Travis County Commssioners Court
April 27, 2004
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 8
We do have our guests here from the -- from the Texas department of criminal justice, number 8.
>> yes, sir.
>> it's to receive presentation from officials of the Texas department of criminal justice upon reorganization of various programs that may affect Travis County offenders and residents. If you all would please come forward.
>> good morning.
>> if you can give me a second, media is going to come in and hook up the laptop.
>> all right.
>> al is right behind you.
>> I will go ahead and start with introductions, give you just a couple of seconds.
>> the purpose of having these managers or these directors from tdcj come in and make a presentation, if you will recall during the last legislative session, they experienced, roughly a 5% budget cut. A number of our programs and initiatives within tdcj obviously were cut as well. In saying that, we experienced a reorganization over the past several months. What I wanted them to do was come in and explain to you how that has impacted the community justice center, as well as the women's [indiscernible] where our female confinees are located. To my right is steven collins, new warden, [indiscernible] drakey the division director of the [indiscernible] madelyn ortiz, you are going to have to correct me, formerly the programs and services division now.
>> rehabilitation and [indiscernible]
>> okay. We have mr. Quarterman who was the -- formerly the director of the state jail division, now deputy director of tdcj, bryan collier the director of parole decision, mike lezito the original director for the parole division. I will return it over to these folks and let them give you their presentation.
>> thank you for the opportunity to come and speak to you today. I'm the director of a newly formed correctional institutions director, I mean correctional institutions division. Which out of the session last year in August, gary johnson, our executive director took a four different divisions that were involved in incarceration functions and consolidated them into one division. Of the four different divisions were the state jail division, which you have worked very closely with for a number of years. The institutional division, which was responsible for the state prisons around the state of Texas. The private facilities division, which provided oversight of our private facilities that we contract with. And a -- the operations division, which included our bureau of classification, included a training, inmate transportation, food service, laundry, so forth. Those were all consolidated in August of '03 into a single division of correctional institutions division. I will talk a little bit after I talk about the organization of some of the things that were involved in that, but bottom line is lined us up as an organizationally into more of a systems model, if you look at our organization, you have in the core our offender management piece. We have our community justice assistance division, which begins to deal with offenders at the front end of the system. Them correctional institutions division, which deals with the funders through their incarceration, then you have the parole division that is with the offenders on the back end.ñr so that was the essence, now in the institutional division, we had find regions, geographical regions that we managed prisons around the state of Texas. Initially, the state jail division was established as the sixth region. It still kept state jails in one division or in one group, if you will, but -- but with a regional director, gilbert comwazano responsible direct management. Nathan quarterman, director of the state jail, he became the deputy direction tore of the chill institutions division over prison and jail management. That meant all wardens, which there are 84, 93 state-run facilities, with 12 private-run facilities, so a total of 105 prisons, all of the wardens in the regional director group report up now to nathan, up through to me. But anyway we kept state jails still as a separate group. Well, very quickly, mr. Quarterman and I started to recognize, to really fulfill some of the goals of the reorganization, we needed to break into a full geographical separation, so we actually -- state jails became a part of a geographic region. One of the goals of putting the correctional institutions division together as mr. Johnson, mr. Quarterman, a number of us traveled throughout different facilities around the state, we were very impressed with some of the very positive things that state jails were doing with communities in regards to programming and reentry. It was one of our goals was taking some of those same energies, and -- and attempting to move that throughout the state of Texas, even into our state prisons when and where appropriate. And so part of the consolidating us meant that by pitting us altogether -- putting us all together in the same division, we could better share, we could better communicate what each other was doing and to move successful models, successful programming back and forth throughout all of our facilities. Today, before I -- before I talk more specifically about Travis County and c.j.c. And the woodman unit, the correctional institution division today is -- consists of 30,000 staff members, 27 of them being correctional from wardens down to correctional law officers. So we are certainly the -- the largest division within the -- within the agency and as I said we have 105 prison facilities from -- from [indiscernible] which you are familiar with all the way to state jail institutional units, hospitals, so forth, but 105 total facilities. Our realignments specifically provided us opportunities to increase communication between our different facilities, our coordination, any time a budget certainly provided us opportunity to -- to consolidate, share resources. Our consolidation provided for an immediate reduction in -- in some -- in some upper level positions, which resulted in almost a -- in almost a $500,000 annual savings and things of that nature. Most specifically region 6 is the geographical region that Travis County, cjc resides in. Bill gert compaziano is the regional director, gilbert, still in offices here in office, his specific region now includes both state jails and institutional units. It also includes the gatesville area which includes the woodman state jail and the -- and a number of other facilities out there that house the largest number of our female offenders within the prison system. So in region 6 for gilbert, now instead of him traversing the state of Texas, his regional goals from navasota, out east, all the way to abilene out west, so still a fairly large region, includes some -- some 14, 16 prison facilities around the state of Texas. Or in -- in his specific area. Some of the specific budget cuts, we lost 118 positions state-wide, some of the very specific cuts, many of them were administrative in nature, but there were some significant and specific cuts that did occur within a number of our facilities. In one of them, in travis, as well as the number, we lost our substance abuse components in a number of our facilities. Substance abuse staff were reduced. We were able to keep our safeties operations, which is our substance abuse felony punishment facilities, we were able to retain at almost full funding what we call our rehabilitation tier programming that -- our specific facilities dealing with substance abuse, sexual offender treatment programming. But units around the state of Texas lost substance abuse funding, chaplaince were reduced in a number of facilities, positions like coaches were reduced as well as some clerical and support staffs. Correctional officers were not reduced at any of our facilities. Those positions stayed at current staffing levels. What that has caused us to do is to focus harder than ever before on reentry initiatives by partnering with the community and more specifically volunteers coming into our system. We have thousands of volunteers that work with faith based groups and different community initiatives who come into our prisons. We recognize how significant within the tdcj over 60,000 prisoners release back into our communities every single day. And that includes the entire spectrum from our safe tees all the way through our prisons around the state. And so it -- it keeps us reminded how significant reentry is, recognizing that most of our prisoners will go home and come back into our communities. So the -- that kind of throws the highlight back on some of the significant things that you are doing here in Travis County with the c.j.c. And I think the model that you all have in place here is a model that is part of the vision of what we want to -- to spread, the advisory council that you have working so closely with the warden, with the community in assisting and working together that offenders can release back successfully into our communities that they came from. So I'm going to -- steve is going to talk briefly. I did want to bring madelyn ortiz to introduce her to you as well. She is our brand new rehabilitation and reentry program director. She actually was a -- was a substance abuse counselor for the state of Texas. She was an assistant director over all of our Austin-bergstrom substance abuse programming, she was -- all of our substance abuse programming, a warden for us in south Texas, then she went to washington worked for the national institution of corrections for a number of years, then came back. She will also be partnering, working very closely with the c.j.c. With you all as we work very hard together on putting a successful program -- so I was going to --
>> is ms. Ortiz in Austin or state-wide.
