Solutions:
Given that the cost of incarcerating an individual is $44.01 per day (ie. the cost of 18 days of prison is equal to an entire year of probation) while the cost of maintaining him or her on probation is $2.13 per day, the state should spend more money on effective, community-based treatment programs and other alternatives to incarceration:
I. Adopt a risk-reduction strategy. Prisons only contain risk. Probation – if properly implemented – reduces risk.
As such, probation must be structured with an overriding risk-reduction strategy that aims to change the behavior of offenders to decrease their likelihood of re-offending; probation should not (as it currently does) operate only to oversee the judge-ordered requirements mandated to probationers. The risk-reduction strategy should be reflected in all areas of administration, including the design of supervision and sanctioning practices, choice of programs administered, and funding and management. Such a strategy will likely lead to a change in culture and in the attitudes of probation officers and administrators, which will better accomplish Texas’ public safety needs.
a. Implement shorter and stronger probation terms.
Instead of maintaining long, ineffective probation terms, departments should focus probation officer resources where they are needed most. Specifically, supervision should be heaviest during the early critical period (the first 6 months) of probation terms, with officer caseloads adjusted accordingly. In addition, terms should be limited to periods when supervision is most effective (5 years or less), and early release should be used as an incentive for good probationer performance.
b. Implement a risk-reduction funding strategy.
Resources must be distributed to probation departments based on need (using a risk/need profile of each department’s probationer population) and efficacy (using a results-oriented program evaluation). Departments should be monitored routinely to ensure that they do not over classify the risk level of probationer for the purpose of obtaining additional funding.
c. Increase basic funding.
Each department’s fiscal incentive for implementing long supervision periods should be eliminated by increasing basic budget funding to compensate for decreased probationer fees.
Departments should contract with certified treatment providers and work with them to mitigate probationers’ criminal tendencies and reduce the likelihood of them ending up in prison.
a. Adopt a standard diagnostic tool.
A state-validated instrument that determines each probationer’s risk level and propensity for criminal behavior is a critical tool for departments that want to use resources efficiently. Individualized risk assessment and placement are key for probationer success, allowing officers to maintain a sufficient level of supervision without wasting resources.
b. Implement progressive sanctions.
Departments should provide swift, certain, and proportionate punishments according to the severity and frequency of each probation violation. A statewide system should be adopted to define these practices in detail and provide recommended responses for each type of probationer in each situation.
c. Eliminate prison terms for probationers who receive technical revocations.
Individuals revoked from probation for technical violations should be sent to intermediate sanction facilities; time served should be determined by a progressive sanction model. As an acceptable alternative, these individuals should be revoked to prison for terms no longer than one year and subject to mandatory release and returned to community supervision at the end of this period.
d. View probation and drug treatment separately to reduce drug-related technical violations.
Policies must change so that prison beds are not be wasted on non-violent drug users. Oftentimes, addiction to drugs causes criminal activity (such as theft), because people require funds to feed their addiction. These individuals’ problems should be addressed in one of two ways: (1) through drug treatment, or (2) through probation. Drug treatment will best get to the root of the criminal activity because it will address the physiological impact of the substance on the addict and help put an end to the need for criminal activity spurred by the addiction. On the other hand, probation will help determine if the drug treatment program is truly working for that individual. For instance, if an offender fails a drug test, his or her probation officer will be able to verify that the offender’s current treatment program is not working. This should not be a cause for probation revocation (as committing another crime, like theft, would be) – not all treatment programs work for every type of addiction and, on average, an addict relapses three times before successfully completing a treatment program. If an individual is punished with probation revocation for failing to control his or her illness, s/he will ultimately reenter society with the unmet need to make poor life decisions and engage in unlawful activity. Judges and probation officers must be given tools besides revocations to deal with probationers’ poor decisions that fall short of new crimes, and they should invoke technical revocations and sanctions only according to the degree of risk that the violations represent to public safety and recidivism. Again, we must reserve our prison space for those who are a real threat to public safety.
e. Allow probation departments to provide treatment options to probationers with substance abuse problems.
Provide funds to probation department so they can contact with privately operated inpatient treatment providers. Those providers who choose to only treat criminal justice clients should not be required to meet DSHS rules concerning the specifications of their physical facilities (such as minimum square footage requirements) although they must comply with DSHS rules directly relating to the nature of treatment. Outpatient drug treatment for criminal justice clients administered by probation departments and private licensed contractors must comply with DSHS rules regarding treatment.
f. Focus on victim restitution.
Probationer requirements should be directed towards restitution instead of towards community service or fine payment, in order to make those who were harmed at least financially whole.
III. Mandate accountability to verify progress. Supervision and oversight at the statewide level should be strengthened to ensure that local departments are adopting best practices and correctly implementing them, while still being given the flexibility to tailor their programs to their probationers’ needs.
a. Provide technical assistance/accountability grants to all 121 probation departments to implement progressive sanctions.
To facilitate the adoption of best practices over time, technical assistance should be given to departments by providing them with expert consultants that can assist them in the implementation of new, proven programs. Local departments should be required to submit evidence-based program proposals to the Community Justice Assistance Division (CJAD) before being given program funding. Technical assistance and grants should be provided for (a) organizational change, (b) supervision strategies, (c) accountability and auditing of programs, and (d) program improvements supporting risk reduction. To secure renewed funding, programs should be subject to periodic review based on a cost-benefit analysis of outcome measures of risk reduction, including recidivism and probationer success rates.
b. Share what works.
CJAD should compile an annual report to be distributed to judges and probation directors that assesses the successes and failures of all programs using the outcome measures of (1) completion and (2) recidivism rates of program participants. Post-completion program evaluations should include an examination of rates of probationer recovery, employment, and educational attainment.