Solutions: Strengthen Juvenile Probation and Increase Accountability
(1) Make permanent the juvenile probation intensive community-based pilot program to divert non-violent, repeat offenders from TYC. S.B. 103 (2007) created an intensive community-based pilot project in the FY 2008-09 biennium for counties with populations over 335,000. TJPC funded pilot programs in eight counties: Bexar, Cameron, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Harris, Tarrant, and Travis. Each county implemented a different approach to providing intensive, community-based services targeted toward misdemeanor offenders who are no longer eligible for a TYC commitment. In FY 2008, the intensive community-based program pilots provided services to 676 youth. Expenditures for the year totaled $1,185,017 (or approximately $1,750 per youth). Using FY 2006 data for an average TYC length of stay and average cost per day, it would have cost approximately $67,715,000 (or approximately $100,000 per juvenile) to commit the same youth to TYC. Data regarding one-year outcomes for youth served by the pilot programs is not yet available.[i]
(2) Expand the state’s successful Special Needs Diversionary Program (SNDP) to keep youth with mental health needs from being committed to TYC. The SNDP was created in 2001 as a pilot in eight urban counties, in response to a study released by the Criminal Justice Policy Council indicating that a substantial percentage of youth in the juvenile justice system had mental health problems, but very few were receiving mental health services to address those problems. In 2002, SNDP was expanded to another eleven small and medium-sized counties. In the 2008-09 biennium, funding was renewed at $1.9 million per year to maintain the 19 existing programs. The average cost per youth is $58.93/day. Medicaid funding is used for those enrolled in a SNDP to offset costs to the state. The program pairs either a Licensed Mental Health Professional or a Qualified Mental Health Professional with a probation officer to provide a range of services to mentally ill youth offenders and their families. In order to qualify for the program, a youth must be between the ages of 10 and 17 and possess a documented mental health diagnosis, and the family must be willing to participate. In 2007, 1,402 youth were served, and 68% of those completed the program successfully. In 2003, a study was conducted with the SNDP, and although 57% of participants had been re-arrested, only 10% were re-arrested for a felony level offense.[ii]
(3) To more effectively allocate state funding, Texas must improve data collection and analysis around revocation of youth on juvenile probation to TYC. Every year since 1997, between 45-50% of youth committed to TYC arrive as a result of having violated a condition of their probation. However, there is no state-level entity that keeps data on the type of probation violation (e.g., technical, law, status offense, etc.) that triggers the revocation. Without this data, it is not possible for the state to determine whether such revocations to TYC are the result of law violations or technical violations. The latter could be indicative that a locally operated juvenile probation department requires additional resources. A data collection initiative is a way to develop the Texas-specific evidence base that policy-makers need. Such a data collection initiative can easily be integrated into the Juvenile Justice Improvement Plan recommended by Sunset staff and discussed above.
In an attempt to better understand the nature of youth revocation to TYC, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition gathered data from five counties. From an analysis of the data, it appears that the majority of probation violators revoked to a TYC facility arrive as the result of a technical violation. These violations include: failure to follow curfew, failure to report, failure to attend school, or simply failure to follow rules.
Note: In reviewing data provided by the county juvenile probation departments, it is important to recognize that many counties differ in the way they document youth violations of probation, which hampers attempts at data analysis.
− From FY 2000-08, Harris County reported that over 33% of its commitments to TYC had been committed based on technical violations (over 1,400 youth out of a total 4,238 commitments).
− From FY 2000-07, Dallas County reported that 50% of its commitments to TYC had been committed based on technical violations (1,112 youth out of a total 2,220 commitments).
− From 2002 through November, 2008, El Paso County reported that 34% of its commitments to TYC had been committed based on technical violations (125 youth out of a total of 370 commitments).
− From FY 2000-07, Denton County reported that 44% of its commitments to TYC had been committed based on technical violations (161 youth out of a total of 363 commitments).
− From FY 2000-09, Williamson County reported that 58% of its commitments to TYC had been committed based on technical violations (95 youth out of a total of 163 commitments).[iii]
This initial and limited look at the available data on revocation indicates significant numbers of youth committed to TYC arrive as a result of a technical violation. Additional data collection and analysis, as well as discussions among system stakeholders (such as juvenile probation departments, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and others), is required to understand how many of the youth currently being committed to TYC on a technical violation could be better handled through some kind of community-based sanction.
(4) Texas should develop and monitor the implementation of a pilot program to divert youth from being committed to TYC for non-law violations of probation to community-based sanctions. If even a portion of the youth who are currently revoked to TYC for non-law or technical violations could stay in their communities and be treated along with their families, the state of Texas could save millions of dollars and likely reduce the rate of repeat offense and re-arrest, according to the outcome of Florida’s Redirect project, detailed below.
■ Florida Redirect – In 2004, the State of Florida allocated funds to community-based therapeutic programs to prevent youth from being revoked to state institutions for non-law violations of probation. In the past, this type of infraction had been dealt with by referring the youth to a state institution, akin to a TYC facility. Two years after the pilot started, the Florida Legislature found that the Redirect Program had equal or superior outcomes to residential commitments in terms of recidivism and re-arrest. The lower level of intervention did not result in a threat to public safety; instead, the Redirect Program provided needed services to youth at a lower cost than keeping offenders in a state residential institution. Those who completed the Redirect Program were less likely to be convicted or adjudicated of a crime within one year than their counterparts who were referred to a state residential institution: Only 14% of youth (305) who completed a Redirect Program were adjudicated or convicted of a felony, as compared to 30% of youth (11,823) who had been committed to a state institution.
Florida’s Office of Public Policy and Government Accountability estimated the savings for the first two years of the program at $5.8 million in cost avoidance. Florida was able to serve youth in the Redirect Program for a cost of $3.1 million versus the $8.9 million the state would have typically spent on residential delinquency programs. The cost of a residential commitment in Florida is approximately $34,774 per youth, whereas completion of a Redirect Program runs the state about $7,715 per youth. This cost includes education and family therapy, modeled after evidence-based approaches.
(5) To assist in informed decision making, Texas must improve data collection on progressive sanctions guidelines. The 1995 reforms to the juvenile justice system provided a model for determining appropriate sanctions for delinquent youth. This model has never been mandatory but is considered to be a baseline recommendation for how juvenile probation departments should generally make disposition decisions. Yet, no state entity currently collects or analyzes data on the use of the progressive sanctions model. The last report examining the implementation of progressive sanctions guidelines was in 2001. Without data on how disposition decisions are being made, Texas lawmakers are unable to determine the efficacy of progressive sanctions in ensuring that adjudicated youth receive appropriate services. By understanding which probation departments follow the model and why they have chosen to do so, the State can better ensure that, regardless of what county probation department they are supervised under, all Texas youth are given equivalent sanctions for equivalent offenses.
[i]Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. Intensive Community Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders: A Report on the Implementation of Pilot Programs Established Under SB 103, FY 2008. Austin, TX: Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, January 2009.
[ii]Cuellar, Allison Evans, McReynolds, Larkin S., & Wasserman, Gail A. “A Cure for Crime: Can mental Health Treatment Diversion reduce Crime among Youth?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 25, No. 1 (2006):205.
[iii] No state-level entity keeps this information. This information was gathered by an independent researcher working for the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition from county juvenile probation departments in from October to December, 2008.