>> with us in huntsville and operates state-wide, yes, sir.
>> good morning,.
>> good morning.
>> very briefly, the -- i've been the Travis County -- with the c.j.c. For approximately seven months. Have gotten to know the advisory council well. Work with them well. The advisory council meets once a month. The work group meets once a month, so in essence I'm seeing the same people probably twice a month. We are in the middle of developing some programs, you know, due to the cuts that we made. We have got to reach into the community and look for some effective programming that's available and volunteers that are willing to assist us, that's what we are in the process of doing right now. I would be happy to give more detail if you are interested.
>> speaking of volunteers, at one time it was mentioned that maybe one problem volunteers have is getting access to the facilities. Has that been looked at or is that better now than it was I guess having had this -- haven't had this discussion in a couple of years.
>> yeah, that's a great question. Absolutely, that's a significant responsibility that we have. As we go to -- through groups now, we work very hard with faith-based groups, with as steve said the community here, and our message is, our doors are open wider than ever before. Part of that is facilitating people getting in. When we lost substance abuse, most substance abuse counselors and chaplain cy were sort of our volunteer coordinators, with a reduction in those positions, we have asked every warden on every facility to designate a volunteer coordinator, typically it's a security supervisor, many units have captains and so forth designated to be the link for the volunteer community to come in. We are staying very attuned to that. When we get -- when we get reports that it's now working well. So we are continuing to focus on that. And work very hard on that. Warden collins, in fact, not only had one staff member, he actually has taken a second security staff member and assigned them to that function full-time. I think it's sergeant that -- that you have. Just with that specific focus to facilitate and bring in volunteers into our facility. So it is an issue that we continue to stay very focused on and continue to work on making a system that works very well. To address that issue. Yes, sir.
>> visitation was also mentioned as a problem area for c.j.c. And what I was told is that on rainy days, cold days, actually if you come visit, you actually stay outside until the visit actually starts. At one time we were discussing the possibility of a visitation center. And is that idea -- has that yod gone by the way -- has that idea gone by the wayside, is that still on the table.
>> I don't know nathan if you have information on that. That is by the way, judge, a significant problem at a number of our facilities, you are exactly right. We do have a number of visitation centers that the faith based community has built for us at a number of places where visitors can wait, family members who bring other visitors, nathan?
>> yeah, we have a lot of conversations with the advisory committee about working plans to develop a -- a visitation center outside of the main facility. This process is pretty much on hold because of reorganization. But the plans are still a -- a vision at this point. We will entertain any ideas along with kimberly and the warden.
>> part of our thinking on that is if -- is if you are incarcerated and the family members will visit, then our thinking is that if we facilitate visitation we are better off. And I don't know that you need hotel conditions, but -- but seems to me that a waiting center of some sort would be appropriate, so I would think the Travis County should be able to partner with you and get that done.
>> thank you.
>> if staff believes that it's important. So the thinking on substance abuse is that in spite of reduction of -- of funding, the state's goal is to work with -- work with local entities to try to get it covered some way?
>> absolutely, sir. Absolutely. We are going to work very, very hard. In fact as we talked to different -- different community groups, even faith based groups, we are often asked what are our needs, we recognize even among faith based groups that there are a number of -- I mean that's one of our messages, we need substance abuse professionals to come in. And to work with our prisoners. Travis -- we have gotten a number of substance abuse initiatives that are working with -- with local community coming in and -- and having -- having aa meetings and you might mention what's happening with substance abuse.
>> we were one of the pilot facilities to start recovery dynamics, which is a peer indication program. Volunteers will come out and train other offenders inside the facility to facilitate, educate, train their peers. Then that's followed up with volunteers that come out and ensure that the proper message is getting out. So far it's been looking very -- working very effectively. As well as volunteers that come in and conduct aa and na meetings. We are looking at the other possibilities, we have a -- we have a meeting coming up on may 21st where we are looking at the possible -- trying to find all of the resources that are available in the community. With the help of a citizens advisory council, we are putting together a program, we have the shell kind of already established and we need to know what's out in the community and who is willing to help. So those folks will be coming out on the 21st, then we can actually finish putting this together.
>> okay. My final question is in Travis County, we had a kind of frightening experience with a private vendor at the c.j.c. And during the last legislative session the -- the notion of -- of privatizing all of the state jails did surface, I guess, at least three or four times, it seems. Is that -- that has been taken off the table, we think, for a couple of sessions or do we think that idea may come up.
