In 2004-05, school year, an estimated 54.9 million students were enrolled in our nation’s pre-kindergarten through 12 grade. According to U.S. Department of Education report filed on November 20. 2005, School Safety Report Released, School violence rate is at lowest level since 1992, and the rate of violent crime victims in schools declined from 48 per thousand students in 1992 to 28 per thousand in 2003. This is good news for our district schools with the implementation of a resource officer program, video cameras on campuses, and support by the local law enforcement. Our kids are safer in school.
The same report advises that students are twice as likely to be victims of serious violence away from school. Students in urban schools were twice as likely as students in rural and suburban schools to fear being attacked at school or on the way to and from school. Public awareness and proactive involvement in school districts around the country created policies to lower school violence and crime on school property. Youth violence and crime in the neighborhoods seem to overshadow the good news on school campuses.
Protecting our youth is paramount in our duty as professionals. Children have the right to be safe in their homes, neighborhoods, and schools. What can we do as professionals to break the cycle of violence and crime amongst the youth of our society? Many communities are afforded after-school programs and offer incentives to inner-city clubs to promote sport and after-school programs.
The dichotomy of gangs and the nation’s youth create an underground culture. As we watch our neighborhoods quietly deteriorate and cities implode within, the urban sprawl has fallen victim to these hoodlums who prey on our youth with false promises of quick money and kinship. Deviance is no stranger to any society or time, societal reaction to this deviance is measured in crime statistics and prison bed spaces.
The issue at hand is not gangs or youthful indiscretions, but an often over-looked issue of safety for our children. How do we address our societal acceptance of violence and crime in our neighborhoods? Every child deserves safe passage to and from school. Shifting our attention to the streets will make this generation safer. The possibilities seem at the time far-reaching on school campuses, and here we are today with a drastic cut in school violence. Putting our resources together, education, and crime awareness may be the grass roots effort our children need to be safer walking in their neighborhoods and not fearing being a victim of violence.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Sweeping Changes needed for Texas: New Department of Probation
ACCORDING TO CJAD: THE MISSION OF CJAD IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, REHAB OFFENDERS, AND SERVE VICTIMS. CJAD DOES THIS BY SOUND PUBLIC POLICY THAT LEADS TO EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY BASED PROGRAMS AND SERVICES.
If the mission statement was practiced, this would be an honorable guide to put anyone's name on it. However, this turns out to be one of the biggest boondoggle concepts in Texas criminal justice mission statement history. This policy coming out of Austin continues to promote reduction in inmate population, community supervision population, violations to the court, and county incentives for early terminations of probation. Sounds good, so what is wrong with this? Read on, and you may realize as I do in following the money trail, the lack of protection the state affords it's citizens.
Those who are proponents of decriminalization and minimizing laws have enjoyed the legislative actions and policies of CJAD. The message has been clear for many years, our cities remain war zones because of this philosophy. Funding for substance abuse beds has become a big business. More importantly it has become a major contributor to the way we do business and how funding of community supervision departments has become less community based and more treatment bed based. As long as the profits continue to flow for substance abuse program administrators, private attorneys, and contractors, the sale of illegal drugs will continue to flow. Treatment verses incarceration seems to be the only concern of the legislators and courts.
Meanwhile, supervision officers are left holding inflated caseloads with little incentive to report violators and little recourse during hearings. Meanwhile other crimes are being committed throughout our neighborhoods. Sex, burglaries, thefts, and violent crimes continue to plague the courts. Law enforcement departments are doing their part in many jurisdictions. Offenders do get caught. What happens after the charges continues to be viewed in a apathetic manner towards serious justice. The courts and CJAD appear to play a dangerous game to promote less supervision of those on community supervision, less punishment for those who commit repeated crimes, and less incentives to abide by our moral code.CJAD's answers are reduction in inmate population, lower terms for probationers, and early terminations for probations along with reduction of technical violations. If departments fail to march to the drum beat of this Austin crowd, then funding is pulled from the departments and given back to the general revenue.
Therefore, departments are feeling the pressure to create policy to be less likely to report technical violations in fear of budget reduction of an already under budget and under-funded departments.What does this mean for the victims? Those violators will not have an incentive to comply with the court sanctions and laws of the state. Punishment continues to be a last choice, and accountability is set aside for rehabilitation at the costs of the taxpayer and victims. Some offenders will not commit crimes that warrant a state prison sentence, and this is why there will always be a need of supervision officers in our communities. Non-violent offenders and drug users should be given the opportunity to prove to the courts and public, with the proper referrals and supervision, they can live a law-abiding life.
One of the bigger issues is the relaxed policy of drug dealers and violent criminals being placed on probation, and the lack of will to swiftly punish for violations. Jail overcrowding seems to be the constant cry from those on the far left running our legislature losing sight of a balanced criminal justice system. The CJAD formula ignored key elements in properly supervising offenders and protection of the public. Most everyone deserves a second chance. What he or she does with this second chance should be looked at more serious by our legislators. Progressive sanctions should not be a watered down policy to thwart the purpose of accountability. Victims should be able to receive restitution, expect clear and purposeful supervision, and assured punishment for non-compliance. Sentencing guidelines must be adopted to mandate the courts to assure fairness and equal punishment of all offenders and not those who can pay for litigation. Courts must be also given a mandate to address continued violations and viewed not to be the fault of the supervision officer in an excuse to sanction probation budgets.
The principle of law demands the criminal take ownership of his or her crime. The supervision officer should be given the tools to supervise in an effective way with the strong support of the legislative body and the courts.Supervision officers throughout Texas have proven education and experience to effect change in criminal behavior and report those who are a risk to the community. The legislators have ignored and minimized the importance of the officer and failed to invest in funding for professional pay and give the necessary tools to supervise felons and misdemeanants. The need for overhaul of a broken system is more critical today than ever. The failed policies of watered down progressive sanctions, repeat treatment program failures, and the power of the private attorneys to manipulate the courts are among the many problems plagued by the incompetent policies of today's legislators.
Treatment is necessary. Treatment without supervision is reckless. Failure to adequately compensate these professional officers at a pay scale commensurate with their education and experience is unjust. Texas has found a way to compensate attorneys, judges, administrators, and politicians with a salary equal to their responsibility. Who is more responsible than the supervision officer, who day in and day out monitors the behavior, and could one day be in harms way in order to effectively supervise these hundreds of offenders. The call to reform this mislead system is upon us.
The most important decision our legislators can make in the upcoming session is to strongly look at their failed policies. A call to remove the CJAD's role in the process is critical to overhaul and return justice back to the State of Texas. The need to separate probation as a fully sanctioned state recognized department responsible to the governor is more critical than ever before. The judicial branch should be held accountable for their sentences by adopting a consistent and fair sentencing guidelines for punishment that accounts for the offender's prior record, supervision record, and extent of the crime. Counties need to remove themselves from the abuse of internal politics and continued fighting for bigger budgets. Monies should not be used as a caveat to bait the local community corrections departments to continue to look the other way and recommend continued supervision or treatment on those career felons who continue illegal behavior. These actions along with bringing credibility to the caseload officer will be the most effective way to protect the community and not just use it as a feel good mission statement as per the CJAD political machine.
The below listed proposals will bring credibility to Texas and provide meaningful guidance to protect citizens:
1. Remove CJAD from probation policy and funding matters:
Allow a more qualified organization to oversee and report to the governor and legislators on probation matters.
2. Implementation of the Texas Department of Probation:
Supervise felons and misdemeanants shifting the responsibility and oversight of community supervision departments from county responsibility to the state. This will remove county politics, maximize funding sources, and allow probation officers to be managed by probation staff instead of courts that do not have the resources to effectively oversee a department.
3. Implementation of sentencing guidelines:
Increased enhancements for violent, sex, probation violations, and bond release violations increasing fairness in sentencing.
4. Zero tolerance for drug dealers and violent offenders
Mandatory prison sentences for probationers who violate their supervision.
5. Shorter probation sentences for non-violent, drug use, or theft crimes.
6. Civil liens for any outstanding monies owed at the time of termination:
Court costs, restitution, and administration fees will eventually be collected by the majority of offenders giving the State and general revenue a on-going source of funds to pay for probation costs.
7. Caseload caps:
Supervision officers need to conduct field visits and make contact with offenders at their residence, employment, and family members to assure compliance.
8. Law enforcement powers to all certified caseload officers:
Allow the officer to protect himself or herself in the gang infested neighborhoods and possibly protect others in the performance of his or her duties.
9. Warrant less arrest powers:
Offenders with active warrants, possession of drugs/weapons or pornography (sex offenders) pose a risk to society. The response time and local policies of law enforcement officials may be delayed or non-existent in some areas. The need to arrest is critical in the overall mission to protect the public.
10. Warrant less search powers:
Searching an offender's person, property, and vehicle will not only assure compliance, but searches will also ensure safety of the officer and possibly remove weapons, illegal drugs, and pornography from those who are being supervised.
11. Fund training:
Establishment of a probation training fee to fund officer training.
12. Mandate supervision officers to carry firearms.
Protect officers
13. Create a house arrest program
Serious violent, habitual, or sex offenders Reduce jail population.
14. Mandate GPS
Reduce jail populationSex offenders, gang members, and violent offenders need to be placed on GPS upon the recommendation of the presentence investigation officer and approved by the court.
