Bills that Address Prison Overcrowding Through Probation Reform
The criminal justice system has many moving parts that work together to maximize public safety, protect individual rights, and manage taxpayers’ investment in safety-related spending. When the probation system breaks down, our prisons fill up needlessly with low-level, non-violent offenders.
Probation revocations contribute to as many as a third of prison admissions annually. The cause for these high levels of revocation lies in the often misdirected purpose of probation programs across the State: they are generally tailored to monitor compliance with court mandates rather than to promote rehabilitation and reduce recidivism. In fact, probation departments receive little resources, and current funding structures – which depend heavily on probationers’ fees as a means of income – create incentives to keep probationers on probation too long. However, many of these problems will be addressed through the passage and enactment of the following key pieces of legislation:
Analysis: Authorizes grant funding for probation departments that would help them implement a progressive sanctions model to reduce the number of probations who commit technical violations (specifically by reducing caseloads for officers supervising high- and medium-risk probationers; increasing monitoring and field contacts; instituting the use of timely, graduated sanctions and incentives; allowing intensive judicial participation and monitoring; and increasing treatment and other programs).
Note: A progressive sanctions model in Fort Bend County has proved successful in reducing the number of probationers sent to state facilities following technical violations of probation. Under the program, the state gave the county’s local probation department $363,000.So far, the county, which had 212 felony revocations in fiscal 2004, has seen a 31% reduction in felony revocations to prison, due mainly to a 58% reduction in revocations for technical violations. The county also has seen a 57% increase in community service hours, and a 7.9% increase in the collection of probation fees.
Texas prisons are currently filled to capacity. Texas can address over-crowding at its root by correcting policies and practices that lead to high rates of offender recidivism – especially probation revocations, which comprise 33% of state prison intakes and 41% of state jail intakes. Strengthening the probation structure to provide supervision and services to offenders who need them most can reduce this level of failure.
What does HB 1678 do?
· Makes it possible for a probationer to be successful under community supervision.
· Increases public safety by encouraging probation departments to focus their energy on supervision of those who are more likely to pose a threat.
· Implements incentives for treatment and counseling for those who need it.
· Allows departments to give offenders concrete and meaningful tools to complete their requirements.
· Increases the efficiency of judicial evaluations to better determine which individuals would benefit from continued supervision
· Excludes 3g (violent) offenders, registered sex offenders, alcohol-related offenses (including DWI), etc.
3. HB 312 by Turner, Relating to the burden of proof in a community supervision revocation hearing regarding a defendant's ability to make certain court-ordered payments.
Analysis: Prevents indigent individuals from being unjustly revoked from probation for being unable to pay their fees.
4. HB 337 by Turner, Relating to the consequences of a defendant's violation of a condition of community supervision.
Analysis: Prevents unintentional violations from resulting in revocation.
5. HB 1510 by Haggerty, Relating to the minimum and maximum terms of community supervision for a defendant charged with the commission of a felony.
Analysis: Eliminates the 2-year minimum probation term and capping maximum term lengths for certain offenders at 5 years.
6. HB 1610 by Madden. Relating to the requirement that a judge release on community supervision certain defendants convicted of certain state jail felonies.
Analysis: Closes a loophole in current law which has contributed to the unnecessary incarceration of hundreds of low-level drug-possession offenders annually by allowing individuals with previous misdemeanor convictions to still qualify for probation. This will save taxpayers money by reducing incarceration, and also treat individuals more fairly who have been adjudged to have committed less serious offenses.
7. HB 927 by Haggerty, Relating to a court's jurisdiction to suspend the sentence imposed for a felony and place the defendant on community supervision
Analysis: Extends the period from 180 days to two years during which a trial court would have jurisdiction to grant an eligible defendant sentenced to the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice “shock probation.”
8. HB 3200 by Madden, Relating to the computation of certain funding for community supervision and corrections departments.
Analysis: Gives probation departments incentives to utilize progressive sanctions programs. Specifically, the bill would establish a new funding formula for basic supervision through four funding lines:
(1) Funding calculated at placements for felony probationers (as opposed to funding direct felony probationers)
(2) Funding for felons being supervised in pre-trial diversion programs;
(3) Misdemeanor funding for 182 days of supervision (limited to 70 cents per day); and
(4) Funding for community correction programs calculated in the same manner as now.