>> at this point, I don't know. I don't know that we anticipate it at this point, but it certainly is difficult to -- to predict that.
>> apparently, working in some places a lot better than it worked out here. Private vendors operating state jails.
>> I don't -- I certainly don't have the history with this specific one. At that point in time I was a regional director down in south Texas. But at the same time, right, our private facilities division, you know, we are very hard with monitors on -- that are actually housed on the facilities and we are continuing looking at ways to strengthen our whole process. But, yes, sir, it's been working fairly well at most of our other sites.
>> okay.
>> [indiscernible] on the visitation facilities, ute of the 100 or so facilities that we have in the state.
>> yes, sir.
>> wasn't it 94 that the state signed off on so much million -- I recollect that it was in the hundreds of millions of dollars to build new facilities throughout the state because that was the -- that was the -- that was an issue that we were -- I think the state was convinced that we don't have enough facilities to house and there was this massive building process that took place, that was -- was that in '94.
>> all through the '90's, yes, sir, we went through a massive expansion.
>> out of the 100 or so facilities that we have, how many of those facilities would you consider to have been built in the last 10 years? Half of them. Between 1980, I want to say we had between [indiscernible] today we have 105. When you start looking at the expansion period of time, it actually begins in the very late '80', then moves aggressively through the 90s all the way up to '95 to '96 is when our last prisons finished opening. So we jumped when -- when -- in state facilities, we have 93. You can almost count 60 state facilities jumping in a -- in a -- maybe five to six of those actually opened up before '89. But the majority of that -- from '89 to '96.
>> are most of these visitation facility issues, are they -- are they out of -- are they the same outside of the Austin area?
>> yes, sir.
>> if we had -- so in other words I guess my question is when you go, when we have these massive building exercises that we take place occasionally, we will do that in this country, I mean, why wasn't that looked at? I mean why -- I mean how does something like that get overlooked when you say you know what, you have visitation privileges, which means that you have a large number of people that come. I'm just always surprised that some of the obvious things when you have all of these people with all of the expertise that have been in these -- all of you all have been in this business a long time. You think let's round up about six people here that can tell me what are some of the key things that we are going to need? I mean that is always so surprising to me. Is that just something that fell through the cracks?
>> well, each facility design has different issues. Some facility designs handle it fairly well. Other facilities, we built a lot of quick build prisons that were built with -- with -- as economically as we could build them in dealing with the significant dollar issues and the capacity issue that's the state was facing. So you find -- different issues. Even like the judge says, on some days it works well. On other days it doesn't. One of the things that was kind of -- with the whole state jail concept, which was -- which was for the first time the state prison doesn't necessarily house prisoners based on where they are from. So for instance Travis County offenders who go into a first, second or third degree felony may be assigned throughout the state. So you are -- sometimes your visitation pressures aren't as big on those prisons. The state jail is -- was you're first foray into building a number of -- of facilities that -- that the offenders came from the community back to the community. And -- and so there's -- there are different visitation dynamics at those places. But I agree with you. I think -- I think some -- some places it was well planned, some places the facilities were not as well planned as they should have been.
>> okay. One other question that I have is there seems to be, you know, from you all's side some emphasis or quite a bit of emphasis on substance abuse. I think that all of us, even people like me that know very little about the criminal justice system, but that -- but that is a -- a very prevalent part of -- of people that are incarcerated. They have large issues with substance abuse. And I'm just surprised that obviously in this consolidation, that's taken place in the last year or so, something that would be that prevalent I mean and yet that is something that gets axed. I mean that had to have been predicated on something. I mean, either it was predicated on --
>> no money.
>> what we've got is not working very well and so -- so that's on the chopping block. I mean is that -- is that the reason that the substance abuse programs have been so severely cut is because they just said you know what we're not very effective with that? I mean, you know -- we work with them as much as we can, but these people get out and everybody understands that the recidivism rate is high. So -- is that what happened with substance abuse, the other thing, we have limited dollars, resources, we are going to put them here, substance abuse is not something that we can show -- is that effective for us?
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> it was still a 240-million-dollar cut to the agency. That did have some significant impact. And the program said the rehabilitation programs, which are specific programming that came out of, I want to say, the 75th legislature that already has some research to show that it does have a significant impact in recidivism, whereas substance abuse counselorers serving on it said it doesn't work, said it just doesn't have that kind of research attached to it. So there's a combination in many of the things that you've said.
>> thank you.
>> I want to predicate a couple of things that I want to ask about that I get you are just the messengers. You didn't set this budget. You had to deal with what was dealt to you related to budget cuts. So I will be the one to say you're right, the state legislature did not raise property taxes, they forced cities and counties to raise property taxes. Sco I think there is great value in substance abuse and cownldz and great value in having chaplains, but they didn't want to pay for it. But they have no issues with people reoffending lining up in our criminal justice system so that we may pay substance abuse counselors and chaplains to do their jobs. People expect to get paid for the services that they provide. And it's a little disingenuine for toakz to think that they should do for this free. But I get it, you're just the messenger. You didn't do it. But I am perplexed about one thing related to visitation. When Travis County did not have appropriate visitation facilities out at the del valle facility, we got dinged by state state jail standards that said that was unacceptable, have you to build a new building and we had to staff it appropriately to guarantee that everybody had the visitation. So I'm perplexed how the county had to spend property tax dollars to make sure there was adequate visitation facilities, but the state is not held to the same standard. Does anybody have an answer for me there. Are you held to the same standards that ctsz are?
