanor offenders were still in place; this bill only changes the amounts.

This bill makes so much sense: The last time the Lege consciously considered what the thresholds should be was 1993 in response to recommendations from a statewide Punishment Standards Commission. Then-rookie Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire shepherded through the rewrite of the Penal Code, which as Edmonds pointed out would later be called a national model.

But over time, the sort of inflationary creep this bill attempts to mitigate expands the scope of government and reduces the liberty of citizens sans any additional legislative mandate. Without adjusting for inflation, as I told the committee, every year Texans can become felons for stealing less and less stuff. That's not fair from an equal protection perspective and it's increasingly expensive: Half of state jail felons are incarcerated for property offenses, said Sen. Burton when laying out the bill. The fiscal note for the bill predicted a positive impact on the budget but declined to estimate an amount.

Though Burton's a freshman and wasn't on the committee last year, this legislation stems from a recommendation by the committee in their interim report. In 2013, Rep. James White carried similar legislation in the House, with Rep. Ruth Jones-McLendon filing a related bill in 2011. This would be a big get for a rookie if it makes it through.

Burton's SB 393 has the greatest potential for reducing state level incarceration pressures of any bill heard so far this session - perhaps enough, even, for Texas to close more state jail facilities. And the silence of the opposition may be the legislation's most ringing endorsement.

I Can't Breathe, South Texas style, and other stories

Here's a browser clearing compendium of items  that merit Grits readers' attention even though I haven't had time to adumbrate them fully.

Wrong solution to culturally inept 'surge' participants
Is it true, as Valley legislators allege, that "Too many of the Department of Public Safety troopers assigned to the South Texas border region do not understand the local Hispanic culture and are unable to speak Spanish"? Perhaps. I'll even go with, "Probably." To me, though, the solution is to scale back the politicized, pointless, metric-free, "surge," not to build a damn training center down there to make it permanent! 

Lawsuit alleges sexual assault by employee of county jail contractor
A lawsuit by a former inmate alleges she was sexually assaulted by an employee of Community Education Centers, a private prison firm out of New Jersey that operates McLennan County's local jail, reported the Waco Tribune Herald. Jail privatization has already been a financial albatross for the county, but, if true, these allegations and the process of proving them in court might turn public opinion against the county's jail contracts more viscerally. 

I Can't Breathe, South Texas style
Eighteen students and staff members at a Raymondville ISD middle school were given medical treatment after they were exposed to tear gas during a training exercise at the neighboring Willacy County State Jail, reported KWTX TV.

New Tarrant DA will create Conviction Integrity Unit
The new Tarrant County DA Sharen Wilson will create a Conviction Integrity Unit. The fellow hired to run it, Larry Moore, said correctly that the lower number of exonerations in Tarrant may be because they “didn’t have the pattern of abuse you found in Dallas," as local officials have insisted. "But frankly, all the evidence was destroyed here, and Dallas kept it,” he added, which regular Grits readers know more accurately gets to the heart of the matter.

Priced to go
Outgoing Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Tom Price spoke to the Austin Statesman's Chuck Lindell about his last-minute declaration that he opposes the death penalty after sending hundreds of men and women to death. (Price's views have migrated greatly from those of the judge who was warned by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2001 for a campaign message touting that he had "no sympathy" for the criminal.) Regrettably, Lindell's conversation with the judge did not stray from Price's new-found death penalty views to plumb other topics like ideological splits on the court, relationships among judges following the Charles Dean Hood debacle, or his reasons for switching sides in Ex Parte Robbins I and II. I understand Texas Monthly will publish an interview with outgoing CCA Judge Cathy Cochran early next year, though don't expect her to break decorum and speak about the insider baseball stuff.

Reddy: Pretrial detention of low-risk offenders 'counterproductive for public safety'
Vikrant Reddy of the Texas Public Policy Foundation authored an editorial in the Houston Chronicle explaining how "pretrial incarceration of those who do not pose a high risk of committing a serious crime is counterproductive for public safety." He argues for "developing pretrial risk assessment instruments that can be used to make sound determinations about who needs to be in jail and who does not."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/bud-kennedy/article4119384.html#storylink=cpy

Mass imprisonment and public health
I'd missed a NY Times editorial from last month regarding harms to public health from mass incarceration. Here's a notable excerpt from its opening:

When public health authorities talk about an epidemic, they are referring to a disease that can spread rapidly throughout a population, like the flu or tuberculosis.

But researchers are increasingly finding the term useful in understanding another destructive, and distinctly American, phenomenon — mass incarceration. This four-decade binge poses one of the greatest public health challenges of modern times, concludes a new report released last week by the Vera Institute of Justice.

For many obvious reasons, people in prison are among the unhealthiest members of society. Most come from impoverished communities where chronic and infectious diseases, drug abuse and other physical and mental stressors are present at much higher rates than in the general population. Health care in those communities also tends to be poor or nonexistent.

The experience of being locked up — which often involves dangerous overcrowding and inconsistent or inadequate health care — exacerbates these problems, or creates new ones. Worse, the criminal justice system has to absorb more of the mentally ill and the addicted. The collapse of institutional psychiatric care and the surge of punitive drug laws have sent millions of people to prison, where they rarely if ever get the care they need. Severe mental illness is two to four times as common in prison as on the outside, while more than two-thirds of inmates have a substance abuse problem, compared with about 9 percent of the general public.