15. Mandate the courts to sentence felony criminals to state facilities.
Reduce local jail overcrowding
16. Fingerprinting and DNA testing on all felony offenders
17. Provide fingerprint readers/database for all probation offices and schools:
Identify felons on supervision and prevent sex offenders from entering school property.
18. Create a felony database on the supervised population:
Photos will aid the public, law enforcement, and probationand parole staff with accurate photo, address, employment, and criminal history. The database is a tool to enhance public safety.
These sweeping changes can bring credibility to our antiquated justice system. This will send a clear message to the public that Texas is serious about crime, and protection of our citizens is paramount above all else. Texas can lead the rest of the country assuring accountability and justice in a responsible probation system. Funding a department can be done with offender fees going directly to the state. Salaries and costs of supervision can be pulled from this resource. Civil liens can be used to ensure a great majority of offenders pay for their crimes. The prison and jail populations can be reduced and taxpayers will not be burdened by the inmate bed space and repeat substance abuser bed space. Offenders will be more accountable and pay for their drug abuse. Texas can join the top states in offender accountability and efficiency with a strong probation department active in the communities protecting the citizens of Texas.
If the mission statement was practiced, this would be an honorable guide to put anyone's name on it. However, this turns out to be one of the biggest boondoggle concepts in Texas criminal justice mission statement history. This policy coming out of Austin continues to promote reduction in inmate population, community supervision population, violations to the court, and county incentives for early terminations of probation. Sounds good, so what is wrong with this? Read on, and you may realize as I do in following the money trail, the lack of protection the state affords it's citizens.
Those who are proponents of decriminalization and minimizing laws have enjoyed the legislative actions and policies of CJAD. The message has been clear for many years, our cities remain war zones because of this philosophy. Funding for substance abuse beds has become a big business. More importantly it has become a major contributor to the way we do business and how funding of community supervision departments has become less community based and more treatment bed based. As long as the profits continue to flow for substance abuse program administrators, private attorneys, and contractors, the sale of illegal drugs will continue to flow. Treatment verses incarceration seems to be the only concern of the legislators and courts.
Meanwhile, supervision officers are left holding inflated caseloads with little incentive to report violators and little recourse during hearings. Meanwhile other crimes are being committed throughout our neighborhoods. Sex, burglaries, thefts, and violent crimes continue to plague the courts. Law enforcement departments are doing their part in many jurisdictions. Offenders do get caught. What happens after the charges continues to be viewed in a apathetic manner towards serious justice. The courts and CJAD appear to play a dangerous game to promote less supervision of those on community supervision, less punishment for those who commit repeated crimes, and less incentives to abide by our moral code.CJAD's answers are reduction in inmate population, lower terms for probationers, and early terminations for probations along with reduction of technical violations. If departments fail to march to the drum beat of this Austin crowd, then funding is pulled from the departments and given back to the general revenue.
Therefore, departments are feeling the pressure to create policy to be less likely to report technical violations in fear of budget reduction of an already under budget and under-funded departments.What does this mean for the victims? Those violators will not have an incentive to comply with the court sanctions and laws of the state. Punishment continues to be a last choice, and accountability is set aside for rehabilitation at the costs of the taxpayer and victims. Some offenders will not commit crimes that warrant a state prison sentence, and this is why there will always be a need of supervision officers in our communities. Non-violent offenders and drug users should be given the opportunity to prove to the courts and public, with the proper referrals and supervision, they can live a law-abiding life.
One of the bigger issues is the relaxed policy of drug dealers and violent criminals being placed on probation, and the lack of will to swiftly punish for violations. Jail overcrowding seems to be the constant cry from those on the far left running our legislature losing sight of a balanced criminal justice system. The CJAD formula ignored key elements in properly supervising offenders and protection of the public. Most everyone deserves a second chance. What he or she does with this second chance should be looked at more serious by our legislators. Progressive sanctions should not be a watered down policy to thwart the purpose of accountability. Victims should be able to receive restitution, expect clear and purposeful supervision, and assured punishment for non-compliance. Sentencing guidelines must be adopted to mandate the courts to assure fairness and equal punishment of all offenders and not those who can pay for litigation. Courts must be also given a mandate to address continued violations and viewed not to be the fault of the supervision officer in an excuse to sanction probation budgets.
The principle of law demands the criminal take ownership of his or her crime. The supervision officer should be given the tools to supervise in an effective way with the strong support of the legislative body and the courts.Supervision officers throughout Texas have proven education and experience to effect change in criminal behavior and report those who are a risk to the community. The legislators have ignored and minimized the importance of the officer and failed to invest in funding for professional pay and give the necessary tools to supervise felons and misdemeanants. The need for overhaul of a broken system is more critical today than ever. The failed policies of watered down progressive sanctions, repeat treatment program failures, and the power of the private attorneys to manipulate the courts are among the many problems plagued by the incompetent policies of today's legislators.
Treatment is necessary. Treatment without supervision is reckless. Failure to adequately compensate these professional officers at a pay scale commensurate with their education and experience is unjust. Texas has found a way to compensate attorneys, judges, administrators, and politicians with a salary equal to their responsibility. Who is more responsible than the supervision officer, who day in and day out monitors the behavior, and could one day be in harms way in order to effectively supervise these hundreds of offenders. The call to reform this mislead system is upon us.
The most important decision our legislators can make in the upcoming session is to strongly look at their failed policies. A call to remove the CJAD's role in the process is critical to overhaul and return justice back to the State of Texas. The need to separate probation as a fully sanctioned state recognized department responsible to the governor is more critical than ever before. The judicial branch should be held accountable for their sentences by adopting a consistent and fair sentencing guidelines for punishment that accounts for the offender's prior record, supervision record, and extent of the crime. Counties need to remove themselves from the abuse of internal politics and continued fighting for bigger budgets. Monies should not be used as a caveat to bait the local community corrections departments to continue to look the other way and recommend continued supervision or treatment on those career felons who continue illegal behavior. These actions along with bringing credibility to the caseload officer will be the most effective way to protect the community and not just use it as a feel good mission statement as per the CJAD political machine.
The below listed proposals will bring credibility to Texas and provide meaningful guidance to protect citizens:
1. Remove CJAD from probation policy and funding matters:
Allow a more qualified organization to oversee and report to the governor and legislators on probation matters.
2. Implementation of the Texas Department of Probation:
Supervise felons and misdemeanants shifting the responsibility and oversight of community supervision departments from county responsibility to the state. This will remove county politics, maximize funding sources, and allow probation officers to be managed by probation staff instead of courts that do not have the resources to effectively oversee a department.
3. Implementation of sentencing guidelines:
Increased enhancements for violent, sex, probation violations, and bond release violations increasing fairness in sentencing.
4. Zero tolerance for drug dealers and violent offenders
Mandatory prison sentences for probationers who violate their supervision.
5. Shorter probation sentences for non-violent, drug use, or theft crimes.
6. Civil liens for any outstanding monies owed at the time of termination:
Court costs, restitution, and administration fees will eventually be collected by the majority of offenders giving the State and general revenue a on-going source of funds to pay for probation costs.
7. Caseload caps:
Supervision officers need to conduct field visits and make contact with offenders at their residence, employment, and family members to assure compliance.
8. Law enforcement powers to all certified caseload officers:
Allow the officer to protect himself or herself in the gang infested neighborhoods and possibly protect others in the performance of his or her duties.
9. Warrant less arrest powers:
Offenders with active warrants, possession of drugs/weapons or pornography (sex offenders) pose a risk to society. The response time and local policies of law enforcement officials may be delayed or non-existent in some areas. The need to arrest is critical in the overall mission to protect the public.
10. Warrant less search powers:
Searching an offender's person, property, and vehicle will not only assure compliance, but searches will also ensure safety of the officer and possibly remove weapons, illegal drugs, and pornography from those who are being supervised.
11. Fund training:
Establishment of a probation training fee to fund officer training.
12. Mandate supervision officers to carry firearms.
Protect officers
13. Create a house arrest program
Serious violent, habitual, or sex offenders Reduce jail population.
14. Mandate GPS
Reduce jail populationSex offenders, gang members, and violent offenders need to be placed on GPS upon the recommendation of the presentence investigation officer and approved by the court.
15. Mandate the courts to sentence felony criminals to state facilities.
Reduce local jail overcrowding
16. Fingerprinting and DNA testing on all felony offenders
17. Provide fingerprint readers/database for all probation offices and schools:
Identify felons on supervision and prevent sex offenders from entering school property.
18. Create a felony database on the supervised population:
Photos will aid the public, law enforcement, and probationand parole staff with accurate photo, address, employment, and criminal history. The database is a tool to enhance public safety.
These sweeping changes can bring credibility to our antiquated justice system. This will send a clear message to the public that Texas is serious about crime, and protection of our citizens is paramount above all else. Texas can lead the rest of the country assuring accountability and justice in a responsible probation system. Funding a department can be done with offender fees going directly to the state. Salaries and costs of supervision can be pulled from this resource. Civil liens can be used to ensure a great majority of offenders pay for their crimes. The prison and jail populations can be reduced and taxpayers will not be burdened by the inmate bed space and repeat substance abuser bed space. Offenders will be more accountable and pay for their drug abuse. Texas can join the top states in offender accountability and efficiency with a strong probation department active in the communities protecting the citizens of Texas.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
CJAD, a critical review of current trends in Texas
Community Supervision and Corrections Departments (CSCDs) are mandated in Texas to supervise all adult probation offenders who is on for misdemeanor or felony offenses. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice Assistance Division (CJAD) oversees all of the adult probation departments throughout Texas. Out of the 121 departments throughout the State, CJAD provides two-thirds of their operational funds. The remaining one-third funds come from fees such as court-ordered supervision and program fees. According to CJAD, each county is responsible for probation office space, equipment, and costs of utilities.
