Texas Department of Criminal Justice Community Justice Assistance Division Report to the Governor and Legislative Budget Board on the Monitoring of Community Supervision Diversion Funds December 1, 2008 Page 2 Texas Board of Criminal Justice P.O. Box 13084 Austin, Texas 78711 Phone (512) 475-3250 Fax (512) 305-9398 Mr. Oliver J. Bell, Chairman Horseshoe Bay, TX Mr. Greg S. Coleman, Vice-Chair Cedar Park, TX Mr. Tom Mechler, Secretary Amarillo, TX Mr. John “Eric” Gambrell, Member Highland Park, TX Pastor Charles Lewis Jackson, Member Houston, TX Ms. Janice Harris Lord, Member Arlington, TX Mr. R. Terrell McCombs, Member San Antonio, TX Mr. J. David Nelson, Member Lubbock, TX Mr. Leopoldo R. Vasquez III, Member Houston, TX Texas Department of Criminal Justice Brad Livingston, Executive Director Bryan Collier, Deputy Executive Director Bonita White, Division Director Community Justice Assistance Division Page 3 Judicial Advisory Council The Honorable Larry J. Gist, Chairman District Senior Judge Beaumont, TX The Honorable Mary Anne Bramblett, Vice-Chair 41st District Court Judge El Paso, TX The Honorable Carroll Wilborn, Secretary 344th District Court Judge Anahuac, TX The Honorable Gregory T. Brewer, 366th District Court Judge McKinney, TX Member Ms. Joan Buschor, Member Houston, TX The Honorable Caprice Cosper, Member 339th District Court Judge Houston, TX The Honorable John Creuzot, Member Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas, TX Mr. Daniel K. Hagood, Member Attorney At Law Dallas, TX Mr. Leighton Iles, Member Director, Fort Bend County CSCD Rosenberg, TX The Honorable Sharon Keller, Member Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Austin, TX The Honorable Rose Guerra Reyna, Member 206th District Court Judge Edinburg, TX Mr. William R. Turner, Member Brazos County District Attorney Bryan, TX Page 4 Table of Contents 5 Introduction 7 Effectiveness of Diversion Funds Allocated by the 79th and 80th Texas Legislatures 24 Prison Diversion Progressive Sanctions Program 25 HB 530 and DWI Court Funding 28 Rider 89: Medically Targeted Substance Abuse Treatment 30 Appendices 31 Appendix A: Distribution of FY2008 Rider 84 Diversion Program Funding 33 Appendix B: Definitions of Evaluation Criteria 34 Appendix C: Revocations by CSCD, FY2005 vs. FY2008 38 Appendix D: Progressive Sanctions Supervision Model Page 5 Introduction The 79th Legislature allocated approximately $55.5 million in new funds for Strategy A.1.2. Diversion Programs for the FY2006-2007 biennium. As a result of this funding, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Community Justice Assistance Division (TDCJ-CJAD) awarded: 26 caseload reduction and aftercare caseload diversion grants, and 11 residential treatment diversion grants. Additionally, the 80th Legislature provided significant new funding intended to further strengthen community supervision. This new funding allowed TDCJ-CJAD to award an additional 35 outpatient substance abuse treatment grants and provide for new residential treatment beds. These funds are intended to strengthen community supervision by reducing caseloads, increasing availability of substance abuse treatment options, reducing revocations to prison by utilizing progressive sanctions models, and providing more community supervision options for residential treatment and aftercare. As a result of this new funding and related legislation, the legislature required TDCJ-CJAD to publish annually a monitoring report on the impact of this new funding (the full text of each reporting requirement is available in later sections). This report will further document the impact that these new initiatives have had on community supervision in Texas. This series of reports has been published since 2005 under the title of Report to the Governor and Legislative Budget Board on the Monitoring of Community Supervision Diversion Funds and is available on the TDCJ website. Impact of additional diversion funding The felony direct probation population has been rising since FY2005, to a total of 170,779 in FY2008. At the same time, felony revocations, and especially felony technical revocations, have either gone down or increased slightly. Chart title: Comparison of Felony Direct Population and Felony Technical Revocations In FY2005, the felony direct population was 157,914 with 13,504 felony technical revocations. In Fy2006, the felony direct population was 170,779 with 12,444 felony technical revocations. In FY2007, the felony direct population was 164,652 with 12,787 felony technical revocations. In FY2008, the felony direct population was 159,766 with 12,788 felony technical revocations. End of chart. Page 6 Since FY2006, this expansion in Diversion Program funding has been distributed to 48 Community Supervision and Corrections Departments (CSCDs) statewide. These 48 CSCDs account for 78% of the direct and indirect felons on community supervision in Texas. Since FY2006, these funds have added 1,020 new residential