Common prison-management tactics can also turn even relatively healthy inmates against themselves. Studies have found that people held in solitary confinement are up to seven times more likely than other inmates to harm themselves or attempt suicide.

The report also highlights the “contagious” health effects of incarceration on the already unstable communities most of the 700,000 inmates released each year will return to. When swaths of young, mostly minority men are put behind bars, families are ripped apart, children grow up fatherless, and poverty and homelessness increase. Today 2.7 million children have a parent in prison, which increases their own risk of incarceration down the road.

If this epidemic is going to be stopped, the report finds, public health and criminal justice systems must communicate effectively with one another.

Perry vetoes empower prosecutors, except for one Travis County drunk Democrat

Just a couple of criminal-justice related vetoes on Governor Rick Perry's 2013 list, but they were both significant.

Perry vetoes only de-incarceration bill of the session
This one was particularly a bummer. I do not understand why Gov. Perry picked HB 1790 to veto - out of all the criminal-justice bills sent to him Grits had considered it among the most innocuous, though it was the only piece of legislation passed by the 83rd Texas Legislature that would have even a minor de-incarceration impact. His stated reasoning for doing so makes little sense to me except through the lens of maximizing the prerogative of the executive branch. Here's the text of the accompanying veto message: "The intent of House Bill 1790 can already be achieved under current law. A mechanism already exists to prosecute a state jail felony as a Class A misdemeanor in circumstances where the prosecutor sees fit. Adding the option to reduce the conviction at the back end of a case will cause additional and unnecessary court procedures, reduce judicial efficiency, and add to the costs of our criminal justice system."

Certainly in some cases prosecutors can already choose to prosecute a state jail felony as a Class A misdemeanor through their front-end charging decisions. But the point of the bill was to provide incentives for succeeding on probation by offering a reduced charge on the back end as a carrot. In the version that passed the Legislature, prosecutors would still have veto power. But Perry's complaint appears to be that they're not the exclusive decisionmakers.

Perry's cost argument in the veto message is a total red herring. In FY 2012, some 23,449 revoked probationers entered TDCJ, or 31.5% of all new receives during that fiscal year. Lowering that number even a fraction would reduce incarceration costs on a magnitude that far outweighs the cost of an extra hearing, particularly one that only happens if probationers are successful! Bad, inexplicable veto.

This theme of maximizing prosecutorial power, it should be mentioned, was also exhibited in the addition of "mandatory life" for 17-year old capital offenders, making the sole purview of prosecutors power that, under the law as it stands, presently resides with juries when sentencing 17-year olds - i.e., the choice to consider sentences less than "life."

Travis DA Showdown: Perry follows through on win-win gambit
The other big criminal-justice news out of Rick Perry's veto announcement was the line-item veto of the Public Integrity Unit at the Travis County DA's Office, part of the governor's effort to strong-arm the current drunk DA in charge, Rosemary Lehmberg, to resign. Even Perry acknowledged the unit's "good work" but declared he couldn't justify funding it when the public had lost faith in its leader. (I wonder, btw, if there's been any recent polling on whether Travis County voters want Lehmberg out and a Perry-appointed replacement in: That'd be an interesting opinion survey.) The move was a win-win for Perry; Grits considered it a brilliant stroke from a chess-player's perspective. If Lehmberg had resigned, Perry would appoint her replacement - Terry Keel and John Bradley are the two names I've heard bandied about.

Since she called his bluff, OTOH, de-funding the Public Integrity Unit emasculates a prosecutorial division that's currently investigating some of Perry's Republican allies and programs and agencies run by his appointees. That has Democrats crying "foul" but that's insider baseball. The public doesn't react to such charges nearly as strongly as they do the images of Lehmberg kicking the cell door and shouting at jailers. Still, combined with the veto of two bipartisan ethics bills, including a requirement that 501(c)(4)s disclose "dark money" donors, it's not difficult to paint a portrait of the governor's veto decisions as self serving snubs to ethics enforcement. This may be a situation where history could judge that Perry overreached (for example, during any future presidential bid), despite achieving his goal of putting Lehmberg and Travis County Democrats in a short-term political squeeze.

The governor vetoed about $7.5 million allocated to the Travis DA's Public Integrity Unit over two years, according to news accounts. According to a report last fall (pdf) the DA has nearly one million dollars in her asset forfeiture account that could cover part of it. I suppose the Travis County Commissioners Court could pony up the rest, though that'd be a bitter pill to swallow. Or, since the question quickly becomes, "How much is the county willing to pay NOT to have a Republican DA," maybe somebody like Steve Mostyn or another partisan political donor could bail them out for a biennium. That's a lot of money but not so much that it's inconceivable some super-rich partisan might think it's worth it, given the stakes. Or, perhaps they could hit up the Obama Administration or some big foundation for an emergency grant to keep the PIU afloat for two years. ¿Quien sabe?

If readers can think of other possible scenarios for keeping the Public Integrity Unit open, please offer them up in the comments. And keep in mind: The question now isn't whether or not Lehmberg should resign but what should happen next? They've already lost their budget for two years, there's little else Perry can do to them aside from occasional (and well-earned) animadversions in the press. Those aren't going away until Rosemary Lehmberg leaves office. Until then, how might the Public Integrity Unit be funded for the next two years, or should the county let it die on the vine?