According to the CJAD website, CJAD is responsible for:
Caseload officers do not have the support by of the state legislators. In other words, Texas Legislators through their infinite wisdom sanctioned a non-probation agency (CJAD) to make the rules, dictate funding, and provide training for probation officers. One would need to look outside the Texas boarders to see effective supervision of offenders. Texas focus is mainly on treatment policies. This seems to be self-serving and perpetuates their own treatment organization and does little to enhance the role of the caseload officer in supervision of offenders. One can conclude business will go on as it always does until the legislative body realizes CJAD direction does very little to protect the citizens of Texas. What CJAD will do is sanction treatment, provide funding for these treatment facilities and promote non-compliance of conditions through a reward program to lower technical violations. This seems to be the cornerstone to all questions about recidivism and reduction in the criminal population for this Austin bureaucracy.
Funding for treatment has taken precedence over protecting our neighborhoods. Budgets are passed with treatment being top of the agenda. Millions of dollars of tax revenue go to “Big Treatment, and it is Big Business.” What do we get for the buck? One can find statistics about revocations and terminations based on technical or new law violations of offenders. One statistic that is not readily available to the general public is whether treatment works. What does it cost for bed space per offender and how many times offender went through treatment programs and at what cost? What is the recidivism rate of those offenders sent to treatment? Will the offender re-use, get back in the system, and victimize someone else supporting the drug culture? Have there been any studies by CJAD to address long-term success rates of these specific state-funded programs after offenders leave the facilities. How many times an offender goes through treatment programs while on community supervision? Is this revolving door policy audited?
These questions and many more are important to analyze whether or not the on-going policies of CJAD work. We all know crime is on a national downward trend. However, in the inner cities and rural areas with methamphetamine labs and crack houses set up like local convenience stores continue to draw in more criminals and perpetuate collateral crime creating new victims as each day passes. This underground criminal society accepts violence, continues the degradation of communities, and continues to play into a blind Texas system.
Recognizing these problems and understanding the need for a policy overhaul will be one of the first steps to make responsible criminal justice policy for Texas. The need to attract and keep line officers will be a critical first step. The education and training requirement for all caseload officers throughout the country continues to be a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in the criminal justice or related field. These individuals are a value in the balanced approach of counseling and evaluating the risk and needs of offenders. Why is Texas not funding these officers? Experience of these officers is a valuable tool to effect change in behavior. The officers need to be out in the community providing guidance, monitoring, and give a valuable presence in the communities.
The officers need to have the tools to arrest, transport, and have the support of the courts to process offenders who do continue to ignore the sanctions and laws of Texas. The officers need to protect themselves and possibly others who may fall prey to these violent criminals. The mission should be to protect Texas citizens and not reduce jail populations. Many offenders get it and comply. For those offenders who do not get it, there must be swift and sure punishment. CJAD falls criminally short of serving the public, and officers are left to continue the task of monitoring high caseloads and wonder what is CJAD doing to promote a stronger criminal justice system. According to the Census Data, April 2000, Texas is the second largest state in the country with a population of 20,851,820 reportable persons. Texas should take a leadership role in addressing the needs of caseload officers and set precedence for other states to mimic. I believe Texas fails to understand that a balanced approach is needed in the supervision of offenders. We should never forget what happened in Florida with the Jessica Lunsford case, and how a weak justice system with weak courts and probation policy transformed into one of the strongest in the country. Protect the public is obviously the mission in Florida. We need to make it our mission in Texas.
According to the CJAD website, CJAD is responsible for:
- Developing standards and procedures for CSCDs, including best-practice treatment standards.
- Distribution of formula and grant funding provided by the state legislature.
- Reviewing and approving each CSCD’s community justice plan and budget.
- Conducting program and fiscal audits of CSCD operations and programs.
- Developing an automated tracking system capable of receiving data from CSCDs’ caseload management and accounting system.
- Providing community supervision officer and residential officer certification, in-service training, educational training, and technical assistance to CSCDs.
- Administration of state benefits for CSCD employees.
- CJAD does not work directly with offenders but supports and assists local CSCDs, which have this responsibility.
- CSCDs provide offender services in accordance with their local community justice plans.
Their responsibilities include:
- Supervision and rehabilitation of offenders sentenced to community supervision.
- Monitoring compliance with court-ordered conditions.
- Offering a continuum of sanctions.
- Offering regular reporting and specialized caseloads.
- Providing residential confinement programs.
- Providing both residential and non-residential treatment/correctional programs.
Caseload officers do not have the support by of the state legislators. In other words, Texas Legislators through their infinite wisdom sanctioned a non-probation agency (CJAD) to make the rules, dictate funding, and provide training for probation officers. One would need to look outside the Texas boarders to see effective supervision of offenders. Texas focus is mainly on treatment policies. This seems to be self-serving and perpetuates their own treatment organization and does little to enhance the role of the caseload officer in supervision of offenders. One can conclude business will go on as it always does until the legislative body realizes CJAD direction does very little to protect the citizens of Texas. What CJAD will do is sanction treatment, provide funding for these treatment facilities and promote non-compliance of conditions through a reward program to lower technical violations. This seems to be the cornerstone to all questions about recidivism and reduction in the criminal population for this Austin bureaucracy.
Funding for treatment has taken precedence over protecting our neighborhoods. Budgets are passed with treatment being top of the agenda. Millions of dollars of tax revenue go to “Big Treatment, and it is Big Business.” What do we get for the buck? One can find statistics about revocations and terminations based on technical or new law violations of offenders. One statistic that is not readily available to the general public is whether treatment works. What does it cost for bed space per offender and how many times offender went through treatment programs and at what cost? What is the recidivism rate of those offenders sent to treatment? Will the offender re-use, get back in the system, and victimize someone else supporting the drug culture? Have there been any studies by CJAD to address long-term success rates of these specific state-funded programs after offenders leave the facilities. How many times an offender goes through treatment programs while on community supervision? Is this revolving door policy audited?
These questions and many more are important to analyze whether or not the on-going policies of CJAD work. We all know crime is on a national downward trend. However, in the inner cities and rural areas with methamphetamine labs and crack houses set up like local convenience stores continue to draw in more criminals and perpetuate collateral crime creating new victims as each day passes. This underground criminal society accepts violence, continues the degradation of communities, and continues to play into a blind Texas system.
Recognizing these problems and understanding the need for a policy overhaul will be one of the first steps to make responsible criminal justice policy for Texas. The need to attract and keep line officers will be a critical first step. The education and training requirement for all caseload officers throughout the country continues to be a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in the criminal justice or related field. These individuals are a value in the balanced approach of counseling and evaluating the risk and needs of offenders. Why is Texas not funding these officers? Experience of these officers is a valuable tool to effect change in behavior. The officers need to be out in the community providing guidance, monitoring, and give a valuable presence in the communities.
The officers need to have the tools to arrest, transport, and have the support of the courts to process offenders who do continue to ignore the sanctions and laws of Texas. The officers need to protect themselves and possibly others who may fall prey to these violent criminals. The mission should be to protect Texas citizens and not reduce jail populations. Many offenders get it and comply. For those offenders who do not get it, there must be swift and sure punishment. CJAD falls criminally short of serving the public, and officers are left to continue the task of monitoring high caseloads and wonder what is CJAD doing to promote a stronger criminal justice system. According to the Census Data, April 2000, Texas is the second largest state in the country with a population of 20,851,820 reportable persons. Texas should take a leadership role in addressing the needs of caseload officers and set precedence for other states to mimic. I believe Texas fails to understand that a balanced approach is needed in the supervision of offenders. We should never forget what happened in Florida with the Jessica Lunsford case, and how a weak justice system with weak courts and probation policy transformed into one of the strongest in the country. Protect the public is obviously the mission in Florida. We need to make it our mission in Texas.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Justice Center Scenarios on Treatment Programs
Justice Center, The Council of State Governments
65.1 million dollars savings between 2008-2012, lowering the prison population and increasing the bed spaces at treatment facilities.
Quoted below is the plan as presented by The Council on State Governments:
Texas Justice
Reinvestment
Scenarios
“Under the leadership of three key lawmakers,
policymakers in Texas are reviewing policies in
the state to find ways to increase public safety
and to manage corrections spending and growth
in the prison population. In 2006, Senator John
Whitmire (D, Chair, Criminal Justice Committee),
Representative Jerry Madden (R, Chair, Corrections
Committee), and Senator Kim Brimer (R, Chair,
Sunset Advisory Commission) each convened
hearings and commissioned reviews to improve
their understanding of why the prison population
continues to grow and what is contributing to
high rates of failure among people released from
prison to the community and people sentenced to
probation.