beds and retained 135 Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) beds that would have been lost due to cuts in federal programs and approximately 179 contract residential beds. Cumulatively, departments receiving additional diversion funding had fewer felony revocations in FY2008 than in FY2005, while revocations for departments not receiving any additional diversion funding increased. The following pages provide detailed information on the impact and outcome of: Additional diversion funds allocated by the 79th and 80th Texas Legislatures, Senate Bill (SB) 166: Caseload Reduction, House Bill (HB) 530: DWI Court Funding, and Rider 89: Medically Targeted Substance Abuse Treatment. Page 7 Effectiveness of diversion funds allocated by the 79th and 80th Texas Legislatures. Detailed information on the allocation of the additional diversion funding provided by the 79th and 80th Texas Legislatures was reported in previous December 1st reports. The legislature directed that funding preference should be given to CSCDs using a progressive sanctions model. The following chart is a brief summary of the recent funding allocated by the Texas Legislature. Chart title: Additional Funding Provided by the Texas Legislature. Provided an additional $55.5 million per biennium intended to reduce caseloads and provide additional residential treatment beds. 80th Legislature Provided significant new funding intended to further strengthen community supervision. CSCD Operated $32.3 million increase for 800 new Community Corrections Facility (CCF) beds $10.0 million increase in Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment $10.0 million increase in Basic Supervision funding an additional $7.5 million due to increase in population projections. TDCJ Operated $63.1 million increase for 1,500 new Substance Abuse Felony Punishment (SAFP) treatment beds $28.8 million increase for 1,400 new Intermediate Sanction Facility (ISF) beds (shared with parole) $10.0 million increase for Mental Health treatment through Texas Correctional Office on Offenders with Medical or Mental Impairments (TCOOMMI). End of chart. Page 8 The following timeline shows the major milestones achieved in implementing the new diversion program funding provided by the 79th Texas Legislature. Detailed information regarding this funding is provided in the previous December 1st reports. Chart title: Implementation of Funding Provided by the 79th Texas Legislature FY2006-2007. September 2005, initial distribution of probation caseload reduction and residential treatment bed funding. September 2005, 135 residential substance abuse treatment beds retained. October/November 2005, 60 bed female CCF opens in tom green county. December 1, 2005, initial report published on the monitoring of community supervision diversion funds. February 2006, 40 beds added to El Paso county. June 2006, 300 bed CCF opens in Harris county. September 2006, 100 bed CCF opens in Bexar County. December 1, 2006, second report published on the monitoring of community supervision diversion funds (FY2005 compared to FY2006). April 2007, initial meeting of the community supervision stakeholders committee. September 2007, rider 84 request for proposals distributed. End of chart. Page 9 Implementation of Funding Provided by the 80th Texas Legislature. The implementation of the new funding allocated by the 80th Texas Legislature began in April 2007 when TDCJ-CJAD established the Community Supervision Stakeholders Committee (CSSC) to aid the division with the effective and efficient implementation of the new diversion funding. The CSSC is composed of a diverse representation of community supervision practitioners who include representatives from the: Judicial Advisory Council, Probation Advisory Committee, Strategic Planning Committee, Texas Probation Association, and Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Since the inception of this committee in April of 2007, there have been nine implementation meetings. The committee recommended that: TDCJ operate the Intermediate Sanction Facility (ISF) beds on behalf of the CSCDs. These ISFs should include a cognitive treatment track, a substance abuse treatment track, and a substance abuse relapse track. Diversion grant funds be used to expand outpatient substance abuse treatment to departments that historically did not have access to the treatment. The committee continues work on the expansion of: An assessment-driven community supervision substance abuse treatment continuum available statewide to encourage the appropriate placement and treatment of offenders; and Trainings and education sessions about the continuum and additional diversion initiatives for CSCD staff, judges, district attorneys, and other interested parties. Page 10 Chart title: Implementation of Additional Diversion Funding Provided by the Legislature (FY2008-2009). September 2007, contract residential treatment funds immediately operational. Outpatient substance abuse treatment funds immediately operational. December 1, 2007, third report published on the monitoring of community supervision diversion funds (FY2004-2005 compared to FY2006-2007). December 2007, 22 beds added to El Paso county. January 2008, 56 bed facility opens in Gregg County and 24 beds added to Travis county. February 2008, 14 beds added to Terry county. March 2008, 30 beds added to Dallas county. 