Sentencing policy, cell-privacy: Good criminal justice bills waiting for House floor vote

A pair bills voted out of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee recently would begin to adjust drug laws in deference to pragmatic reality:

The committee approved Rep. Senfronia Thompson's HB 2914 which would clarify that prosecutors couldn't charge felony possession in "trace" cases where less than .02 grams of a controlled substance was found (often scraped off a pipe or other paraphernalia). Regular readers will recall this is a longstanding demand of Houston judges, including several staunch, tough-on-crime Republicans, who complain that their felony dockets are filling up with trace drug cases that in other jurisdictions are being charged as Class C misdemeanors for paraphernalia. Then-Harris DA Pat Lykos briefly ended the practice but he replacement, Mike Anderson, made renewing it a central campaign promise. The Lege could and should override that decision, though, by passing Thompson's bill.

The committee also approved a watered down version of Rep. Harold Dutton's HB 184 reducing the penalty category for up to an ounce of pot to a Class C misdemeanor. The committee substitute, which is not yet online, would only apply to defendants under 21 years old, I'm told - an idea that was suggested in committee. I'd have preferred just notching down the penalty altogether, but this is better than a sharp stick in the eye.

Relatedly, if the Lege is not going to take a serious stab at reducing nonviolent criminal penalties this session more broadly than these minor adjustments, at a minimum the House leadership should give Rep. Thompson's HB 990 a floor vote. That bill would launch a review of the penal code to evaluate state sentencing practices, among other criteria, by what amounts to a cost-benefit analysis.

Finally, Rep. Bryan Hughes' cell-phone location tracking bill, HB 1608, was voted out of committee in a version that addresses most of the major concerns expressed by law enforcement. It now awaits a decision by the Calendars Committee (which includes 11 "co-authors" of the bill) whether the full House (which includes 107 joint and co-authors) gets to vote on the issue.

All these bills deserve prompt votes on the House floor.

'Death at Dawson: Why is Texas' worst state jail still open?'

Emily DePrang at the Texas Observer says the question shouldn't be whether the Dawson State Jail in Dallas should be closed, but why in the world, given its shoddy record, the Texas Legislature would consider keeping the privately run prison unit open?

Bill offers strong, positive incentive to succeed on probation

For the most part, criminal law is based on a theory of negative incentives - do "X" and the state will punish you. Seldom do legislators think to install positive incentives, which makes me particularly glad to see that Texas state Rep. Oscar Longoria has filed HB 1790, which would allow state jail felons who successfully complete probation to have their convictions reduced to a class A misdemeanor.

The bill, which excludes assaults and other "crimes against persons" (Title V of the Penal Code) will help alleviate state jail populations, reduce prisoner healthcare costs and encourage state jail defendants to take probation terms seriously, including restitution for victims. The best part: It would also allow defendants the real opportunity to live out their lives without a felony on their record.

State jail felons have the highest revocation rates among inmates released from TDCJ, with defendants frequently choosing day for day time over treatment and other assessed needs placements.  This bill  provides defendants with the motivation to successfully complete the requirements of their probation, both saving money and improving public safety. Excellent bill.

Texas 'state jails' strayed far from their original purpose

State jails have deviated far from their original purposes, reported Mike Ward in the Austin Statesman ("State jails struggle with lack of treatment, rehab programs," Dec. 30), to the point that most people in them aren't actually state jail felons: As of the end of October, "just 11,802 were serving time for state jail offenses. Another 13,530 were regular convicts." (In Texas, "state jail felony" is an official euphemism for what in other states would be a "fourth degree felony.") Moreover, those facilities produce worse outcomes than regular prisons: "Today, Texas’ 20 state jails have a higher recidivism rate than state prisons: 33 percent of state jail felons are convicted of new crimes, compared with 26 percent of regular prisoners. The state jails also have fewer treatment and rehabilitation programs than many of the regular prisons — the opposite of the original goals."

In many ways, wrote Ward, the rise of specialty courts focused on strong probation have made the original state jail concept obsolete: "many of the newly classified 'fourth-degree' felons were diverted to other community-based programs and specialty courts" as local judges became more confident in strong probation methods:

When state jails were established, Jefferson County Judge Larry Gist recalled that courts were supposed to use them in conjunction with community supervision programs or to “get the attention” of a defendant who was resisting a change to a no-crime, no-drugs lifestyle.

Within a few years came the inception of so-called drug courts, which handle only drug cases and tailor treatment and punishment to fit each offender. As more low-level drug offenders went through those courts, which often sentenced them to community supervision and occasional nights in the county jail for violations — fewer judges were interested in sending defendants to a state jail miles away, especially if there might be a better result by handling the case locally.

A sidebar to the story identified the following reform proposals for state jails:

• Allowing convicts housed in state jails to be paroled, so they could be kept under supervision after they leave state custody, instead of completing their sentence and being released to the street. Currently, they can serve up to two years with no chance for parole and often without any early release time credits that regular prison convicts are eligible for.
• Restarting intensive drug and alcohol treatment programs that were to be a cornerstone of the state jails but were downsized a few years after they opened and slashed when the state budget was drastically cut in 2003.
• Require that all prisoners convicted of state jail felonies be sentenced first to community supervision, as was intended when the program was established, rather than allowing judges to send offenders directly to a state jail. Many judges found it too costly to bring offenders back and forth to court from a state jail when they could instead sentence them to local treatment programs paid for in part by the state.
• Better integrate treatment and rehabilitation programs behind bars with so-called aftercare initiatives, so state jail inmates can return home under supervision that could help reduce the chances of recidivism.