This policy brief, prepared at the direction of
Senator Whitmire and Representative Madden,
reviews aspects of two possible justice reinvestment
scenarios in which policymakers enact policies
to address the projected shortfall of over 17,000
prison beds in Texas by 2012.1 In the first scenario,
policymakers increase tools available to the Parole
Board to enhance the use of parole guidelines in
the state. In the second scenario, policymakers
increase the capacity of treatment-oriented facilities
and the availability of substance abuse and mental
health services. Although the scenarios each
include distinct strategies, there is also some
overlap between the two, so the scenarios cannot be
combined simply to double the impact on prison
beds or on corrections spending.
The fiscal impact projected for each scenario is
based upon assumptions regarding cost, timing,
and diversion that have been used in prior research.
Both these assumptions and the projections
described in this brief were developed with the
help and approval of Legislative Budget Board staff.
Savings were calculated by comparing the cost of
each scenario with the status quo (i.e., the budget
presented by TDCJ in the General Appropriations
Bill, As Introduced, Eightieth Legislative Regular
Session, 2007.)2
The Justice Center is providing intensive technical assistance to Texas and a limited number of other states that demonstrate a
bipartisan interest in justice reinvestment—a data-driven strategy for policymakers to reduce spending on corrections, increase
public safety, and improve conditions in the neighborhoods to which most people released from prison return.
1
Collaborative Approaches Projected Fiscal Impact to Public Safety
$65.1 million
net savings for the five-year period of 2008 –2012
explanation: For the 2008–2009 fiscal year, the LBB projects
no savings in General Revenue because of the $78.9 million cost
associated with increasing the number of treatment-oriented
beds and services. For the three-year period of 2010–2012,
however, the total projected savings is of $144.1 million as the
prison population is reduced from the projected baseline level.
This results in a five-year net savings of $65.1 million. This
does not include avoided construction cost of $377.7 for the
construction of new prisons as was proposed by TDCJ as an
“exceptional item” to the state appropriations bill.
1. Projections by the Legislative Budget Board, January 2007 as
discussed in the Council of State Governments Justice Center bulletin
entitled “Recent and Projected Growth of the Texas Prison Population,”
January 2007.
2. Memorandum from John O’Brian, Director of the LBB to Senator John
Whitmire, January 23, 2006.
3. The Sunset Advisory Commission is a 12-member body of legislators
and public members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives to provide the legislature
with assessments of an agency’s programs. The Commission convened a
review of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in 2006. In October
2006, the Commission published its staff report entitled “Sunset
Advisory Commission: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Board of
Pardons and Paroles, Correctional Managed Health Care Committee Staff
Report.”
4. Sunset Advisory Commission: Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Board of Pardons and Paroles, Correctional Managed Health Care Committee
Staff Report, October 2006, page 13.
5. For a complete analysis, see The Council of State Governments Justice
Center, “ Policy Options to Increase Public Safety and to Manage the
Growth of the Texas Prison Population,” January 2007.
6. Ibid, Sunset Advisory Commission Staff Report, page 11.
7. Ibid, page 13.”
8. Council of State Governments Justice Center, “Policy Options to
Increase Public Safety and to Manage the Growth of the Texas Prison
Population,” January 2007.
figure 4: General Revenue Related Funds, Five-Year
Fiscal Impact of Scenario Two (“Increase Availability
of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Treatment-
Oriented Facilities and Services”)
FY
Probable Net Positive/(Negative)
Impact to General Revenue Funds
2008 ($58,899,220)
2009 ($20,074,299)
Subtotal 2008–09 ($78,973,519)
2010 $19,672,192
2011 $46,755,795
2012 $77,679,739
Subtotal 2010–12 $144,107,726
Total Net
Savings 2008–12
$65,134,207
Justice Center
Council of State Governments
100 Wall Street, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10005
www.justicecenter.csg.org
project contact:
LaToya McBean
(646) 383-5721
lmcbean@csg.org
The Council of State Governments Justice Center is a national
nonprofit organization that serves policymakers at the local,
state, and federal levels from all branches of government. The
Center provides practical, nonpartisan advice and consensus driven
strategies, informed by available evidence, to increase
public safety and strengthen communities. The board of directors
for the center includes, as its vice chairperson, the Honorable
Sharon Keller, Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. Representative Jerry Madden, Chair of the Texas House
Corrections Committee, also serves on this board. Dr. Tony
Fabelo, working with designated agency and legislative staff in
Texas, coordinates the project in Texas for the Justice Center.
Research and analysis described in this report
has been funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
a division of the U.S. Department of
Justice and The Pew Charitable Trusts. Through
its Public Safety Performance Project, which assists
select states that want better results from
their sentencing and corrections systems, Pew’s
project provides nonpartisan research, analysis
and expertise to help states identify data-driven,
fiscally responsible options for protecting public
safety, holding offenders accountable, and controlling
corrections costs.
4 Texas Justice Reinvestment Scenarios
This writer believes these scenarios should provoke a great deal of interest for probation. Funding treatment programs seem to move with ease when the alternative is paying for new prison beds. High costs of manning prisons and building additional prisons have become more unpopular today among the legislative bodies around the country. Addressing the root of the problem of criminal behavior and the on-going drug/alcohol addiction among many offenders is vital to keep our communities safe. Sending these offenders to treatment seems to be the panacea to reduce prison populations. It would be an interesting read to review the recidivist rates of those who successfully completed treatment verses those who completed time incarcerated in the state penitentiary. A study is needed to do a cost comparison of offenders who complete the treatment programs, relapse, and end up back in the system and more treatment and/or incarceration. Could the multiple trips to treatment facilities outweigh the cost of a prison bed? I would be naive to say treatment works the first time for all who are referred to the programs. At first glance savings of $65.1 million dollars seems like someone stumbled on the missing Dead Sea Scrolls, but after applying reality to the statistically challenging scenario, it seems somewhat misleading without addressing recidivism. At some point, we are going to have to look at building prisons or filling beds because treatment does not work all the time for all people. It is a good tool for those who wish to remove themselves from this underground drug culture. For those who play the treatment card, we need to be ready to raise the stakes with the real cost analysis or we can fold and continue to address treatment as a revolving door solution. I wonder how can a treatment bed is cheaper than a minimum stay prison bed and why treatment providers are not used more often in a prison setting?
My experience remembers visiting many prisons and noticing AA/NA meetings, drug abuse classes, and other programs for those who wish to participate and take full advantage of free treatment. Criminal behavior should be looked at more carefully and not rewarded with a get of jail treatment card. Being mindful of the full scope of criminal behavior with drug/alcohol addiction brings me to conclude we should be selective as to how our tax revenues are spent on treatment. I believe in a one-time treatment program sanctioned by the State. If you are referred to treatment, you will get one opportunity to succeed at no expense to you. If you fail or relapse, as many do, then you will need to pay for the treatment or face the consequences of non-compliance. This accountable system will never be popular among the legislators. Drug and alcohol abusers should not be allowed to frequent as many treatment facilities as deemed necessary to avoid jail time. AA/NA meetings are available nearly everywhere in the country. The 12 steps, if worked diligently by the abuser, can change his or her life. Once the tools are given to the offender, it is time to see if he or she can build on their sobriety. Lets make the offender accountable and not the taxpayer.
65.1 million dollars savings between 2008-2012, lowering the prison population and increasing the bed spaces at treatment facilities.
Quoted below is the plan as presented by The Council on State Governments:
Texas Justice
Reinvestment
Scenarios
“Under the leadership of three key lawmakers,
policymakers in Texas are reviewing policies in
the state to find ways to increase public safety
and to manage corrections spending and growth
in the prison population. In 2006, Senator John
Whitmire (D, Chair, Criminal Justice Committee),
Representative Jerry Madden (R, Chair, Corrections
Committee), and Senator Kim Brimer (R, Chair,
Sunset Advisory Commission) each convened
hearings and commissioned reviews to improve
their understanding of why the prison population
continues to grow and what is contributing to
high rates of failure among people released from
prison to the community and people sentenced to
probation.
This policy brief, prepared at the direction of
Senator Whitmire and Representative Madden,
reviews aspects of two possible justice reinvestment
scenarios in which policymakers enact policies
to address the projected shortfall of over 17,000
prison beds in Texas by 2012.1 In the first scenario,
policymakers increase tools available to the Parole
Board to enhance the use of parole guidelines in
the state. In the second scenario, policymakers
increase the capacity of treatment-oriented facilities
and the availability of substance abuse and mental
health services. Although the scenarios each
include distinct strategies, there is also some
overlap between the two, so the scenarios cannot be
combined simply to double the impact on prison
beds or on corrections spending.
The fiscal impact projected for each scenario is
based upon assumptions regarding cost, timing,
and diversion that have been used in prior research.
Both these assumptions and the projections
described in this brief were developed with the
help and approval of Legislative Budget Board staff.
Savings were calculated by comparing the cost of
each scenario with the status quo (i.e., the budget
presented by TDCJ in the General Appropriations
Bill, As Introduced, Eightieth Legislative Regular
Session, 2007.)2
The Justice Center is providing intensive technical assistance to Texas and a limited number of other states that demonstrate a
bipartisan interest in justice reinvestment—a data-driven strategy for policymakers to reduce spending on corrections, increase
public safety, and improve conditions in the neighborhoods to which most people released from prison return.