100 bed facility opens in Bowie county. April 2008, 8 beds added in Cass county. August 2008, 96 bed facility opens in Hidalgo county. September 2008, 90 beds added to tom green county (expected). December 1, 2008, fourth report published on the monitoring of community supervision diversion funds (FY2005 compared to FY2008). December 2008, 60 beds added to Tom Green county (expected). January 2009, 20 beds added to uvalde county (expected). September 2009, 48 beds added to Travis county (expected). End of chart. CSCD OPERATED RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY SUPERVISION As reported previously, a request for proposals (RFP) for Rider 84.a. (outpatient substance abuse treatment) and Rider 84.c. (residential substance abuse treatment) funding provided by the 80th Legislature was distributed to CSCDs on July 3, 2007. This new funding was distributed to CSCDs on October 29, 2007. Some portions of this funding became operational immediately as CSCDs were able to expand existing contracts with local treatment providers. The distribution of Riders 84.a. and 84.c. funds for FY2008 are detailed in Appendix A. Page 11 In November 2007, the Judicial Advisory Council and TDCJ-CJAD hosted the biennial Sentencing Conference (for judges, district attorneys, defense attorneys, and CSCD directors) to inform attendees about the new diversion funding, goals, and the most effective utilization of these new resources. Additionally, TDCJ-CJAD, in partnership with the Correctional Management Institute of Texas, focused its June 2008 SKILLS for Effective Intervention Conference (for community supervision officers and mid-level supervisors) on the skills and information needed to successfully implement this funding in local communities. TDCJ OPERATED RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY SUPERVISION In addition to the new funding provided directly to the CSCDs, the 80th Legislature also provided TDCJ with funds to strengthen community supervision. All CSCDs have access to Substance Abuse Felony Punishment (SAFP) facility beds, and will have access to Intermediate Sanction Facility (ISF) beds once they are operational. Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facilities Prior to the 80th Legislature, there were 3,250 SAFP beds in TDCJ, and the 80th Legislature provided funding for an additional 1,500 beds. Adult probation utilizes approximately 90% of the agency’s total SAFP beds. To date, 676 of the new SAFP beds have been made operational. TDCJ is currently evaluating responses to the most recent RFP, which closed November 14, 2008, for the remaining beds. Intermediate Sanction Facilities As noted above, the Community Supervision Stakeholders Committee recommended that TDCJ manage the operation of the ISF beds allocated by Rider 84.b. of the 2007 General Appropriations Act (GAA). In July of 2007, TDCJ issued an RFP for the 1,400 (700 each for probation and parole) additional ISF beds funded by the 80th Legislature. This RFP included a preference for urban locations to maintain the local nature of community corrections facilities. To date, 273 of the parole ISF beds have been made operational. TDCJ is currently evaluating responses to the most recent RFP which closed November 14, 2008, for the remaining parole and probation ISF beds. Mental Health Treatment The 80th Legislature allocated $10 million, for the FY2008-2009 biennium, to the Texas Correctional Office on Offenders with Medical or Mental Impairments (TCOOMMI) to provide mental health services, medications, and continuity of care to juvenile and adult offenders with mental impairments. TCOOMMI and TDCJ-CJAD have targeted a portion of the new funds for 190 residential treatment beds for offenders with mental illnesses and a substance abuse disorder. These targeted beds, located in Bexar, Dallas and Harris counties, provide the courts with a much-needed alternative to incarceration for dually diagnosed probationers. Page 12 MONITORING. TDCJ-CJAD developed new audit plans to monitor the new diversion funds: Caseload reduction audits to determine accuracy of caseload reports submitted to TDCJ-CJAD; Progressive sanctions audits to determine if departments met requirements of the progressive sanctions model and if the models were being implemented as designed; Aftercare program audits to review compliance with requirements of aftercare caseload programs; and Revocation audits to ensure the effective delivery of programs and services through proper application of progressive sanctions prior to filing a motion to