While legislators have been discussing similar reforms for several years, much credit for recent momentum on this score goes to the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Jeanette Moll, who authored a recent public policy report promoting these and similar reforms. See her report and a recent op ed column she wrote for more background on proposals for state jails coming out of that conservative think tank.

See past, related Grits posts:

• Advocates on right and left say reform state jail statutes, close more prison units
• Raising theft categories to account for inflation would generate state jail savings
• Media discussion on eliminating state jails lack nuance 
• State jail creators: Don't kill our baby
• The end of state jails?
• Harris County DA: Revamp state jails

Reforming state jails, prosecution as grant management, and other stories

Just a few odds and ends that didn't make it into their own, individual posts:

Narcotics task force cops robbed drug dealers instead of arrest them
Reported the McAllen Monitor, "Two Mission narcotics investigators have been arrested alongside other local law enforcement officers in a federal corruption probe focusing on drug loads stolen from the criminals they had been tasked with taking down." The alleged perpetrators were part of "a joint drug task force made up of Hidalgo County and Mission officers." Long-time readers may recall that multi-county task forces were placed under jurisdiction of the Department of Public Safety back in 2005, with most of them going under within a year, either because they refused DPS supervision or, the rest of them, when Gov. Perry pulled the plug on their funding. But some multi-agency task forces soon formed among agencies all within the same county, as in this example, and clearly some of the same problems still arise. See more on the latest episode from Texas Watchdog.

Conservative plan for reforming state jails
The Texas Public Policy Foundation's Jeanette Moll argued in an Austin Statesman editorial that Texas hamstrung the state jail system "before the first state jail even opened its doors" by implementing direct sentencing instead of using them as a short-term probation sanction. She suggested that, "With hundreds of millions of dollars spent each year on state jails, and outcomes worse than prison, state jails are in dire need of reform." (See related Grits coverage on Ms. Moll's proposals.)

'Texas DPS marks 10,000th match in open cases'
So reported the Texas Tribune. The looming question: Will the Legislature spend money to expand DNA testing capacity at Texas crime labs, not to mention DWI blood testing and other areas where crime labs have backlogs.

Just say "No" to sobriety checkpoints
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram asks "Should Texas have sobriety checkpoints?" For reasons previously stated, Grits votes no.

Strong probation for meth-head driver who hit cyclist
A round of apology letters, an 18-month ban on coaching youth sports teams, and $8,000 in restitution are among "unique" probation conditions for a meth-using driver who struck a stopped motorcycllist from behind in Weatherford.

His only apology is for apologizing
The Waco Tribune interviewed former county tax assessor Buddy Skeen who's currently in jail for misuse of public funds and regrets agreeing to apologize for his actions in open court as a condition of his plea. "I wasn’t punished for my crime. I was punished for my political affiliation."

School discipline roundup

The Texas Education Report has updates on the controversy over RFID use in two San Antonio schools (see related Grits coverage), a report on the hundreds of millions spent by large school districts on disciplinary systems, and another report on a pilot program at Waco ISD aiming to reduce disciplinary referrals, a subject that's lately received national attention. See a related, recent report from the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition titled, "Community Solutions for Youth in Trouble."

Girls' experience in the juvenile justice system
See the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition's recent report.

Prosecution as grant management?
Is there seemingly no failure in public life which cannot be criminally prosecuted?

Peach state criminal justice reform?
Watch what Georgia does on scaling back criminal justice spending. If it can pass in the Peach State, it's got a chance in the Texas Lege.

Private Prison Exec a Grade A Creep
Thomas Weirdsma, the senior vice president of project development at private prison company GEO Group, in my book is a Grad A creep. He's been taking heat lately for a video deposition in which he said that giving false testimony to government agencies "happens all the time." But the real scandal comes from evicting his immigrant daughter in law and allegedly threatening to use his immigration agency connections to have her deported if she pressed charges against his son after she endured "multiple drunken beatings, a near drowning in a bathtub, and an attempted suffocation with a pillow," the Boulder Daily Camera reported earlier this year. Ick! Awarding the daughter-in-law a $1.2 million verdict, jurors found that the Weirdesmas, father and son, each engaged in "outrageous conduct" during the episode, which sounds to me like an understatement.

Huge fine for HSBC money laundering
Finally, a serious punishment for an international bank for money laundering. I'd come to think banks and businesses had been declared effectively exempt from money laundering enforcement, so this is a good sign. A $1.9 billion fine will serve as an actual deterrent for a big company, as opposed to the relatively penny ante "deferred prosecution" cases we've seen in the past. Some despair, though, that no executives are ever personally prosecuted in money laundering cases; particularly at banks like HSBC they're considered "too big to jail." MORE: From Paul Kennedy and Scott Greenfield.

Harsh CIA interrogations ineffective
So concluded the most extensive-ever analysis on the topic, though it's a conclusion I once thought professional interrogators had reached many decades ago following the Wickersham Commission.