>> the jail commission is a different -- there can be different standards that apply, but I think it's important. The visitation itself is -- what the judge indicated, which is I agree with and is a problem in a number of places, is as we process families in and waiting areas, and there aren't waiting areas to keep them under reign, inside the visitation -- and I think the warden can talk about that. We have good visitation areas inside. Some of it is bringing people inside as we process them in, and in some of those waiting areas. And that is a typical situation we have in a number of places. First of all, we have to go through appropriate security clearances to bring people in to protect their safety, our prisoners safety and so forth, so there are some steps we have to take. So it's an issue that is relevant when the weather is not good. But as far as the visitation area inside the building, once we get them processed in, we have good visitation facilities. So I don't know exactly what the other standard was that was being addressed at del valle, but it is more an issue of the processing people, get them inside to their family. Which is an important issue. Absolutely.
>> on the positive side, I do want to say thank you for the interaction that's going on in the state jail with eric mcdonald, who is the downtown district attorney being funded by the downtown alliance, the district attorney's office and the police department. That has been an excellent interface in terms of resources that can be brought from the community. We had a situation there is folks getting out of state jail literally were being dumped on the streets of Austin at not appropriate times, primarily down at the salvation army, because they didn't have anyplace to go to. And eric has begun visiting with folks before they get out to work with them to get them properly placed so that they're not creating an issue the second they get back out. So I want to say thank you because if we did not have the cooperation of the state, that would not be a successful on -- as successful of an interface as its proving to be. And I would take that program to your other state jails because I think it's one that can translate well and it is funding that comes from the community that works as the interface. The second question here that is tied in to that, what percentage of the folks coming out of state jail are coming out with the proper identification? Because that was one of those performance measures that was very important that somebody coming out either has a valid Texas driver's license or a valid form of id because that can be the first step of not being able to successfully reenter. If you don't have the identification to be able to give to a potential employer -- do we know where we are on that or can you get me some information on the percentage coming out with the proper id? Because for up to two years, and that would be time for...
>> bryan collier, our parole director, can address that, because that is an area that we've spent some time addressing and working with d.p.s. And a number of people to attempt to address that.
>> what we're doing right now, we try to work out the driver's license. There will be some offenders in state jail and the institutions that will have an active driver's license. We're working with d.p.s. Now to find out how we can activate, maybe pull from the release money from id or find another way to fund it. D.p.s. Does need the funding, that's one part of the issue. The second is where I think we will have success is hopefully in the identification card that d.p.s. Issues. We've been meeting with them and we have another meeting scheduled for may the 8th I believe with d.p.s. To formalize how we could set up the process itself so that when they get out they either at the time of release we would do it because we either have the equipment or d.p.s. Could come on-site and do it for us at the facility.
>> could you get follow-up information for kimberly as to what percentage that number is? That way we will have a benchmark and when we move forward we can see if we're improving on the percentage coming out?
>> absolutely.
>> Commissioner, I don't mean to interrupt, but I would like to point out that Travis County education and counseling services is providing the driver's license program inside travis state jail, so those offenders that have been convicted of an alcohol or drug offense, in most cases their license is automatically suspended Travis County's department is actually providing those services to the confine ooez so at least they have the paperwork ready. They may not have the driver's license when they walk out the door, but they have the purchase order to go get the driver's license when they get out.
>> the other point to that is that appropriate identification is difficult -- without appropriate identification, it's difficult to get a job.
>> starting the process on the front instead of waiting until they get out.
>> in addition to the id card, we're working with social security, you need to have it all to really go out and get yourself employment.
>> we have to make sure that folks have every chance the minute they walk out the door, and not having proper id is not going to be helpful. And you're right, social security card is absolutely essential.
>> what we're doing is attempting to all work together across divisions to create what we call a street ready package and to try to put those things in the hands of our prisoners who are releasing that will meet those core basics they need to attempt to be successful.
>> and my final question is, is there anybody here that can help us out, understand what's going on with blue warrants.
>> that's what we're doing yes, yes, ma'am.
>> -- next, yes, ma'am.
>> my question is when the legislature changed, we had blue warrant folks backing up in our prisons. There was statutorily x number of days and we did work to get those reduced. Well, we've had just the opposite occurring within our prison system, and those are things that our Travis County taxpayer paid for are folks being yanked in for state related issues. We've seen just the opt. Even -- opposite. Even though the number of days has dropped in terms of what's the mandatory, we are seeing even more folks being brought in on blue warrants, and our numbers are actually up. When I pulled the April statistics of what we sent to tdcj on another matter, it was more than 100. Well, 100 beds times 365 days, we figured it out, it's about $1.2 million that is on the Travis County taxpayers' tab that we do not get reimbursed for, and those 100 beds could very easily be used for other things related to our jail overcrowding sensitivities? We're not the only county dealing with this? Can you update us as to what is going on here and what other creative partnerships can we talk about to help you all get the blue warrant moved along?
>> essentially we're here to do that. He's next. What we wanted to do was give you a profile of Travis County. Mike's been working with the Travis County taskforce of overcrowding taskforce. Ms. Pierce came to us about two months ago and asked for our. Mike has been working with that committee for the last couple of months. Today we wanted to provide you with some updates, kind of the profile of the population of blue warrants you have in custody so you see the numbers, understand what type of offender they are and what we're doing about moving some of those offenders. The change in solution, there were two major changes that affected this area? One was the time frame for a hearing to be processed moved from 60 to 40. And we're in compliance with the time frame, but you're right in that the numbers are up. There's another option that exists for the use of a summons for the hearing process where an offender can be notified to come into the county jail and have a hearing at the county jail. We modified policy in April about two or three weeks ago now. We made some adjustments to where misdemeanor cases would now be included as a summons option to try to increase the use of summons. We had had about 500 summons hearings statewide since September. And last year we probably had about 200 summons hearing statewide. We have seen an increase, but not nearly what we had hoped for. So we've adjusted policy or trying to address that on more of a statewide level, but that should impact you locally. I'll let mike update you on what we've done here in Travis County specifically.