revoke. MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS. The December 1, 2005 Report to the Governor and Legislative Budget Board on the Monitoring of Community Supervision Diversion Funds established and subsequent reports used evaluation criteria to monitor the impact of new diversion funds. TDCJ-CJAD is using seven criteria in this report to monitor the impact of the additional diversion funding appropriated by the 80th Texas Legislature. The evaluation criteria are listed below, and definitions of each are in Appendix B: Percent Reduction in Felony Revocations, Percent Reduction in Felony Technical Revocations to TDCJ-CID, Percent Reduction in Caseload Size, Percent Increase in Felony Early Discharges, Change in Felony Probation Placements, Average Community Corrections Facility Population, and Numeric Increase in Community Supervision Officers Employed. In addition to this yearly report, TDCJ-CJAD has established a website to report and compare statewide and CSCD-specific monitoring results for each of the evaluation criteria since the new funding from the 79th Legislature. The evaluation criteria website can be accessed via the TDCJ website at www.tdcj.state.tx.us. Click the "Adult Probation (CJAD)" Quick Link on the right side, and then click the icon labeled "Monitoring of Community Supervision Diversion Funds." Previous reports organized CSCDs into three categories: Received New Funding, Did Not Receive New Funding, and Declined New Funding. In order to continue monitoring the effectiveness of diversion funds provided by the 79th Legislature, while at the same time analyzing the effectiveness of new funds provided by the 80th Legislature, CSCDs have been organized into three new categories for this report. Page 13 Chart title: Three Categories of CSCDs 66% of CSCDs were FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 Diversion Funded. These are CSCDs (26) which received funding from the additional diversion funds appropriated by the 79th and 80th Texas Legislature. One CSCD continued FY2006-2007 additional diversion funding and did not receive new FY2008-2009 diversion funding. 12% of CSCDs were FY2008-2009 Diversion Funded Only. These are CSCDs (22) which received funding from the additional diversion funds appropriated by the 80th Texas Legislature that did not receive diversion funds in FY2006-2007. 22% of CSCDs Did Not Receive New Funding. These are CSCDs (74) which did not receive any of the additional diversion funds appropriated in FY2006-2007 or FY2008-2009. End of chart. Additional diversion monies were first distributed in the FY2006-2007 biennium. As the most recent fi scal year prior to the new FY2006-2007 diversion funding, FY2005 was used as a baseline against which to evaluate FY2008 results. Changes in the evaluation criteria between FY2005 and FY2008 were calculated and used to assess effectiveness. OUTCOME RESULTS Analysis of the evaluation criteria shows that CSCDs receiving additional diversion funding had the most positive outcomes. Cumulatively, departments that received additional diversion funding in FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 had the largest: Reductions in felony revocations; Reductions in technical revocations; Increase in early discharges; Reductions in caseload size; and Increase in felony community supervision placements. Page 14 Departments receiving only FY2008-2009 diversion funding have more positive outcomes than departments which have not received any additional diversion funding. Additionally, because this was an implementation year, complete results are not expected until FY2009 and will be reported in the FY2009 Report to the Governor and Legislative Budget Board on the Monitoring of Community Supervision Diversion Funds. Chart title: Percent Reduction in Felony Revocations, Compared to FY2005 Statewide, in FY2005 there were 24,126 felony revocations and in FY2008 there were 24,028 felony revocations, a decrease of 98 (-0.4%). For FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded CSCDs, in FY2005 there were 16,404 felony revocations and in FY2008 there were 15,651 felony revocations, a decrease of 753 (-4.6%). For FY2008-2009 diversion funded CSCDs, in FY2005 there were 2,563 felony revocations and in FY2008 there were 2,739 felony revocations, an increase of 176 (6.9%). For CSCDs that did not receive new funding, in FY2005 there were 5,159 felony revocations and in FY2008 there were 5,638 felony revocations, an increase of 479 (9.3%). End of chart. Departments receiving FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funding had 753 fewer felony revocations to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID) in FY2008 than in FY2005, representing a 4.6% decrease. Departments not receiving any additional diversion funding had an increase of 9.3% (479 revocations). Departments receiving funding beginning in the FY2008-2009 biennium had an increase of 6.9% in felony revocations to TDCJ compared to FY2005; however, there