Advocates on right, left, say reform state jail statutes, close more prison units

A pair of stories from the Texas Tribune related to de-incarceration merit Grits readers' attention. First up, yesterday Maurice Chammah had an article on a new report (pdf) from the Texas Public Policy Foundation advocating diversion/probation for most state jail felons. The article opened:

A new report argues that state jails aren't meeting their goal of helping to reduce crime by intensively treating short-term, nonviolent inmates, and it recommends that judges no longer be able to sentence felons to state jails without a rehabilitation plan

The report, published Monday by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, says that those convicted of nonviolent felonies and normally sentenced to months in a state-operated jail should instead be released with community supervision. That can include treatment programs, community service, strictly enforced probation conditions and the threat of incarceration if certain conditions are violated. The report's suggestions were based on recent data concerning the number of felons who commit crimes after being released from state jails.

Report author Jeannette Moll wrote that, "state jails are universally failing in their objective." costing nearly as much as full-blown prison cells with higher recidivism rates and little opportunity for rehabilitative programming. A key legislator, though, wasn't willing to go quite so far.

[Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John] Whitmire says that the proposal echoes much of what he and other lawmakers envisioned in 1993 and that he's open to legislation to address the high levels of reincarceration. “Something between what we do now and what they propose would make sense,” he said.

But he cautions that there are many practical implications on the rest of the criminal justice system to consider before changes can be made. Increasing the number of people on probation will increase the workload for judges and community supervision departments.

For Grits' part, IMO the "practical implications" of Moll's suggestions run the other direction: If Texas reduced state jail incarceration rates enough to close one or two of them,  that money could be much more effectively spent on community corrections programs and to beef up local probation departments (or at least stem the bleeding). It's much cheaper to supervise offenders on probation than in prison, so much so that supervision could be significantly boosted and programming expanded to handle the additional caseload and likely still have money left over. The only way the proposals would harm local probation departments and courts would be if the Lege cut the state jail budget but failed to shift any of the savings to community supervision. (Prison guards would like that money to go to staff raises and prison health care was dramatically underfunded last session, so there will be competition for that money.)

It's worth mentioning that the Lege has adjusted state jail sentences in the past without undue harm to probation departments or courts: In 2003, the Lege passed HB 2668 which mandated probation instead of incarceration on the first offense for less-than-a-gram state jail felony drug crimes. First filed by then-Corrections Committee Chairman Ray Allen, a religious conservative, the legislation successfully diverted thousands of offenders from state jails annually, significantly relieving pressure on the system. Grits has long favored doubling down on that probation-first strategy - not just for drug offenses but other state jail felons - and it's gratifying to see a prominent conservative think tank endorse the suggestion.

Meanwhile, the Trib also has a story by Brandi Grissom echoing a report on Grits last month about the prison guard union's push to close two private facilities - the Dawson State Jail in Dallas and a pre-parole facility in Mineral Wells. The former has been accused of providing inadequate health care while the latter has among the worst contraband problems of any Texas prison unit. The main, new information in the story was Sen. Whitmire's supportive comment regarding additional prison closures.

Grits has written previously that, while private prison units might be the simplest to shutter (and I've long agreed those two should make the list), there are several criteria by which the state could select which prison units to close.

• Private facilities which can be decommissioned more rapidly and with less expense than state facilities.
• Older facilities, especially those built prior to 1920, which can cost more than twice as much per inmate to operate than newer units.
• Rural units with staffing levels habitually below 70%. (I'd start with the Connally Unit in Kenedy County and the facilities in Lamesa and Dalhart.)
• Units with the worst records on interdicting contraband.
• Units with the most heat-related deaths and/or hospitalizations.
• Units located in areas with water shortages.
• Units previously built in rural areas which are now in suburban growth corridors with higher property values so that operating a prison is no longer the highest, best use of the property. (The Central Unit, which the Lege closed last session, fell into this group.)

There is some overlap among these categories, and where that's true the arguments for closure become even stronger. Taken together, those criteria suggest a pool of perhaps 15-20 units from which the Lege could reasonably contemplate closure. Closing just 2-3 more units this session would be quite a big deal; IMO, with a few key policy adjustments, the state could close 5 or 6 without harming public safety. (Florida recently closed seven.) The union has suggested prioritizing closure of privately run facilities, and there are good reasons to suggesting closing those two units. But they aren't the only viable options if legislators decide to seriously confront these questions.

Normally one thinks of conservatives and public employee unions as inherently at loggerheads, but it's fascinating to see how these proposals dovetail: Implementing Moll's suggestions would reduce incarceration pressures and make the union's goal of closing units and consolidating staff far more palatable.

RELATED: See a fact sheet (pdf) from the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition related to Texas' state jail system.

"How-to" guides detail new reform legislation aimed at de-incarceration

In an email announcement today, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition links to three new "how to" briefs for practitioners on implementation of reform bills passed during the 82nd Texas Legislature:

During Texas' most recent legislative session, policy-makers passed various smart-on-crime policies that will benefit the lives of countless Texans. 

Below, we have provided links to 3 new "How To" Briefs we created to help practitioners implement 3 of these critical bills.  Please click on the links to download a PDF version of each:

• S.B. 1055: Community Justice Plans and Commitment Reduction Plans 
• H.B. 1205: Self-Improvement Programming Credits for Probationers 
• H.B. 2649: Diligent Participation Credits for State Jail Inmates 

These are useful tools for judges, attorneys, probation professionals, programming providers, and those impacted by criminal justice system.