>> good morning. Basically on the handout that I gave you, just to show real quick in Travis County, we have our central office which mr. Collier works out of. And that basically directs the five regions that we have. My region is region four. I'm out of san antonio and our area covers up to georgetown all the way to victoria, down to the valley, corpus christi through del rio, about 16 counties. We have approximate 14 offices in that area. And travis, we have two parole offices, one over on ben white. We have 47 staff. And one at 1616 headway circle, which is our Austin district office, where we have our district resource center. In the offense categories, what you can see is there's a breakdown in the type of offenders that we're dealing with that come out on our end on violent offenses, sexual oofs, property offenses and public order type offenses. The Travis County population that we have here, we have about 25 offenders that are actually residing in Travis County. Out of those 1700 are what we call regular supervision cases and 741 of those offenders are specialized caseloads. Those are what we call district resource center caseload, super intensive monitoring. Special needs with our offenders with mentally ill and mentally impaired or mental retardation cases. Also our sex offender caseload and our substance abuse state load. And then our regular supervision at 1700 are individuals that are identified that had not met those specific needs. For those caseloads. Out of that we had that 337 parole violators, which you're talking about. In reviewing that population and taking kind of a snapshot, what we did was we found 115 technical violators out of that group, and that's what you call the blue warrant ones. We basically have two types. One is an individual that has pending charges that's currently if they're a resident and they have other charges on them, we put a warrant on them. And then you have the blue warrant ones, which are the ones that are basically technical violators that don't show any kind of new offense hold on them. And out of that group, 58% of them, what we found out was they actually -- the reason we issued them was that they did have a new offense, but they had bonded out. It might be somebody that maybe they got picked up for a d.w.i. Or a burglary or something and the parole officer goes back and reviews the offense report and then they ask for a warrant and the warrant is issued. So they're brought in. But that new charge is not brought up on that person, but we're still monitoring that individual because they do have pending charges. And that was the main issue for us issuing. So what I call the true technical violators, out of that group, 40% of those were assigned to what we call specialized caseloads, and that might be super intensive supervision, electronic monitoring, and under the new guidelines for the summons, we have certain categories of offenders that we can't look at for summons, which are like super intensive supervision, electronic monitoring, our intensive supervision and an absconders. And then anybody that would pose a public safety threat to the community. Reasons warrants were issued, I found that 55% of those true technical violators, an individual that weren't reporting to the parole officer, individuals that had moved -- parole officer went out there and found the place vacant, canned find a forwarding address on the individual. And 40% of those technical violators were substance abuse issues. Either we had consecutive ua's that were positive ua's on that individual or they had been in treatment and they left their treatment program. And then five percent were for assaults and sometimes we have -- where the wife or somebody will come are in, a spouse, and say the individual assaulted them, but they won't follow up and file charges, but we'll follow through on our system due to the public safety issues on that particular individual. Prior offenses we found that 70% of those true technicals had been on probation before, about 40% of those had their probations revoked. And about 19% of them were priors for us too, that had returned on supervision. And about 26% of those true technical violators we found had we had already taken an intermediate sanction action on those individuals. Some of our interventions up to issuing a warrant -- before a parole officer issues a warrant, they have to go through intervention. And we do counseling, increased supervision, increased ua's on an individual, working with particular individuals. And then we also have the intermediate sanction facilities, which we can send an individual to without revoking that person. Hopefully that -- they'll get a clear message as to what their responsibilities are for their supervision.
>> so how do we get where we need to be? Because looking at exactly what you just gave here in terms of 55% were evead vaiding supervise, they're violating the terms. So in trying to get their attention, you are forcing county taxpayers around the state of Texas to basically do the job of the state of Texas to get this person's attention. And on the 40% who have new substance abuse issues, it's like, hello, you're not supposed to do that. So they need to either get revoked and go back under state custody and state care because they can't go by the terms and conditions or we need to figure out ways to still shorten that time period between when you file something and when you dispose of it. Because most of these folks are being sent right back out on to the streets. They are not being revoked back to the state of Texas's care, nor their budget. And so even though the law may say -- is it 40 now, 45?
>> 40 days, yes, ma'am.
>> we have a practice here in Travis County that says, do you know what, we're going to dispose of these cases here in 14 days. And there are a whole lot of things I never thought possibly, but the jail overcrowding taskforce of when you set a goal to the district attorney or to the county attorney of just how fast can we move something through if we really put our mind to it knowing that it costs us money for everyday of delay. Let's not go by what the law says, let's go by best practices, which can be so much shorter. What realistically is a best practice turnaround time on when something gets filed on a blue warrant and when the state of Texas can dispose and either take them off our hands or discharge them back to the streets, which it's going to be one or the other?
>> the 40 days represents some of the shortest time frames in the country today. And for us it's been quite a stretch to get to the 40 because we have to present a case, present evidence in a case in the revocation hearing within that 40-day window and the parole board, which is located throughout the state in panels, has to vote on that case during that same 40-day window. So even though it's 40 days and that does seem like a long time, there are an awful lot of activities that occur once that offender is incarcerated. It's an extremely active period of time. So shrinking that down at this point, what I will tell you is I don't know that that would be feasible today. I think where we do have options, what we can do is to cycle some offenders out through the summons, which we will see an increase on that. I believe the review that they've done in Travis County, related in 15 offenders being released or that will be released just on the policy modification that we made. The way we go about issuing a warrant is that parole officer requested and it goes through two different checks and balances before we agree to do it. So before we do it, there's already a level of playing field that reviews each one to make sure we're consistent in what we're trying to do. Two-thirds of the offenders that get incarcerated end up either revoked or in an isf. And those that do get released to supervision back out, typically will come back out and many times this is something that no one sees -- we see it because we end up dealing with it. But he may come out with electronic monitoring. He may come out with modified conditions. It's not just jail's up and you're out. It would be that the parole board has taken some action, has reviewed it and then released that offender can modified conditions. But again, two-thirds of them end up either about half of that group ends up revoked and the other half ends up in an interimmediate yatd sanctions facility for up to six months where they're incarcerated. So overall, those two groups end up paying for the violation and the others, even though it appears that they're being released, and they are, but they're being released many times with conditions and additional supervision steps that increase their supervision level when they're back out.