was a 0.8% decrease in felony revocations to TDCJ from FY2007 to FY2008 indicating positive results from the implementation of the new funding. Changes in felony revocations for all CSCDs are presented in Appendix C. Page 15 Felony Technical Revocations Chart title: Percent Reduction in Felony Technical Revocations, Compared to FY2005. Statewide, in FY2005 there were 13,504 felony technical revocations and in FY2008 there were 12,788 felony technical revocations, a decrease of 716 (-5.3%). For FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded CSCDs, in FY2005 there were 9,437 felony technical revocations and in FY2008 there were 8,347 felony technical revocations, a decrease of 1090 (-11.6%). For FY2008-2009 diversion funded CSCDs, in FY2005 there were 1,383 felony technical revocations and in FY2008 there were 1,449 felony technical revocations, an increase of 66 (4.8%). For CSCDs that did not receive new funding, in FY2005 there were 2,684 felony technical revocations and in FY2008 there were 2,992 felony technical revocations, an increase of 308 (11.5%). End of chart. Statewide, felony technical revocations declined 5.3%. Departments receiving FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funding had an 11.6% reduction in felony technical revocations while departments receiving no funding had an 11.5% increase in felony technical revocations. Departments receiving funding beginning in the FY2008-2009 biennium had a 4.8% increase in felony technical revocations compared to FY2005; however, there was a 2.1% decrease in felony technical revocations from FY2007 to FY2008 indicating positive results from the implementation of the additional diversion funding. These positive results appear to be a result of requirements that funded departments utilize progressive sanctions models in initial responses to technical violations of community supervision conditions, combined with increased funding. Page 16 Chart title: Percent increase in felony early discharges, compared to FY2005 Statewide, in FY2005 there were 4,256 felony early discharges and in FY2008 there were 6,083 felony early discharges, an increase of 1,827 (42.9%). For FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded CSCDs, in FY2005 there were 2,942 felony early discharges and in FY2008 there were 4,263 felony early discharges, an increase of 1,321 (44.9%). For FY2008-2009 diversion funded CSCDs, in FY2005 there were 353 felony early discharges and in FY2008 there were 524 felony early discharges, an increase of 171 (48.4%). For CSCDs that did not receive new funding, in FY2005 there were 961 felony early discharges and in FY2008 there were 1,296 felony early discharges, an increase of 335 (34.9%). End of chart. Early discharge for successful probationers was incorporated in progressive sanctions models to provide incentives for probationers to be successful and to decrease caseload sizes. Early discharge from community supervision for successful probationers (as provided in Article 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure) increased by 42.9% statewide. CSCDs receiving additional funding in FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 increased early discharges 44.9% from FY2005 to FY2008 while departments that received no additional funding increased early discharges 34.9%. Page 17 Chart title: Percent reduction in caseload size, compared to FY2005 Statewide, in FY2005 the caseload size was 121 and in FY2008 the caseload size was 106.6, a decrease of 14.4 (-11.9%). For FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded CSCDs, in FY2005 the caseload size was 125.5 and in FY2008 the caseload size was 108.5, a decrease of 17 (-13.5%). For FY2008-2009 diversion funded CSCDs, in FY2005 the caseload size was 101.8 and in FY2008 the caseload size was 99, a decrease of 2.8 (-2.8%). For CSCDs that did not receive new funding, in FY2005 the caseload size was 120.8 and in FY2008 the caseload size was 105, a decrease of 15.8 (-15.8%). End of chart. In FY2008, caseload size decreased 11.9% statewide compared to FY2005, led by a 13.5% reduction in caseload size for departments receiving additional diversion funding in FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009. Page 18 Chart title: Percent Increase in Felony Community Supervision Placements, Compared to FY2005 Statewide, in FY2005 there were 56,455 felony community supervision placements and in FY2008 there were 60,824 felony community supervision placements, an increase of 4,369 (7.7%). For FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded CSCDs, in FY2005 there were 37,567 felony community supervision placements and in FY2008 there were 41,187 felony community supervision placements, an increase of 3,620 (9.6%). For FY2008-2009 diversion funded CSCDs, in FY2005 there were 5,962 felony community supervision placements and in FY2008 there were 6,603 felony community supervision placements, an increase of 641 (10.8%). For