The latter two bills give probationers and state jail inmates credit toward completion of their sentences for participation in various treatment and work programs, payment of court fees and restitution, etc.. State jail felons could see their sentences reduced up to 20%, while probationers may more quickly reach the point where judges can authorize their early release from probation. The new programs aim to give offenders incentive to participate in programming and comply with probation conditions. That should also allow the state to focus limited supervision resources on offenders who aren't actively pursuing rehabilitative goals. These types of "diligent participation" or "earned time" credits have been used in other states more aggressively but in Texas have atrophied in recent years from disuse. Only time will tell whether judges use the tools in the legislation or ignore their new authority.

SB 1055 is a smart idea that will take a while to implement, but which ultimately provides financial incentives to local probation departments that could substantially reduce incarceration levels at the Department of Criminal Justice. The bill allows (but does not require) probation departments to create "Commitment Reduction Plans" which sets a concrete target amount by which the county will reduce the number of people sent to TDCJ compared to the previous fiscal year. In return, TDCJ would award the county a lump sum equal to 35% of the savings to the agency from reduced commitments, and establishes further incentives for reducing new crimes, increasing restitution payments, and encouraging gainful employment among probationers. Accoding to TCJC:

Supplemental funds may be used "to provide any program or service that a department is authorized to provide under other law, including implementing, administering, and supporti ng evidence-based community supervision strategies, electronic monitoring, substance abuse and mental health counseling and treatment, specialized community supervision caseloads, intermediate sanctions, victims’ services, restitution collection, short-term incarcerati on in county jails, specialized courts, pretrial services and intervention programs, and work release and day reporting centers.” This money is in addition to any per-capita or formula funding for CSCDs [local probation departments].

Actually sharing savings from reduced incarceration with local probation departments realigns CSCDs' incentives in positive ways, discouraging probation revocation for less serious cases while giving departments more resources to manage probationers. Formula funding for probation departments is much lower than the per-offenders savings from reduced incarceration, so there's a real incentive for CSCDs that create Commitment Reduction Plans to manage less serious offenders in the community instead of turning to revocation at the first opportunity.

If probation departments fail to meet their goals for commitment reduction, they must return a prorated portion of the extra money they received at the end of the fiscal year.

In the past, the state gave grants to probation departments with the goal of encouraging reduction in revocations for technical probation violations. But that carrot was never accompanied by a stick, and departments that ignored revocation-reduction goals - notably Bexar and Collin, among larger counties - essentially faced no consequences. SB 1055 includes stronger mechanisms for holding departments accountable, as well as more lucrative incentives for meeting stated goals.

That said, it will be a while before we see the effects from SB 1055. Commitment reduction plans must be submitted within 60 days after the end of the gubernatorial veto period, but no CSCDs submitted a plan before the deadline in August. That means the first functional Commitment Reduction Plans - assuming CSCDs embrace the idea - won't be submitted or approved until two years from now. So the bill represents a long-term strategy, not something that offers short-term relief for the essentially chock-full prison system. But moving forward, sharing savings from reduced incarceration with local probation departments offers a promising strategy for restructuring incentives in ways that lower incarceration levels instead of maximize them. These are incremental changes, but positive ones.

Raising theft categories to account for inflation generates state-jail savings

State Rep. Ruth Jones McLendon has HB 2326 up in tomorrow's House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee that would significantly reduce the state jail population by increasing the threshold amounts for theft for both misdemeanors and state jail felonies. The new felony theft threshold would be $3,000, under her bill. Higher theft categories - third degree felonies on up - would remain the same.

This corresponds to some degree with a frequent suggestion on Grits to index theft categories to inflation. Theft categories haven't been updated since 1993, but because of inflation, every year defendants reach the $1,500 felony threshold by stealing a smaller and smaller basket of goods. In real terms, goods worth $1,500 in 1993 when current levels were established were be worth less than $1,000 in 2010. (Try it yourself using the inflation calculator.)

If Texas' 1993 theft levels were adjusted precisely for inflation, you'd hit felony levels somewhere in the $2,300 range. Rep. McLendon's bill does not float theft levels with inflation, but instead sets a new felony theft threshold at $3,000, which would at least allow for several years of inflation before needing adjustment again.

Until the fiscal note is published, we can't know for sure how many cases would be affected, but I suspect it's quite a few. In a perfect world, a good chunk of any savings would go to fund specialized caseloads or probation programming for Class A theft offenders aimed at maximizing victim restitution. It doesn't make a lot of fiscal sense to react to the theft of $1,500 by spending ten times that amount per year on the defendant's incarceration.

MORE: The fiscal note for this bill says the cost savings can't be calculated because there's no data available on the value of goods stolen in theft convictions. According to the Criminal Justice Impact Statement, "In fiscal year 2010, there were 79,401 arrests for theft subject to the provisions of the bill," including both state jail felony thefts and all misdemeanor thefts. "Of those arrested for state jail felony theft (12,839 arrests) subject to the provisions of the bill, 2,010 offenders were placed on felony community supervision, and 1,490 were admitted to state jail for the offense of theft punishable as a state jail felony." Certainly it's true that no data exists regarding the value of goods stolen in state-jail felony theft cases, but it's probably a safe assumption that a disproportionate number (perhaps a third, if I had to guess) will fall into the lower end of the range captured by raising the threshold. If that's accurate, McLendon's bill would divert perhaps 500 new inmates annually from state jails - less than is needed to achieve budget cuts in HB 1, but helpful, nonetheless.

