Everything is bigger in Texas and our prisons are no exception. Although California has nearly twice as many people as the Lone Star State, Texas has only 13,000 fewer prisoners – with over 150,000 inmates.
In 1983, federal Judge William Wayne Justice found Texas’ correctional facilities to be unconstitutionally overcrowded and placed them under his supervision for two decades. In response, Texas built many new prisons in the 1990’s, but the inmate population today is again approaching capacity.
Governor Rick Perry and the Legislature agree that Texas cannot afford additional prisons and that other solutions must be explored, particularly for the half of prisoners who committed nonviolent offenses. In the just concluded legislative session, the Legislature wisely refused to create any major new crimes or sentencing enhancements and enacted several positive measures, but Texas counties must now finish the job to avoid another judicial intervention.
Fifteen percent of prisoners are there for violating conditions of their probation agreements. Most are nonviolent offenders whose violations did not include committing a crime that would otherwise be punishable by prison time. Fortunately, the appropriations bill signed by Governor Perry provides $28.2 million in additional funding for probation officers. Reducing the150-to-1 ratio of probationers to probation officers will result in more intensive supervision, preventing violations that can lead to incarceration.
The $27 million appropriated for residential facilities providing treatment for mental illness and drug addiction, as well as work restitution centers, will also help close the probation to prison revolving door. A state study shows 70 percent of probationers who complete these residential programs do not have their probation revoked, realizing a 39 percent savings to taxpayers.
Unfortunately, the governor and legislature could not agree on House Bill 2193. While this probation reform bill contained promising initiatives such as progressive sanctions and the expansion of drug courts, it was also flawed. For example, it required early termination of probation terms despite failure to pay restitution and a drafting error failed to actually appropriate the money for drug courts.
An improved version of this legislation will likely return in 2007, but local officials can act now to implement reforms that will relieve the burden on Texas prisons.
First, several Texas jurisdictions have already demonstrated the effectiveness of progressive sanctions. Instead of waiting for several minor probation violations to pile up and then sending the probationer to prison, progressive sanctions use intermediate measures such as curfews, a few nights in jail, or commitment to a residential treatment center to address minor violations like missing a meeting or substance abuse. For example, the Special Sanctions Court in Fort Bend County has reduced the number of probationers sent to prison for rule infractions by 63 percent.
Second, there will be fewer revocations if Texas’ probation terms – the longest in the nation at up to ten years – are shortened, particularly for nonviolent offenders who have met all the conditions of probation. While House Bill 2193 stirred opposition by also shortening terms for some violent offenses, local judges and prosecutors can exercise their existing authority to release probationers who pose no danger to society and have met their obligations.
Counties also have the authority to create drug courts, which reduce recidivism by more closely monitoring offenders and forcing them to confront their addiction by undergoing treatment, rather than simply sitting in a prison cell.
Unlike the mandatory minimums in federal sentencing, Texas’ criminal laws provide considerable discretion. For example, for graffiti of property over $500 in value, the sentence could be a fine and community service involving graffiti removal rather than a year or more of jail time. By relying more on restitution for property crimes, the harm done to victims is repaired and we avoid hardening minor offenders by placing them in cells next to violent criminals. Moreover, we free up county jail beds that the state will need to rent over the next two years to relieve prison overcrowding.
Finally, counties should implement programs that reduce recidivism by sensitizing offenders to the impact of their crimes on victims. For example, offenders might be required to attend a panel discussion where victims of the same type of crime as the offender committed convey how the crime affected them and the community.
Of course, some of these local initiatives would cost counties money, although they would save the state even more in incarceration costs. Ultimately, the legislature should remedy this fiscal disincentive for local governments trying to develop effective alternatives to incarceration. But Texans should also expect county leaders to look out for the interests of the entire state and help avoid another prison crisis.
Marc A. Levin, Esq. is director of the Center for Effective Justice at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (www.texaspolicy.com).