CSCDs that did not receive new funding, in FY2005 there were 12,926 felony community supervision placements and in FY2008 there were 13,034 felony community supervision placements, an increase of 108 (0.8%). End of chart. Felony community supervision placements increased 7.7% statewide compared to FY2005. CSCDs receiving additional diversion funding in FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 increased felony community supervision placements by 9.6% and CSCDs receiving additional diversion funding in FY2008-2009 increased felony community supervision placements 10.8%. CSCDs receiving no additional diversion funding increased felony placements by 0.8%. Increases in felony community supervision placements contributed to increases in the felony direct and indirect community supervision population. The statewide felony direct and indirect community supervision population increased 3.1% from FY2005 to FY2008. However, the number of felony revocations to TDCJ-CID statewide decreased 0.4% in the same timeframe. Page 19 The final two evaluation criteria are the average community corrections facility population and the number of community supervision officers employed. Results statewide and for the three categories are displayed in the following two charts. Chart title: Average Community Corrections Facility (CCF) Population, Compared to FY2005. Statewide, in FY2005 the average CCF population was 2,333 and in FY2008 the average CCF population was 2,752, an increase of 419 (18.0%). For FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded CSCDs, in FY2005 the average CCF population was 1,853 and in FY2008 the average CCF population was 2,223, an increase of 370 (20.0%). For FY2008-2009 diversion funded CSCDs, in FY2005 the average CCF population was 386 and in FY2008 the average CCF population was 435, an increase of 49 (12.7%). For CSCDs that did not receive new funding, the average CCF population was 94 in both FY2005 and FY2008. End of chart. Chart title: Community Supervision Officers Employed, Compared to FY2005 Statewide, in FY2005 there were 3.369 CSOs employed and in FY2008 there were 3.491 CSOs employed, an increase of 122 (3.6%). For FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded CSCDs, in FY2005 there were 2,207 CSOs employed and in FY2008 there were 2.356 CSOs employed, an increase of 149 (6.8%). For FY2008-2009 diversion funded CSCDs, in FY2005 there were 466 CSOs employed and in FY2008 there were 446 CSOs employed, a decrease of 20 (-4.3%). For CSCDs that did not receive new funding, in FY2005 there were 696 CSOs employed and in FY2008 there were 689 CSOs employed, a decrease of 7 (-1.0%). End of chart. Despite the 3.1% increase in direct and indirect felony offenders under community supervision, felony revocations to TDCJ have decreased 0.4%, one indicator that the investments in community supervision by the 79th and 80th Texas Legislatures are providing positive results. Page 20 MOVING FORWARD Increasing Successful Probationers TDCJ-CJAD and the CSCDs are working together to decrease felony revocations with the new funding provided by the legislature. The following chart highlights the ten largest CSCDs (all of which received funding from both the 79th and 80th Legislative Sessions) and captures their felony revocations from FY2005 to FY2008. Chart title: Top Ten Most Populous CSCDs. The top ten most populous CSCDs for FY2008 were Dallas, Harris, Bexar, Tarrant, Hidalgo, El Paso, Travis, Cameron, Nueces, and Collin CSCDs. For Dallas CSCD, the FY2008 felony population was 31,701, which was 13.2% of the state felony population. Dallas CSCD had 3,183 felony revocations in FY2005 and 2,841 felony revocations in FY2008, a decrease of 342 (-10.7%). For Harris CSCD, the FY2008 felony population was 24,456, which was 10.2% of the state felony population. Harris CSCD had 3,549 felony revocations in FY2005 and 3,067 felony revocations in FY2008, a decrease of 482 (-13.6%). For Bexar CSCD, the FY2008 felony population was 13,280, which was 5.5% of the state felony population. Bexar CSCD had 816 felony revocations in FY2005 and 1,468 felony revocations in FY2008, an increase of 652 (79.9%). For Tarrant CSCD, the FY2008 felony population was 12,357, which was 5.1% of the state felony population. Tarrant CSCD had 1,733 felony revocations in FY2005 and 1,441 felony revocations in FY2008, a decrease of 292 (-16.8%). For Hidalgo CSCD, the FY2008 felony population was 10,386, which was 4.3% of the state felony population. Hidalgo CSCD had 703 felony revocations in FY2005 and 662 felony revocations in FY2008, a decrease of 41 (-5.8%). For El Paso CSCD, the FY2008 felony population was 10,026, which was 4.2% of the state felony population. El Paso CSCD had 594 felony revocations in FY2005 and 544 felony revocations in FY2008, a decrease of 50 (-8.4%). For Travis CSCD, the FY2008 felony population was 9,196, which was 3.8% of the state felony population. Travis CSCD had 1,052 felony revocations