1
Collaborative Approaches Projected Fiscal Impact to Public Safety
$65.1 million
net savings for the five-year period of 2008 –2012
explanation: For the 2008–2009 fiscal year, the LBB projects
no savings in General Revenue because of the $78.9 million cost
associated with increasing the number of treatment-oriented
beds and services. For the three-year period of 2010–2012,
however, the total projected savings is of $144.1 million as the
prison population is reduced from the projected baseline level.
This results in a five-year net savings of $65.1 million. This
does not include avoided construction cost of $377.7 for the
construction of new prisons as was proposed by TDCJ as an
“exceptional item” to the state appropriations bill.
1. Projections by the Legislative Budget Board, January 2007 as
discussed in the Council of State Governments Justice Center bulletin
entitled “Recent and Projected Growth of the Texas Prison Population,”
January 2007.
2. Memorandum from John O’Brian, Director of the LBB to Senator John
Whitmire, January 23, 2006.
3. The Sunset Advisory Commission is a 12-member body of legislators
and public members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives to provide the legislature
with assessments of an agency’s programs. The Commission convened a
review of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in 2006. In October
2006, the Commission published its staff report entitled “Sunset
Advisory Commission: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Board of
Pardons and Paroles, Correctional Managed Health Care Committee Staff
Report.”
4. Sunset Advisory Commission: Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Board of Pardons and Paroles, Correctional Managed Health Care Committee
Staff Report, October 2006, page 13.
5. For a complete analysis, see The Council of State Governments Justice
Center, “ Policy Options to Increase Public Safety and to Manage the
Growth of the Texas Prison Population,” January 2007.
6. Ibid, Sunset Advisory Commission Staff Report, page 11.
7. Ibid, page 13.”
8. Council of State Governments Justice Center, “Policy Options to
Increase Public Safety and to Manage the Growth of the Texas Prison
Population,” January 2007.
figure 4: General Revenue Related Funds, Five-Year
Fiscal Impact of Scenario Two (“Increase Availability
of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Treatment-
Oriented Facilities and Services”)
FY
Probable Net Positive/(Negative)
Impact to General Revenue Funds
2008 ($58,899,220)
2009 ($20,074,299)
Subtotal 2008–09 ($78,973,519)
2010 $19,672,192
2011 $46,755,795
2012 $77,679,739
Subtotal 2010–12 $144,107,726
Total Net
Savings 2008–12
$65,134,207
Justice Center
Council of State Governments
100 Wall Street, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10005
www.justicecenter.csg.org
project contact:
LaToya McBean
(646) 383-5721
lmcbean@csg.org
The Council of State Governments Justice Center is a national
nonprofit organization that serves policymakers at the local,
state, and federal levels from all branches of government. The
Center provides practical, nonpartisan advice and consensus driven
strategies, informed by available evidence, to increase
public safety and strengthen communities. The board of directors
for the center includes, as its vice chairperson, the Honorable
Sharon Keller, Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. Representative Jerry Madden, Chair of the Texas House
Corrections Committee, also serves on this board. Dr. Tony
Fabelo, working with designated agency and legislative staff in
Texas, coordinates the project in Texas for the Justice Center.
Research and analysis described in this report
has been funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
a division of the U.S. Department of
Justice and The Pew Charitable Trusts. Through
its Public Safety Performance Project, which assists
select states that want better results from
their sentencing and corrections systems, Pew’s
project provides nonpartisan research, analysis
and expertise to help states identify data-driven,
fiscally responsible options for protecting public
safety, holding offenders accountable, and controlling
corrections costs.
4 Texas Justice Reinvestment Scenarios
This writer believes these scenarios should provoke a great deal of interest for probation. Funding treatment programs seem to move with ease when the alternative is paying for new prison beds. High costs of manning prisons and building additional prisons have become more unpopular today among the legislative bodies around the country. Addressing the root of the problem of criminal behavior and the on-going drug/alcohol addiction among many offenders is vital to keep our communities safe. Sending these offenders to treatment seems to be the panacea to reduce prison populations. It would be an interesting read to review the recidivist rates of those who successfully completed treatment verses those who completed time incarcerated in the state penitentiary. A study is needed to do a cost comparison of offenders who complete the treatment programs, relapse, and end up back in the system and more treatment and/or incarceration. Could the multiple trips to treatment facilities outweigh the cost of a prison bed? I would be naive to say treatment works the first time for all who are referred to the programs. At first glance savings of $65.1 million dollars seems like someone stumbled on the missing Dead Sea Scrolls, but after applying reality to the statistically challenging scenario, it seems somewhat misleading without addressing recidivism. At some point, we are going to have to look at building prisons or filling beds because treatment does not work all the time for all people. It is a good tool for those who wish to remove themselves from this underground drug culture. For those who play the treatment card, we need to be ready to raise the stakes with the real cost analysis or we can fold and continue to address treatment as a revolving door solution. I wonder how can a treatment bed is cheaper than a minimum stay prison bed and why treatment providers are not used more often in a prison setting?
My experience remembers visiting many prisons and noticing AA/NA meetings, drug abuse classes, and other programs for those who wish to participate and take full advantage of free treatment. Criminal behavior should be looked at more carefully and not rewarded with a get of jail treatment card. Being mindful of the full scope of criminal behavior with drug/alcohol addiction brings me to conclude we should be selective as to how our tax revenues are spent on treatment. I believe in a one-time treatment program sanctioned by the State. If you are referred to treatment, you will get one opportunity to succeed at no expense to you. If you fail or relapse, as many do, then you will need to pay for the treatment or face the consequences of non-compliance. This accountable system will never be popular among the legislators. Drug and alcohol abusers should not be allowed to frequent as many treatment facilities as deemed necessary to avoid jail time. AA/NA meetings are available nearly everywhere in the country. The 12 steps, if worked diligently by the abuser, can change his or her life. Once the tools are given to the offender, it is time to see if he or she can build on their sobriety. Lets make the offender accountable and not the taxpayer.
Monday, July 16, 2007
GPS and Bexar County
Global Positioning System (GPS) has been around for years in other states, and as most know it is a valuable tool for the courts to keep serious felons in the community and out of jails or state institutions. Grits for Breakfast has an outstanding article on updates on how GPS is working in Texas. I am not going to belabor the point here to save time, and I do not wish to re-invent the wheel on Scott’s article. One should take the time to read this article to get a more in depth look at current trends in Texas. As an officer who experienced the late night pages on GPS alarms, I can attest to the technical side of the debate. GPS should be reserved for serious violent or sex offenders. These offenders should be incarcerated and removed from the community not to victimize our families. That is the moral answer. The practical answer is some courts will place GPS sanctions on the defendants to keep them in our communities. In Bexar County this is not the case. As of this date, GPS is solely used as a pretrial or bond issue on a few cases. Long term monitoring with caseload officers is not happening. I agree GPS is not the panacea to reduce recidivism in sex offenders or violent offenders. However, if a sex offender or violent offender must roam the streets, I would like to know where he or she is roaming to along with what time and how long he or she has been there. This is one tool in a packed tool box caseload officers must use to protect the community. The GPS officer can designate “hot zones” to send an alert if the offender enters in to an off limits area. In some cases with certain vendors, the GPS can send a message to the offender to immediately leave a “hot zone.” This in turn can be utilized as a great law enforcement tool for evidence of offender’s whereabouts. This could exonerate innocent offenders who may have once been falsely accused of crimes. GPS can work both ways.
The antiquated Radio Frequency (RF) system currently used by caseload officers in Bexar County is less costly and looks good on paper. However, the RF does not provide real time GPS tracking and alerts. GPS monitoring along with many other duties (field visits and other contacts) for the officer is a good tool to monitor the whereabouts of the offenders. That being said, GPS requires a great deal of manpower and specific monitoring with a dedicated staff to be on-call to respond to the alerts. It also requires offenders to plan and submit schedules to the officers for approval. Sounds good, but this cost money and effects budgets. Will the courts be willing to make the hard call and finally pass the costs onto the defendants who wish to remain free in the community? It will take discipline of the courts and district attorneys office to place select offenders on GPS and not overload officers with cases coming from over zealot attorneys seeking a quick plea bargain case or close a weak case fearing the stigma of a loss. We should not forget the victim in any case. My experience tells me the prosecuting attorney walks a tough line in order to process these types of defendants while at the same time trying to preserve victim testimony. One of the most important factors is that GPS should only go on the most serious probationers who pose a real threat to society (if prison is not an option).
In other news, as the jails continue to release inmates and refuse to pick up violators as per Bexar County jailers:
"Although the Sheriff's Office has provided this service, as a courtesy, in the past, personnel shortages, the recent surge in fuel prices and the overcrowding of the Jail population have all combined to create a situation which prohibits the continuation of that practice. Accordingly, this letter is to inform you that the Bexar County Sheriff's Office, Criminal Warrants Division, will no longer transport arrestees for other law enforcement agencies within Bexar County."