Like its cousins, burglary of a residence and  burglary of a vehicle, theft is a crime where the bigger problem is not the inadequacy of punishment but low clearance rates. According to these data, prosecutors secure convictions for state-jail felony theft following just 27.3% of arrests, which tells you these cases are already frequently plead down or dismissed. The majority of those convicted receive probation. Further, police clearance rates for "larceny/theft" are just 17% statewide, according to DPS (see their report "Crime in Texas" [pdf] for FY 2008). Taken together (.17 x .273 = .046 or 4.6%), that means fewer than one in 20 state jail felony thefts reported statewide result in someone actually being convicted of the crime. Raising that ratio even a little would do a lot more to reduce crime than punishing the handful convicted slightly more harshly. Indeed, a commenter points out that prosecutors can already charge this offense as a Class A misdemeanor at their discretion, and many do in order to encourage restitution, in particular. So theft between $1,500 and $3,000 is already de facto treated as a Class A in many circumstances; the Lege may as well update the thresholds and make it official.

Privatizing state jails no budget panacea

One of the amendments proposed to the House budget that's up today would mandate privatization of all Texas state jails. However, according to the indefatigable Brandi Grissom at the Texas Tribune, state Rep. Erwin Cain said "that he would rescind his amendment because of technical concerns about the language. Instead, he will attach the proposal to a corrections-related bill by state Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Plano, the chairman of the House Corrections Committee."

From taxpayers' perspective, privatization of state jails make little sense for the same reason that buying your house is cheaper in the long-run than renting for thirty years. Companies may underbid in the short-term to get the business, but down the line when they raise rates you're then stuck with the privatized model. State Rep. Sylvester Turner told Grissom that "Past attempts at privatization ... have shown that companies are interested only in less expensive inmates. The state is left to shoulder the burden of housing the most-costly inmates: those who are sick and mentally ill. And, he said, there's no guarantee that private providers' rates won't skyrocket in the future." That issue of cherrypicking the least expensive and difficult inmates is exactly why private prisons' costs are lower.

As far as I can tell, the only way privatization would save significant sums under current circumstances is if the state closes some of its older, most expensive state-owned prisons built in the 19th and early 20th Centuries - which cost much more to operate than newer facilities because of their dated design - and shift those inmates to less expensive private beds. Many of those units also sit on substantial pieces of property that could be sold to raise money. By contrast, state jails were only invented in 1993. Closing state-owned units to privatize them makes about as much economic sense as selling a home you've already paid off to rent a similar house month-to-month.

What's really needed to save money in corrections is to reduce the number of prisoners. Privatizing state jails is more an ideological suggestion than a budgetary fix. I'm glad to hear the amendment today will be rescinded, and hopefully more considered thought will be given to this ill-conceived proposal before the idea gets too far.

Media discussion on eliminating state jails lacks nuance

Coupla more stories on the possibility of revamping state jails to become more like intermediate sanctions facilities for probationers instead of little min-prisons:

• McReynolds advocating state jail changes, Lufkin Daily News, July 11
• Texas jails: Fine-tune and fund, don't scrap, Austin American Statesman, July 8

The second piece is an unsigned staff editorial from the Statesman that somewhat confusedly advocates against something no one has suggested. It's fine to review state jails for ways to improve them, they say, but "We can't, however, imagine that any such review would show cause to shut [state jails] down." Though it's unstated, the editorial seems to be expressing a vague fear that perhaps the Travis State Jail could be closed, arguing for nothing specific except to say that state jails shouldn't be "scrapped."

Probably the reason they can't imagine that outcome, of course, is that no one has suggested such a thing. Instead the idea expressed was to re-purpose the facilities - or rather, return them to their original purpose - as sanctions against misbehaving probationers instead of strictly focused on punishment with no support or supervision during reentry.

What might be usefully eliminated (and what was actually being discussed at the Corrections Committee hearing in Houston) is the "state jail felony": The offense category created in 1993 that's Texas' equivalent of a 4th degree felony. Its original purpose - to create an offense category with less stigma and more opportunities to prevent future criminality - was long ago lost to "tuff on crime" demagoguery. Today they're just little mini-prisons with shorter sentences where time is served day for day without the possibility of parole or supervision after release.

If state jail felonies were eliminated as an offense category, some offenses might be lowered to Class A misdemeanors - most obviously penny ante drug possession offenses - and others would just be re-labeled third-degree felonies, with penalties of 2-10 years. (Perhaps while they're performing such reclassifications, theft categories could finally be adjusted for inflation. Thresholds for state jail felony theft were set at $1,500 in 1993, but adjusted for inflation, $1,500 today is the equivalent of $1,027 at the time the statute was written.)

I don't know whether eliminating that offense category is a good idea or not, but discussing it has merit. It might be the shortest distance to adjusting petty drug possession penalties, removing the stigma of the "felon" label for people whose only crimes relate to small-time drug possession. That would also reduce mounting pressure on state-jail populations, possibly allowing closure of the Dawson State Jail facility in Dallas to make way for a city-backed development (which is about as close as anybody's come to calling for closing state jails per se).

On the flip side, such a change would also adjust penalties upward for certain petty offenders and at a minimum, as Sen. Whitmire points out, ensure they're housed with more serious criminals. What's more, making sure those penalties don't become excessive would require relying on the parole board, which has a track record of failing to follow release guidelines for TDCJs lowest risk prisoners. So the devil, as they say, is in the details. There are pros and cons to both approaches, but the debate would be assisted more by careful analysis in the media than vague expressions of fear.