in FY2005 and 846 felony revocations in FY2008, a decrease of 206 (-19.6%). For Cameron CSCD, the FY2008 felony population was 5,348, which was 2.2% of the state felony population. Cameron CSCD had 357 felony revocations in FY2005 and 297 felony revocations in FY2008, a decrease of 60 (-16.8%). For Nueces CSCD, the FY2008 felony population was 5,018, which was 2.1% of the state felony population. Nueces CSCD had 505 felony revocations in FY2005 and 559 felony revocations in FY2008, an increase of 54 (10.7%). For Collin CSCD, the FY2008 felony population was 3,932, which was 1.6% of the state felony population. Collin CSCD had 239 felony revocations in FY2005 and 458 felony revocations in FY2008, an increase of 219 (91.6%). End of chart. Despite new funding, a number of CSCDs still have increasing felony revocation rates. TDCJ-CJAD is requesting an explanation and a plan from CSCDs with the highest increases in revocations despite significant new funding and treatment options. The division will be working with those CSCDs. Recruit and Retain Quality Community Supervision Officers and Direct Care Staff. One of the challenges to reducing felony revocations is recruiting and retaining a qualified workforce. The TDCJ Legislative Appropriations Request (LAR) to the 81st legislature specifies that in order to have a positive impact on public safety, community supervision must be able to: Recruit and retain high-quality community supervision officers and direct care staff to provide vital offender supervision, and Maintain resources needed for successful offender behavior change. Page 21 High levels of voluntary turnover by probation officers and direct care staff in CSCDs have contributed to unstable caseload sizes, inexperienced staff, training issues, decreased quality of supervision, and lower staff morale. In March 2008, at the request of the Probation Advisory Committee, TDCJ-CJAD facilitated surveys with the CSCDs to provide specific salary and turnover data for community supervision officers and direct care staff. The significant findings of the surveys are outlined below. 2008 Salary Survey. The salary survey utilized CSCD personnel records for demographic, salary, education, and job duty data for all CSOs and other CSCD direct care staff employed by a CSCD on December 31, 2007. Chart title: Years in current job classification and average salary (community supervision officers, excluding CSCD administrators). 23.6 percent of community supervision officers have been in their current job classification one year or less. The average salary for a beginning community supervision officer (employed one year or less) is 32,703 dollars. 41.9 percent of community supervision officers have 3 or fewer years of experience in their current job classification and make an average salary of 33,473 dollars. This represents an increase from a 2002 survey conducted by CJAD which found approximately 33 percent of CSOs had been in their current position for three years or less. 25.6 percent of community supervision officers have 4 to 10 years of experience in their current job classification and make an average salary of 39,112 dollars. 18.2 percent of community supervision officers have 11 to 15 years of experience in their current job classification and make an average salary of 44,250 dollars. 14.2 percent of community supervision officers have over 15 years of experience in their current job classification and make an average salary of 47,733 dollars. Note: Years in current job classification indicates the number of years a probation officer has been employed in their current position or a position with similar job duties and functions. For example, a probation officer who has two years of experience as a regular CSO and three years of experience as a CSO supervising a specialized caseload would be counted as having five years in the current job classification. End of chart. page 22 52.9% of counselors and program staff earn 35,000 dollars or less per year. 44.3% of counselors and program staff have been in their current job classification 3 years or less. Counselors and program staff with 3 years or less experience earn an average salary of 33,190 dollars. 66.8% of residential staff earn 30,000 dollars or less per year. 33.2% of residential staff earn 25,000 dollars or less per year. 52.0% of residential staff have been in their current job classification 3 year or less. Residential staff with 3 years or less experience earn an average salary of 25,623 dollars. Chart title: There is a growing shortage of experienced probation officers and direct care staff in CSCD. 1 out of 4 current probation officers has one year or less of job related experience and earns an average salary of 32,703 dollars. In 2002, 3 out of 10 probation officers had three years or less of job related experience. In 2008, 4 out of 10 current probation officers have three years or less of job related experience. 