We have to be mindful that Bexar County citizens could be under siege by the possibility of numerous felons who are on probation and vioated their contract with the court by continued non-compliance such as an arrest, illegal drug use, or not reporting. These offenders will be walking the streets. Not to sensationalize or create panic in this great city of San Antonio, but this action has been brought on by short-sighted administrators who failed to plan for population increases in our community. This increase in turn brought about jail overcrowding. Whether you believe in treatment or incarceration, money will be the deciding factor as to how safe your community will be for years to come. Programs and other wizardry theories sugar coat a chronic problem of drugs and violence. This brings me to the point (long way around the point). GPS is necessary if the courts release these offenders into our neighborhoods. GPS should not be used for those who display a history of violence and sex offenses, history being more than one offense. GPS should not be used on “Romeo,” over 18 years old and victim under 16 having a consensual relationship. GPS should be reserved for the ‘dirty old man,” stalkers, burglary offenders (correlation between rapes and those who commit burglaries), and other violent type offenders. The courts must seek out experienced officers and attorneys who have knowledge on effective wording on orders (conditions of supervision) and set standards with realistic sanctions (prison) for violators. This is a serious business, and releasing these types of criminals should be taken to the utmost care. GPS is an important tool, but the officer actually performing random field visits and conducting searches of offenders homes and vehicles for illegal items and possible victims should be the most important duties of our profession. In other words, give the officer GPS as a tool and add to his or her tool box the power to do his or her job and keep our neighbors safe.
The antiquated Radio Frequency (RF) system currently used by caseload officers in Bexar County is less costly and looks good on paper. However, the RF does not provide real time GPS tracking and alerts. GPS monitoring along with many other duties (field visits and other contacts) for the officer is a good tool to monitor the whereabouts of the offenders. That being said, GPS requires a great deal of manpower and specific monitoring with a dedicated staff to be on-call to respond to the alerts. It also requires offenders to plan and submit schedules to the officers for approval. Sounds good, but this cost money and effects budgets. Will the courts be willing to make the hard call and finally pass the costs onto the defendants who wish to remain free in the community? It will take discipline of the courts and district attorneys office to place select offenders on GPS and not overload officers with cases coming from over zealot attorneys seeking a quick plea bargain case or close a weak case fearing the stigma of a loss. We should not forget the victim in any case. My experience tells me the prosecuting attorney walks a tough line in order to process these types of defendants while at the same time trying to preserve victim testimony. One of the most important factors is that GPS should only go on the most serious probationers who pose a real threat to society (if prison is not an option).
In other news, as the jails continue to release inmates and refuse to pick up violators as per Bexar County jailers:
"Although the Sheriff's Office has provided this service, as a courtesy, in the past, personnel shortages, the recent surge in fuel prices and the overcrowding of the Jail population have all combined to create a situation which prohibits the continuation of that practice. Accordingly, this letter is to inform you that the Bexar County Sheriff's Office, Criminal Warrants Division, will no longer transport arrestees for other law enforcement agencies within Bexar County."
We have to be mindful that Bexar County citizens could be under siege by the possibility of numerous felons who are on probation and vioated their contract with the court by continued non-compliance such as an arrest, illegal drug use, or not reporting. These offenders will be walking the streets. Not to sensationalize or create panic in this great city of San Antonio, but this action has been brought on by short-sighted administrators who failed to plan for population increases in our community. This increase in turn brought about jail overcrowding. Whether you believe in treatment or incarceration, money will be the deciding factor as to how safe your community will be for years to come. Programs and other wizardry theories sugar coat a chronic problem of drugs and violence. This brings me to the point (long way around the point). GPS is necessary if the courts release these offenders into our neighborhoods. GPS should not be used for those who display a history of violence and sex offenses, history being more than one offense. GPS should not be used on “Romeo,” over 18 years old and victim under 16 having a consensual relationship. GPS should be reserved for the ‘dirty old man,” stalkers, burglary offenders (correlation between rapes and those who commit burglaries), and other violent type offenders. The courts must seek out experienced officers and attorneys who have knowledge on effective wording on orders (conditions of supervision) and set standards with realistic sanctions (prison) for violators. This is a serious business, and releasing these types of criminals should be taken to the utmost care. GPS is an important tool, but the officer actually performing random field visits and conducting searches of offenders homes and vehicles for illegal items and possible victims should be the most important duties of our profession. In other words, give the officer GPS as a tool and add to his or her tool box the power to do his or her job and keep our neighbors safe.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Unions: How unions need to change Probation in Texas
I am very curious as to why there is a strong resistance to unionizing probation officers and staff in Texas. Bexar County is feeling growing pains and may one day be in a leadership role for the rest of the State. Dallas Po’s have gone the same route with positive progress. The resistance comes from those who could use the positive publicity and fail to see the benefits of treating staff with dignity.
Somewhere down the ole’ dusty managerial trail of fiscal responsibility, cut backs, bottom lines, and fat executive salaries, real people have been lost. Productivity is now replaced with disgruntled workers. These workers were loyal, took pride in their products, and had a sense of community with long tenure in companies that built generation after generation of new products and services, and most importantly loyal employees. Now we experience low wages, low job satisfaction, and no job security. One can only surmise why there is a need for unions. The plight most companies and government agencies face is actually caused by this era of erroneous non-leader types who fill administrative positions in both corporate and government America. In other words, the destruction of productivity and creativity by corporations and government agencies is caused by executive arrogance and stockholders who fund their shenanigans.
General Patton would be in dismay to see how his beloved country has cultivated a crop of self-serving administrators, aka managers, instead of true leaders. Leadership is not born of degrees or positions, leadership is born of men and women who are passionate about their people. Pride in oneself perpetuates down the line. What is a leader? A leader is one who has been in the trenches, will go in the trenches, and knows his or her troops. Lead by example comes to mind. Where this country lost sight of leadership is when our men and women in leadership roles forgot where they came from and cultivated their own careers on the backs of their troops. This is why a union is necessary for our country to survive. Our children will be susceptible to what we are seeing now in our workforce. Sure we have a few fat cats who make lots of money, but what happened to Bob, Juan, or Sue? These men and women of this generation helped this administrator to his or her level. When the bottom line came, it was always the staff that was cut first and in turn cut the jugular vein of our society.
Meanwhile back on track, looking at the bigger picture, I wonder if the managerial type or possibly court officials simply do not understand the positive influence they can give officers and staff members. If working conditions, wages, and job satisfaction were all positives, then you or I would not hear the rumbling in South Texas.
The Austin crowd will be first to stand up for progressive sanctions and restorative justice and pass bills reducing jail populations and building treatment empires. Nothing is written or no one carries the torch for the forgotten person on the front line of defense in our nations communities.
Less we forget the hundreds of staff tirelessly working day in and day out without adequate compensation and due protection. Officers and staff have many years of experience and education. There is a very small step between an officer and administrator and should be respected by the courts and administration. We should hold our heads high and be proud of who we are as Americans and take pride in what we do each day. The union can bring equity and reduce the huge disparity among the probation staff. Bob, Juan, and Sue can once again be proud of who they are and where they work. Each could be our future leader and what better lesson can we give then the lesson of true leadership. Vote Union!
Somewhere down the ole’ dusty managerial trail of fiscal responsibility, cut backs, bottom lines, and fat executive salaries, real people have been lost. Productivity is now replaced with disgruntled workers. These workers were loyal, took pride in their products, and had a sense of community with long tenure in companies that built generation after generation of new products and services, and most importantly loyal employees. Now we experience low wages, low job satisfaction, and no job security. One can only surmise why there is a need for unions. The plight most companies and government agencies face is actually caused by this era of erroneous non-leader types who fill administrative positions in both corporate and government America. In other words, the destruction of productivity and creativity by corporations and government agencies is caused by executive arrogance and stockholders who fund their shenanigans.
General Patton would be in dismay to see how his beloved country has cultivated a crop of self-serving administrators, aka managers, instead of true leaders. Leadership is not born of degrees or positions, leadership is born of men and women who are passionate about their people. Pride in oneself perpetuates down the line. What is a leader? A leader is one who has been in the trenches, will go in the trenches, and knows his or her troops. Lead by example comes to mind. Where this country lost sight of leadership is when our men and women in leadership roles forgot where they came from and cultivated their own careers on the backs of their troops. This is why a union is necessary for our country to survive. Our children will be susceptible to what we are seeing now in our workforce. Sure we have a few fat cats who make lots of money, but what happened to Bob, Juan, or Sue? These men and women of this generation helped this administrator to his or her level. When the bottom line came, it was always the staff that was cut first and in turn cut the jugular vein of our society.
Meanwhile back on track, looking at the bigger picture, I wonder if the managerial type or possibly court officials simply do not understand the positive influence they can give officers and staff members. If working conditions, wages, and job satisfaction were all positives, then you or I would not hear the rumbling in South Texas.
The Austin crowd will be first to stand up for progressive sanctions and restorative justice and pass bills reducing jail populations and building treatment empires. Nothing is written or no one carries the torch for the forgotten person on the front line of defense in our nations communities.
Less we forget the hundreds of staff tirelessly working day in and day out without adequate compensation and due protection. Officers and staff have many years of experience and education. There is a very small step between an officer and administrator and should be respected by the courts and administration. We should hold our heads high and be proud of who we are as Americans and take pride in what we do each day. The union can bring equity and reduce the huge disparity among the probation staff. Bob, Juan, and Sue can once again be proud of who they are and where they work. Each could be our future leader and what better lesson can we give then the lesson of true leadership. Vote Union!
Union Mission and the big picture
What We Stand for: Mission and Goals of the AFL-CIO
Why a union?
Per AFL-CIO website:
The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families—to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our nation. To accomplish this mission we will build and change the American labor movement.