>> my sense is just from talking to other urban counties that we thought the law would work well, and to counties' advantages in terms of getting some of this cost appropriately shifted back to the state of Texas or to be a more manageable kind of a number. And the law is not working as we intended, so I'm just giving you a sense from talking to other places, the populations are going up and if the populations are not brought back down, I think it's a guarantee it's coming back in the '05 session, if 40 days is the best you can do, then maybe counties need to seek to get paid for taking care of the state's prisoners during county time. We've had many a situation like that where the state needs to gut it up and, you know, fine, take as long as you want, but you're going to have to compensate counties. That's just the sense I get. Other counties are equally as irritated, there's an even larger tab hitting the counties.
>> I have spoken with several -- awnd you're right, the jail population numbers across the state with this population have gone up. I will tell you, though, that in the same window of time the warrants that we have issued has not gone up. So it's not directly related to any change that we're currently making. We're trying to adjust to work as best as we can. And here in Travis County we're working extremely close to try to work out issues. And we look at any opportunity we can to try to relieve it. And I understand where you're coming from totally. And just want to tell you that we're committed to try to work with you, and if we can find solutions together, then we will certainly implement and move quickly.
>> we appreciate your service on working with the jail overcrowding taskforce because that's important to have it on the table.
>> it's a great benefit to us.
>> the area that I'm concerned about would be rehabilitation and how much we have learned. What is our body of knowledge now in terms of rehabilitation? For people. People that we incarcerate? So that we can handle the substance abuse. We know it's a problem. How are we handling that so that when people are paroled or get out of jail or whatever, that they have done or their problem with substance abuse has been addressed? What is our current body of knowledge on that?
>> one of the things that we're focusing on is developing a re-entry model so that your community, your state jail, your institution and parole works together for the common goal and follows that offender from their incarceration back into the community. And then to afford them the services they need. So they're looking at that, we're looking at assessment instruments to ensure that the changes are met. Again, individualizing treatment for the offender.
>> this is while they're incarcerated?
>> from the moment they're incarcerated until actually they're released. So we're following them from that point of incarceration.
>> and each individual is different from the other as to how they react to the substance abuse?
>> yeah, their treatment needs are different. We're looking at to so that we can place the right offender in the right program. We're studying those approaches.
>> is it fair to say, though that if your funding has been cut and substance abuse programs have been scaled back, the best that you can do during incarceration is too little. And you would expect local governmental entities or local communities to have transitional programs in place to help offenders reintegrate. I guess what I'm saying is in Travis County we have to accept the fact that if we want substance abuse programs that are effective for offenders that are returned to our community, then we have to have programs in place that will pick up -- (indiscernible). And with your funding cut, where you leave off will be a whole lot shorter than what it would have been had the funding been in place.
>> we're hoping not to leave off. We're hoping to establish a continuum of care so that we're working closely together with the community bridging those gaps. There are some structural gaps that are in place now that we're looking at bringing people together. And so the model of what we're doing in the facility, that's bringing the community into the facility to work with the offenders and their families. So it would be an inside out approach. So, Commissioner, we do a lot of recruitment efforts with offenders that have gone through treatment. We're working very closely with winter circle, very closely with the regional substance abuse committee that they recruit individuals to come in to the facilities. The peer driven model is heavy now. So we're -- [papers shuffling - audio interference]
>> so it really calls for some responsibility on the part of the local community to have some of this money. That's why we're asked sometimes to provide some of the money required to do -- to continue the service that isn't completed while they're incarcerated at the state facilities.
>> in fact, bryan may want to talk about this. A lot of research shows that irregardless of what program of prisoner is a part of inside the prison, unless there is an after care component, often that's where you see the really significant differences and changes in an offender's ability to be successful.
>> and that's the local community aftercare?
>> and that's often just a combination. And bryan might can talk about that piece of it.
>> the office we have on headway circle, the office here in Austin, is the resource center. And most offenders that get out, nowly released offenders will go through the district resource center. What we do therein house with parole officers, we do cognitive training with offenders, cognitive based training with offenders. And we have sub stoons abuse counselors that are on staff that have classes at that location. We don't have enough space to have all the substance abuse need that we've had. I don't know that we've had all the resources in place that we've ever needed considering how many people we have with substance abuse issues. Essentially it's on release. Many of these offenders have been in programs in the institution, but they need to apply it here in the community. And what we try to do is through that resource we also a lot of our offenders are involved in 12 step programs here in the community. And you can almost catch a 12 step program any hour of the day here in Austin. And many of them are involved in that as well as some other case management approach with us.
>> wasn't that also one of the purposes of establishing state jails, to address substance abuse on a more comprehensive manner, way?
>> as I understand the original creation of the state jails was to provide a community-based correctional facility, with the key word there being community-based. The offenders are coming from the local community, incarcerated in the community to be released back into the community.
>> and I seem to remember the discussion of substance abuse because it was so prevalent in communities, and it required a lot of attention to try to determine what kind of treatment would have been required to get people off of the substance abuse, if indeed that was possible. And I guess my question is what did we find out from that process? Did we find out that we can't do anything about it? Did we find out that -- well, I guess in one case it's all individual and everybody handles it or reacts to it differently. Therefore there isn't one isn't one strategy that we can use to address that issue. And people are released and they go right back to it. So I'm not sure that we have done all that we can do to try to find out how we cut that off somewhere. And I'm also under the impression that that was one of the reasons that this was a goal of state jails.