UPDATE: From the SA Express-News editorial board, see "Time to revise the state jail system."

State Jail creators: 'Don't kill our baby'

Mike Ward at the Statesman today has an article titled "Lawmakers might scrap or revamp state jail system" which relates a development covered last week on Grits: A suggestion at the House Corrections Committee to eliminate or radically modify the state jail system. (Back in the days when they used to print news on dead trees, I think they used to call this a "scoop.") The story opens:

When Texas' network of state jails was established by lawmakers in 1993, the goals were simple: Nonviolent drug offenders, thieves and first-time offenders would be housed in separate lockups with treatment and rehabilitation programs to cut their risk of returning to a life of crime.

Now some legislative leaders are considering a plan that might do away with the Lone Star idea that once attracted national headlines.

"I think there very well may be interest in changing the current state jail system," House Corrections Committee Chairman Jim McReynolds, D-Lufkin , said Tuesday. "The recidivism rates for state jail inmates are higher than for our regular prisons. We need to consider modifying the original model. They may have outlived their usefulness."

FWIW, "Considering a plan" is probably strong. It sounded to me like members of the Corrections Committee were voicing for perhaps the first time ideas in reaction to testimony from Harris County officials about state jails' effectiveness, or the lack thereof.

Ward went for reactions to the two men who arguably are most responsible for the existence of  Texas state jail system: state Sen. John Whitmire and Williamson County DA John Bradley. Wrote Ward:

two architects of the state jail system, which holds more than 12,000 of Texas' 155,000 convicts — those sentenced for fourth-degree felonies, the most minor type — warn that doing away with the special breed of prisons would be a big mistake.

"Tell (McReynolds) it ain't gonna happen," said Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat who authored the state jail law. "We created this system to take all the low-level drug offenders and property criminals out of state prisons so we'd have enough room to keep the violent offenders behind bars longer. The system has worked well.

"It would be a disaster to do away with state jails."

Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, who served as a liaison for prosecutors and law enforcement groups when Texas' criminal laws were rewritten to create the state jail system, agreed.

"Instead of considering doing away with it, the state should be considering renewing its commitment to the state jail system."

Ward says Bradley served as a "liaison for prosecutors and law enforcement groups" when state jails were created, and as a purely practical matter I'm sure that's true. But as I understand it (that's a couple of sessions before my time), officially he worked as a legislative aide to Sen. Whitmire that session back in 1993. So perhaps it's no surprise that the creators of the state jail felony would not only defend it, but declare that it is the the main bulwark standing between the citizenry and the early release of violent criminals.

To be fair, Chairman McReynolds didn't actually suggest eliminating state jails entirely, but beefing up probation for petty offenders and merging state jail functions with Intermediate Sanctions Facilities - short-term, treatment focused punishment for probation violators that aim to prepare the offender to succeed upon reentry. Arguably, McReynold ideas simply return the state jail concept to its roots.

Created as a way to divert nonviolent prisoners away from a life of crime, budget cuts eliminated treatment at state jails and "tough on crime" amendments eliminated what Ward says was originally "automatic" probation. "Republican George W. Bush lambasted Democratic incumbent Gov. Ann Richards, insisting she had been soft on crime in supporting the state jail law," writes Ward. "Lawmakers subsequently changed it to mostly drop the automatic probation." So if state jails were merged with ISFs, they would once again become essentially a probation sanction instead of the little mini-prisons they've become. In that sense, McReynolds' idea would return state jails to their conceptual  beginnings, whatever name one gives to them.

Despite Whitmire and Bradley's understandable pride of ownership, not everybody agrees Texas' state jail experiment has performed so swimmingly. The Corrections Committee's discussion portrayed current state jails' "day for day" time served as fulfilling only a "punishment" function, not a rehabilitative one. In fact, the committee was told, state jails worsen recidivism, particularly among the mentally ill and other high risk groups. That's because, as McReynolds told Ward, state jail inmates leave lockup "with no supervision, no intensive treatment or programs, and their recidivism rate is as high as 34 percent, compared with about 28 percent for the inmates coming out of regular prisons."

Harris County DA Pat Lykos and Caprice Cosper, a former judge who now coordinates Harris County efforts to reduce jail crowding, were the most virulent critics of state jails at last week's hearing. Whitmire's comments were aimed at Chairman McReynolds, but it was the Harris County DA and the head of Harris County's Office of Criminal Justice Coordination who most loudly called for reform.

Chairman McReynolds wasn't jumping the gun or saying he would absolutely move on this idea, he was reacting to testimony. And as Ward later reports, far from presenting a "plan," McReynolds merely "asked members of his committee to poll local prosecutors and officials in their districts about perhaps changing the state jail concept to be more like special lockups called Intermediate Sanction Facilities, which house mostly parole violators."

Considering the most virulent critiques of the state jail system at last week's hearing came from the Houston senator's hometown DA and a former Harris County district judge who spent 16 years on the bench - not to mention the fact that 16 out of 22 Harris County felony court judges support reducing "less than a gram" penalties to a Class A misdemeanor - perhaps running the idea of reforming state jails by local officials would be a good idea for Chairman Whitmire. His belief that state jails as constituted have "worked well" isn't universally shared among Harris County officialdom.