We will build a broad movement of American workers by organizing workers into unions.
We will recruit and train the next generation of organizers, mass the resources needed to organize and create the strategies to win organizing campaigns and union contracts.
We will create a broad understanding of the need to organize among our members, our leadership and among unorganized workers.
We will lead the labor movement in these efforts.
We will build a strong political voice for workers in our nation.
We will fight for an agenda for working families at all levels of government.
We will empower state federations.
We will build a broad progressive coalition that speaks out for social and economic justice.
We will create a political force within the labor movement that will empower workers and speak forcefully on the public issues that affect our lives.
We will change our unions to provide a new voice to workers in a changing economy.
We will speak for working people in the global economy, in the industries in which we are employed, in the firms where we work, and on the job every day.
We will transform the role of the union from an organization that focuses on a member's contract to one that gives workers a say in all the decisions that affect our working lives—from capital investments, to the quality of our products and services, to how we organize our work.
We will change our labor movement by creating a new voice for workers in our communities.
We will make the voices of working families heard across our nation and in our neighborhoods.
We will create vibrant community labor councils that reach out to workers at the local level.
We will strengthen the ties of labor to our allies.
We will speak out in effective and creative ways on behalf of all working Americans.
I wish to thank all the union folks for their hard work and dedication to the productivity of this country. Unions are the backbone of companies and a way of life for the working man and woman.
Keep the faith
Why a union?
Per AFL-CIO website:
The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families—to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our nation. To accomplish this mission we will build and change the American labor movement.
We will build a broad movement of American workers by organizing workers into unions.
We will recruit and train the next generation of organizers, mass the resources needed to organize and create the strategies to win organizing campaigns and union contracts.
We will create a broad understanding of the need to organize among our members, our leadership and among unorganized workers.
We will lead the labor movement in these efforts.
We will build a strong political voice for workers in our nation.
We will fight for an agenda for working families at all levels of government.
We will empower state federations.
We will build a broad progressive coalition that speaks out for social and economic justice.
We will create a political force within the labor movement that will empower workers and speak forcefully on the public issues that affect our lives.
We will change our unions to provide a new voice to workers in a changing economy.
We will speak for working people in the global economy, in the industries in which we are employed, in the firms where we work, and on the job every day.
We will transform the role of the union from an organization that focuses on a member's contract to one that gives workers a say in all the decisions that affect our working lives—from capital investments, to the quality of our products and services, to how we organize our work.
We will change our labor movement by creating a new voice for workers in our communities.
We will make the voices of working families heard across our nation and in our neighborhoods.
We will create vibrant community labor councils that reach out to workers at the local level.
We will strengthen the ties of labor to our allies.
We will speak out in effective and creative ways on behalf of all working Americans.
I wish to thank all the union folks for their hard work and dedication to the productivity of this country. Unions are the backbone of companies and a way of life for the working man and woman.
Keep the faith
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Judgement Liens for All Outstanding Probation Fees/Restitution
According to Texas Criminal Procedure-Code and Rules, Article 42.22, Sec. 2-12, http://www.government.texasonline.state.tx.us, Offenders can be accountable for their crimes by making the offender pay a restitution lien for both the victim and the courts to cover the administrative costs. As of now, many defendants don’t pay up. The inability to pay based on low income, debt, or family/child support, has been the quick and easy defense for most lawyers. However, according to the 79th Session of the Texas Legislature, judges do no have to consider when determining restitution. A criminal who commits a crime should be held accountable and required to make restitution. Restitution in Texas, A Report to the Legislators, authored by the staff at Sam Houston State University, “50% of restitution ordered is collected.” In other words and the bigger picture, the other 50% is lost in the judicial halls of apathy. The report goes on to state:
“[C]ollecting restitution payments compete with the collection of other fees, including fines, court fees, and supervision fees. Some of these fees are used to supplement the budgets of the respective departments and officers’ salaries. The average community supervision order contains 18 conditions, which strains the ability to efficiently supervise restitution payment. --Office of Victims of Crime (1999) Promising victim-related practices and strategies in probation and parole. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
We need to take a step further and free up the courts by not having the thousands of technical violations at the end of sentencing. *******Texas has underused or not used at all its own rules about collecting monies and restitution for victims. Many if not all Texas Judges and District Attorneys have dropped the ball in the Restorative Justice policy by not repairing the damage between the victim and the offender.
This forgotten or ignored 42.22 code could bring in millions of dollars over the next decade returning funds back into the county and state coffers and most importantly, make the offender accountable for his or her crime. This can supplement bed space for violators of probation, violent and sex offenders. What appears to be the only important issue with the legislators and counties is to empty jails and prisons and leaving our citizens plagued with violence on the streets. The costs of beds are soaring through the roof and drain our counties of funds that could pay salaries, build better infrastructure, or provide resources for a better quality of life. This is a solution. The current lack of judicial oversight and negligence by the courts to reach across the code and change the current trend shows the lack of courage by the many who are responsible for a balance judicial system. The need to aggressively change to a “criminal accountability system instead of a treatment based system is critical as bed space becomes more and more important in locking up those violent and sex offenders.
As of now, the only buzz word around Austin is treatment which private attorneys have obvious reasons to support. The Big Treatment Lobbyist seems to work overtime peddling goods. It is a feel good policy. However, it is not all about treatment. It needs to be about accountability and protection of the public. Crimes cost millions of dollars to the citizens of Texas. We should not give lawyers and defendants more loopholes to avoid accountability.
Consequently, as of this date, near-sighted judges and legislators fail to realize the unused code could bring accountability and ownership of the crime to the offender. Restitution liens on all outstanding monies owed to the victims along with court costs and administration fees will eventually pay for a great number of bed spaces for those who fail to abide by the conditions of probation and keep violent and recidivist type criminals behind bars.
By judgment liens, this will in turn significantly reduce the number of technical violations for failure to pay monies. Judges could automatically convert any outstanding debt owed at the beginning of supervision to a judgment lien for all outstanding costs at the end of supervision.
This will free the court and the jails of the revolving door justice of violations, bonds, hearings, and dismissals. A simple statement ordering any outstanding balance at the end of supervision will be automatically converted to a judgment lien. This is the only solution for many victims and county jurisdictions to recover restitution and costs. Once the affidavit is filed by the District Attorney’s office, the affidavit will perfect the restitution lien giving priority to the victim for any monies collected from tax refunds, settlements, or other awards given to the offender. Long after the offender’s probation terminates successfully or unsuccessfully, the victim can still be paid by this method. Maybe there will be a court in the future who will stumble onto this forgotten code. If your county is not using 42.22, maybe you can suggest it as you ask to raise probation officer salaries.
“[C]ollecting restitution payments compete with the collection of other fees, including fines, court fees, and supervision fees. Some of these fees are used to supplement the budgets of the respective departments and officers’ salaries. The average community supervision order contains 18 conditions, which strains the ability to efficiently supervise restitution payment. --Office of Victims of Crime (1999) Promising victim-related practices and strategies in probation and parole. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
We need to take a step further and free up the courts by not having the thousands of technical violations at the end of sentencing. *******Texas has underused or not used at all its own rules about collecting monies and restitution for victims. Many if not all Texas Judges and District Attorneys have dropped the ball in the Restorative Justice policy by not repairing the damage between the victim and the offender.
This forgotten or ignored 42.22 code could bring in millions of dollars over the next decade returning funds back into the county and state coffers and most importantly, make the offender accountable for his or her crime. This can supplement bed space for violators of probation, violent and sex offenders. What appears to be the only important issue with the legislators and counties is to empty jails and prisons and leaving our citizens plagued with violence on the streets. The costs of beds are soaring through the roof and drain our counties of funds that could pay salaries, build better infrastructure, or provide resources for a better quality of life. This is a solution. The current lack of judicial oversight and negligence by the courts to reach across the code and change the current trend shows the lack of courage by the many who are responsible for a balance judicial system. The need to aggressively change to a “criminal accountability system instead of a treatment based system is critical as bed space becomes more and more important in locking up those violent and sex offenders.
As of now, the only buzz word around Austin is treatment which private attorneys have obvious reasons to support. The Big Treatment Lobbyist seems to work overtime peddling goods. It is a feel good policy. However, it is not all about treatment. It needs to be about accountability and protection of the public. Crimes cost millions of dollars to the citizens of Texas. We should not give lawyers and defendants more loopholes to avoid accountability.
Consequently, as of this date, near-sighted judges and legislators fail to realize the unused code could bring accountability and ownership of the crime to the offender. Restitution liens on all outstanding monies owed to the victims along with court costs and administration fees will eventually pay for a great number of bed spaces for those who fail to abide by the conditions of probation and keep violent and recidivist type criminals behind bars.
By judgment liens, this will in turn significantly reduce the number of technical violations for failure to pay monies. Judges could automatically convert any outstanding debt owed at the beginning of supervision to a judgment lien for all outstanding costs at the end of supervision.