>> and it still is and I would submit that we're still in the process. We're still in the middle of trying to find the answers to that. I would like to think we could stop all sub stiewns because, o.o. Substance abuse --
>> if we can just make a dent.
>> if we make a dent, we're making process. I think the process is still continuing.
>> and I think it's important to note, too, a school district is still functioning inside our stale jails and prisons where we have programming. Ms. Collier mentioned the cognitive intervention. We have in our state jail, prisoners are afforded those same opportunities to go through cognitive classes. We have specific parenting classes. And then certainly attempt to tracy literacy -- address literacy and g.e.d. Issues as well. So many of those same very strong focuses are in place and our goal is to keep them in place and look for every opportunity to expand and to drive our focus higher than ever before on re-entry issues.
>> the resources is bottom line what is lacking. I mean, there aren't enough dollars to take on the task of substance abuse. There aren't enough public dollars -- I mean, unless you just break the bank. Because let's face it, wealthy people that have children that get if drugs, I mean, they spend untold dollars on it. And the only way that they even begin to have the chance to really whip it is to spend so many dollars not only do you put them in, but you stay in touch with them. And that's where we -- we don't have the ability to do that because we don't have the dollars to do it. Which is the reason i've asked a couple of judges and people in law enforcement why aren't our drug laws more -- what I would consider to be almost offensive. Get your attention. If you deal with drugs, this is what happens to you. I think we could get a handle in this country. If we were to really, you know, get behind this and say we're losing this war, folks. We're putting them in and all we're doing is recircling them because we see them back in the system. It's unfortunate for y'all, not to beat you guys up. Like Karen said, y'all are just the messenger, but the public is really the ones losing. We continue to be asked to go and find more dollars, whether it's the state pushing it off on us or whoever, but we just have a lack of dollars to really follow-up and to really make -- we're just sort of getting along. And that's the unfortunate thing. And we realize that as long as we have a lack of dollars, which I think probably will be forthcoming. I think that all we're going to do is band-aid this thing, try to help as many people as we can know that we're so limited with this war, but that's a different subject matter, but this could really make you go crazy whenever you see these stats and know what we have to deal with. And I don't know what the answers are, but to me, I mean, some of the things that we need to be doing is really at the legislature saying we need tougher laws. We need the ability to really get somebody's attention whenever it comes through. Because we're losing this war.
>> in the area of after care, are we also providing job training?
>> yes. We have stens active work programs through our industries and through wind ham school as well with vocational. So there are fairly significant work programs throughout the state.
>> you have.
>> do you have contacts with potential employers?
>> we have project rio that works in all of our systems, and attempts to link -- prepares prisoners for release with job training to get documented all their job training that they've gone through in the prison system and attempts -- they work with the Texas workforce commission and working to link them up. That's where mr. Collier has been working very hard with the social security piece. They're picking up the social security cards and getting those to Texas workforce commission offices and that's something bryan is working hard with to link all of that together.
>> can you tell me about maybe a few success stories. > well, what happens now when an offender gets out if they're unimpd and you will have a percentage of offenders who may hook up with the previous employer or know someone who does something in the prison, but by and large most don't. And what we do is refer those offenders to a local project rio office, which is a branch of the workforce commission. And what they do is they maintain a listing of employers who have agreed that they don't mind hiring ex-offenders. And they also advise the employer of the tax benefits of hiring an ex-offenders and the fact that these offenders can be bonded. And we also try to reinforce the fact that there are some other supervision aspects that may help this person be a better employee. And by providing the links to the offender, then the parole officer follows up with them as well and connects them to the employers. And our unemployment rate statewide is about 40%, which is not good, but considering the population that we service, supervise, and a large number of them are not unable for a reason, 40% is not where we want to be, but it's not potentially 25 or 30 may be as good as we get as far as the population that we have for unemployed offenders. But by and large in Travis County I met with a group of offenders who have been out six months or less about two months ago and visited with them and out of that group, and it was just a randomly selected bunch, all were working. Some were working in as quick as two days from release and many of them had secured employment through project rio. What we're also doing is a parole division in some of our areas is to keep a list of employers who hire offenders. Last week I was in dallas and we had one of our employers who was able to hire up to 20 truck drivers and we were trying to look within our population of the dallas and fort worth area to refer employers to that -- offenders to that employer. To project rio is on that, but officers and our staff are worked on it because we had a vested interest in getting this done quickly.
>> do you think they would be open to maybe -- to make sure they are trained for something that is available in the community versus just releasing them and saying good luck.
>> they are open to that. As a matter of fact, one of the guys in my group started a retraining program that was offered through the workforce commission that would tie him into a specific employer here in Travis County. Offenders are coming back to where they were living where they commit the came and it's hard to come back to that employer base. In Austin right now there could be a specific area where everybody could get a job that they were trained in and those we make referrals and we make them into training if we can.
>> the cdc holds job fares where employers actually come to the facility to talk to the prisoners, tell them what they're looking for and answer questions. And and we have it where employers come out to the facility to address that issue.
>> we do it monthly right now.
>> monthly fob fair?
>> yeah.
>> anything further?
>> at the criminal justice center currently how successful -- can we have a few statistics of how successful are we in assuring that those folks have the proper id such as driver's license, social security, all the things so they can become employable. The reason I'm asking this question is that I know that Travis County -- we're asking employers to hire the person that are released from the community justice center, but, of course, if Travis County aren't extending an open invitation to hire those folks, why should we ask other folks to do it. So as far as the folks' imt act is concerned, so my concern is how aggressive are we in this identification? Because I still hear some things from folks who are saying, well, -- folks that actually have a job and I do as part of the problem and I know we've talked about this a little bit, but I would really like to know what and where we are on that id situation. So Travis County can offer employment and anybody else here in Travis County. If someone can answer me that. Where are we right now, period?
>> as far as the cjc goes, we probably have not been as aggressive as we have been in the past. We are currently workogthat. We have already established the driver's license class. And that is operational now. And we're looking at the social security business doing project rio, and we hope to implement that very soon.
>> the id card is not as difficult to obtain as the driver's license. We have a committee working with d.p.s. To try to hammer out the id card. We have a meeting in may and I would see resolution on that issue before I'm sure the end of may if not earlier. So we'd be able to get the id card or driver's license, one or the other.
>> one of the irkz in the social security card, especially in the state jail environment, is the quick turnaround of offender. We order that card through social security, but that offender still being there becomes a bigger issue with that population than it is with our prison population. So we are taking the steps and we've been working out an mou with social security and I would see that resolution within the next 60 days as far as hammering that out. But I still don't know that we will have a huge -- like 100% compliance in getting social security cards because they turn over sometimes before we can get it to them. They may be in, we fill the forms out, we send it in, and by the time we get it back, he or she may have moved on.
>> okay.
>> how many comiewnt faith-based organizations do we have currently as far as the system that can give the -- with the community justice center as far as dealing with the Travis County inmates on that end, how many of those do we have currently. I know faith based has been mentioned a couple of times and I want to know exactly do we really have faith-based organizations that are really coming in and stepping up to the plate and doing some good things for the inmates out there?
>> yes, sir, we do. On our volunteer list there's approximately 250 volunteers. I would say 70% of that is going to be faith based organizations. That's approximate, but 70%. There's a large number of faith-based volunteers that come out to our facility everyday.
>> because of the fact that we have mentioned several times being a big problem, not only this community, but all across the nation, it's definitely taking this toll in the community. My question is of the prisoners that are going in and incarcerated at the community justice center, Travis County, how many are there because of drug related offenses?
>> to include the offenses as far as possession or delivery and anything related to drugs that we have come up with -- [overlapping speakers].
>> the committee looked at this. We're looking at approximately 90%.
>> 90%.
>> that are some way related to drugs or alcohol.
>> drugs or alcohol. Okay. That suggests to me that -- and I know we've put a lot of money out there and a lot of things, but sometimes as far as a person's return back into the system because of the strong tie-in to drug relationships, that is really a big deal not only here, but again across the nation. And it just occurs to me that these groups that I mentioned earlier, the faith-based organizations, and everyone else -- and the reason I'm bringing this up is because i've had folks contact me and say, well, Commissioner, what can I do to get involved to curb drug (indiscernible). I know you probably have inmates at the community justice center that we probably can help so they will not repeat the same crime and go back into the system and save the taxpayers money. Any way we can help you, just let us know. And again, those persons that are the ones that come out to the cjc, community justice center, looking in the direction to address that problem, especially if if we have 90% of the population in Travis County that are incarcerated because of drug related crime. So that's another concern. I don't know if all of these folks are getting to you as far as the system in that effort as we have mentioned it, but if they want to volunteer and deal with the reduction of drug abuse and the perpz that are incarcerated at the community justice center?
>> two things. The 90% seems high, but that's probably due to the fact that most of your state jail offenses are drug related. And that's what the big news is right now. Secondly, part of the problem that we're developing now. Part of the problem is we're coordinating that. We have faith based programs now. They do a lot of praise and worship services. I've been meeting with some of the local churches to try to convince them -- not convince them, but try to address the issue that it was good and it's a needed function inside, but we're trying to address -- we he need to shift some of the focus of the prison ministry into trying to keep the guys from coming back. What can we do in the community to walk out the door to assist them in staying with some of the programs that they've started inside and not getting back into what brought them there in the first place. So we're in the process of doing that. May 21st is going to be the volunteer or the resource meeting. Where we're trying to bring everyone out, we're trying to find out what the resources are available in this community and who's willing to help. And then we'll put it together in a program that does just that. We're going to be able to stop the drugs, no. But if we could at least try to make a dent, I think we're making progress.
>> well, if kimberly will call my office later, i'll give her some resources of folks that said they would like to really deal with this problem. After the person is released back into Travis County, they'll probably stay here in Travis County. A lot of folks live where they have relatives and loved ones here and they're probably not going anywhere. So it occurs to me that the effort would be a lot of focus in my opinion should be done on this so we do not get these same persons back into the system again of similar offenses. I'm really concerned about that to that degree. Thank you. That's my final question. Thank you.
>> the rehabilitation problem that you're working on have an evaluation component?
>> we're hoping to have one. We were discussing that earlier, probably through the research and revalue situation and development group or working with possibly the university of Texas or Texas state university if they would like to take that part on.
>> for the tdc, is there a state mandated inmate staff, inmate guard staffing ratio?
>> not per se. We staff our units based on facility design. And we have requirements for staff to be inside housing areas and those type of things. And so we have approximately 23,000 correctional officers with 149,000 prisoners statewide. So we don't work off a specific ratio, per se. We do work off very strong staffing plans on where staff must be based on the facility type of design and that type of issue.
>> I'm just trying to get an idea. I can get it later.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> any time I want to come and visit, unannounced, you are more than welcome any time at any of our facilities.
>> don't go too far now. [indiscernible] [laughter]
>> again, we understand y'all are the messengers, you've had to deal with some very tough budgetary issues, so we understand that some of this is not of your playing.
>> thank you.
>> we look forward to working with you further.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:46 AM