This will free the court and the jails of the revolving door justice of violations, bonds, hearings, and dismissals. A simple statement ordering any outstanding balance at the end of supervision will be automatically converted to a judgment lien. This is the only solution for many victims and county jurisdictions to recover restitution and costs. Once the affidavit is filed by the District Attorney’s office, the affidavit will perfect the restitution lien giving priority to the victim for any monies collected from tax refunds, settlements, or other awards given to the offender. Long after the offender’s probation terminates successfully or unsuccessfully, the victim can still be paid by this method. Maybe there will be a court in the future who will stumble onto this forgotten code. If your county is not using 42.22, maybe you can suggest it as you ask to raise probation officer salaries.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Work Camps for Local Jails Can Reduce Inmate Population and Provide an Alternative Sentencing Choice for the Courts
Road prison or work camps throughout the country have provided an alternative sentence for local judges. Many have complained about jail overcrowding and not knowing what to do with violators on probation. The concept adds another choice for progressive sanctions and allows minimum risk offenders to stay in the local area. County-operated work camps provide labor for roads, picking up trash, clearing rights-of-way, removing debris, mowing county-owned property, clear drainage areas and provide storm water maintenance.
The inmates receive additional gain time, remain in the county for families to visit, and obtain valuable training for maintenance type jobs. Some move on to legitimate employment once released from the camp. The camp could operate near self-sufficiency with additional farming and ranching jobs in the compound.
The biggest hurdle is funding a facility. Alternate sites could reduce costs. Counties can take over abandoned lands and buildings. Inmates can provide the labor to construct facilities. Eventually the facility will cost minimum compared to a main jail or prison. The camps do not require high security and need to house minimum risk offenders. The cost savings in county employees working the labor jobs will eventually balance out construction costs. The key is allowing the offender to be accountable and give him or her a productive purpose while serving his or her sentence.
The inmates receive additional gain time, remain in the county for families to visit, and obtain valuable training for maintenance type jobs. Some move on to legitimate employment once released from the camp. The camp could operate near self-sufficiency with additional farming and ranching jobs in the compound.
The biggest hurdle is funding a facility. Alternate sites could reduce costs. Counties can take over abandoned lands and buildings. Inmates can provide the labor to construct facilities. Eventually the facility will cost minimum compared to a main jail or prison. The camps do not require high security and need to house minimum risk offenders. The cost savings in county employees working the labor jobs will eventually balance out construction costs. The key is allowing the offender to be accountable and give him or her a productive purpose while serving his or her sentence.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
BEXAR COUNTY JAIL POPULATION LIKE MANY AROUND THE STATE
According to the Bexar County State Legislative Program, 80th Session, a reduction in the county jail is top priority. The report explains that many offenders or inmates prefer staying in the local jail as opposed to incarceration at a state facility. Obvious reasons are closer to family and the notion of county jails are more comfortable. Therefore, many convicted felons are filing appeals for frivolous reasons allowing the offenders to continue their stay in local jails until time expires on their sentences. Statistics are not available for accuracy of this report. As one can read, the outcome can create overcrowding in jails which cause a backlash with the courts releasing violators on bond to reduce inmate population. These seasoned criminals remain in the community having already failed the trust of the court by violating the rules and/or breaking the law.
The financial impact on local county budgets have brought about another push to release violators. This in turn has brought about discussion on a concept not known by many. The Parole Violators-Blue Warrants allow county magistrates to release parolees on administrative parole violations awaiting a parole hearing. According to Section 508.254, Government Code, currently requires parolees in custody shall remain in custody pending a hearing for parole violations. The push to release these inmates in the community due to cost savings outweigh the risks involved with parole violators in the community.
Protection of the community seems to have taken a back seat for this local jail administrator. Closing the loopholes with the appellate process and concentrating on releasing first time non-violent offenders should take precedence over releasing proven felon violators. It will be interesting to hear from those officers in Bexar County as to alternate solutions to reduce jail overcrowding.
The financial impact on local county budgets have brought about another push to release violators. This in turn has brought about discussion on a concept not known by many. The Parole Violators-Blue Warrants allow county magistrates to release parolees on administrative parole violations awaiting a parole hearing. According to Section 508.254, Government Code, currently requires parolees in custody shall remain in custody pending a hearing for parole violations. The push to release these inmates in the community due to cost savings outweigh the risks involved with parole violators in the community.
Protection of the community seems to have taken a back seat for this local jail administrator. Closing the loopholes with the appellate process and concentrating on releasing first time non-violent offenders should take precedence over releasing proven felon violators. It will be interesting to hear from those officers in Bexar County as to alternate solutions to reduce jail overcrowding.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, By Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar, BJS Statisticians
Summary findings
Probationers include adult offenders whom courts place on community supervision generally in lieu of incarceration.
Parolees include those adults conditionally released to community supervision whether by parole board decision or by mandatory conditional release after serving a prison term. They are subject to being returned to jail or prison for rule violations or other offenses.
At yearend 2005, over 4.9 million adult men and women were under Federal, State, or local probation or parole jurisdiction; approximately 4,162,500 on probation and 784,400 on parole.
The 0.6% growth in the probation and parole population during 2005 -- an increase of 31,626 during the year -- was more than a fifth of the average annual increase of 2.8% since 1995.
At the end of 2005 --
-- Among offenders on probation, half (50 percent) had been convicted for committing a felony, 49% for a misdemeanor, and 1% for other infractions. Seventy percent of probationers were being actively supervised at the end of 2005; 9% were inactive cases and 10% had absconded. -- Nearly all of the offenders on parole (94%) had been sentenced to incarceration of more than 1 year. -- Women made up about 23% of the nation's probationers and 12% of the parolees. -- Approximately 55% of the adults on probation were white, and 30% were black, and 13% were Hispanic. Forty-one percent of parolees were white, 40% black, and 18% were Hispanic.
Inmates released from prison as a result of a parole board decision dropped from 50% of all adults entering parole in 1995 to 31% in 2005, while mandatory releases based on a statutory requirement increased from 45% to 51%.
Forty-five percent of parole discharges in 2005 successfully completed their term of supervision, unchanged since 1995. Thirty-eight percent were returned to jail or prison, and 11% absconded.
By the end of 2000, 16 States had abolished parole board authority for releasing all offenders, and another 4 States had abolished parole board authority for releasing certain violent offenders.
Probationers include adult offenders whom courts place on community supervision generally in lieu of incarceration.
Parolees include those adults conditionally released to community supervision whether by parole board decision or by mandatory conditional release after serving a prison term. They are subject to being returned to jail or prison for rule violations or other offenses.
At yearend 2005, over 4.9 million adult men and women were under Federal, State, or local probation or parole jurisdiction; approximately 4,162,500 on probation and 784,400 on parole.
The 0.6% growth in the probation and parole population during 2005 -- an increase of 31,626 during the year -- was more than a fifth of the average annual increase of 2.8% since 1995.
At the end of 2005 --
-- Among offenders on probation, half (50 percent) had been convicted for committing a felony, 49% for a misdemeanor, and 1% for other infractions. Seventy percent of probationers were being actively supervised at the end of 2005; 9% were inactive cases and 10% had absconded. -- Nearly all of the offenders on parole (94%) had been sentenced to incarceration of more than 1 year. -- Women made up about 23% of the nation's probationers and 12% of the parolees. -- Approximately 55% of the adults on probation were white, and 30% were black, and 13% were Hispanic. Forty-one percent of parolees were white, 40% black, and 18% were Hispanic.
Inmates released from prison as a result of a parole board decision dropped from 50% of all adults entering parole in 1995 to 31% in 2005, while mandatory releases based on a statutory requirement increased from 45% to 51%.
Forty-five percent of parole discharges in 2005 successfully completed their term of supervision, unchanged since 1995. Thirty-eight percent were returned to jail or prison, and 11% absconded.
By the end of 2000, 16 States had abolished parole board authority for releasing all offenders, and another 4 States had abolished parole board authority for releasing certain violent offenders.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin
Probation and Parole in the United States, 2005
Reports the number of persons on probation and parole, by State, at yearend 2005 and compares the totals with yearend 1995 and 2000. It lists the States with the largest and smallest parole and probation populations and the largest and smallest rates of community supervision, and identifies the States with the largest increases. The Bulletin also describes the race and gender of these populations and reports the percentages of parolees and probationers completing community supervision successfully, or failing because of a rule violation or a new offense.
Highlights include the following:
The adult probation population grew 0.5% in 2005. This was an increase of 19,070 probationers, or the smallest increase in the last 26 years.
About 50% of all probationers had been convicted of a felony, 49% of a misdemeanor, and 1% of other infractions. Twenty-eight percent were on probation for a drug law violation, and 15% for driving while intoxicated.
In 2005 the Nation's parole population grew 1.6%. This was an increase of 12,556 parolees during the year.
Reports the number of persons on probation and parole, by State, at yearend 2005 and compares the totals with yearend 1995 and 2000. It lists the States with the largest and smallest parole and probation populations and the largest and smallest rates of community supervision, and identifies the States with the largest increases. The Bulletin also describes the race and gender of these populations and reports the percentages of parolees and probationers completing community supervision successfully, or failing because of a rule violation or a new offense.
Highlights include the following:
The adult probation population grew 0.5% in 2005. This was an increase of 19,070 probationers, or the smallest increase in the last 26 years.
About 50% of all probationers had been convicted of a felony, 49% of a misdemeanor, and 1% of other infractions. Twenty-eight percent were on probation for a drug law violation, and 15% for driving while intoxicated.
In 2005 the Nation's parole population grew 1.6%. This was an increase of 12,556 parolees during the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)