1 out of 2 residential staff has three years or less of job related experience and earns an average salary of 25,623 dollars. Page 23 The 2008 turnover survey utilized CSCD personnel records for voluntary and retirement turnover data for FY2005-FY2007 and departure data for all staff who terminated employment with the CSCD in FY2007, including departure reason and departure destination. Below, the first chart shows voluntary turnover rates and reasons for voluntary termination; the second chart singles out CSOs to show the reported destinations for their voluntary termination. Chart title: Voluntary Turnover Rate and Reasons for Voluntary Termination. The voluntary turnover rate for CSOs in FY2005 was 13.5 percent, in FY2006 was 13.2 percent, and in FY2007 increased to 14.6 percent. When asked to give a reason for voluntary termination, 56 percent of CSOs and direct care staff cited pay and benefits, 32 percent cited family, personal, or medical reasons, 9 percent cited working conditions, and 3 percent cited career advancement. End chart. Chart title: Reported Destinations for Voluntary Terminations of Community Supervision Officers. In FY2007 of the CSOs who voluntarily terminated employment, 72.4 percent went to the public sector, 18.3 percent went to the private sector, and 9.3 percent went to other. Of those who went to the public sector, 17.2 percent went to the federal government, 15.6 percent went to a school district, 11.3 percent went to another CSCD, 10.9 percent moved to state government, 8.1 percent went to law enforcement, 4.3 percent moved to juvenile probation, 4.1 percent moved to county government, and 0.9 percent went to city government. End of chart. Page 24 PRISON DIVERSION PROGRESSIVE SANCTIONS PROGRAM Senate Bill (SB) 166 from the 80th Texas Legislature added §509.016 to the Texas Government Code, which required TDCJ-CJAD to “provide grants to selected departments for the implementation of a system of progressive sanctions designed to reduce the revocation rate of defendants placed on community supervision.” Additionally, §509.016(c) states: The division shall, not later than December 1 of each even-numbered year, provide a report to the board. The report must state the number of departments receiving grants under this section, identify those departments by name, and describe for each department receiving a grant the components of the department’s program and the success of the department in reducing revocations. The report must also contain an analysis of the scope, effectiveness, and cost benefit of programs funded by grants provided under this section and a comparison of those programs to similar programs in existence in various departments before March 1, 2005. The division may include in the report any other information the division determines will be beneficial to the board or the legislature. The board shall forward the report to the lieutenant governor and the speaker of the house of representatives not later than December 15 of each even-numbered year." This comprehensive report is intended to fulfill the reporting requirements of this section. TDCJ-CJAD gave grant funding preference to CSCDs that: agreed to develop and utilize progressive sanctions models for their departments, submitted their locally developed progressive sanctions models to TDCJ-CJAD, and based their progressive sanctions models on the elements described in SB166. The components of the progressive sanctions models the CSCDs were required to submit are listed in Appendix D: Progressive Sanctions Supervision Model. As referenced earlier in the report, revocations by CSCD are provided in the chart in Appendix C: Revocations by CSCD. In order to remain consistent with the entirety of this report the chart represents changes in revocation between FY2005 and FY2008. Page 25 HOUSE BILL (HB) 530 AND DWI COURT FUNDING House Bill (HB) 530 expanded the number of counties required to establish drug courts, instituted a fee to help fund drug courts, and established drug court programs for persons arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a DWI offense. Additionally, a contingency rider (Article IX, Section 19.08[b]) to this legislation required TDCJ to transfer $270,000 from strategy C.1.10 Contracted Temporary Capacity to Strategy A.1.2 Diversion Programs in FY2008 for the purpose of providing grants to DWI courts or drug courts operating dual DWI/Drug Court programs. No funding was appropriated for this transfer in FY2009. In addition, the rider requires: Counties receiving these grants shall be required to report historical and annual information on DWI offenders to the Community Justice Assistance Division of the Department of Criminal Justice. The Community Justice Assistance Division shall create a uniform data collection instrument to record the progress of the offenders in those programs and shall submit a report on the implementation and effectiveness of the programs to the Legislative Budget Board and the Governor by December 1 of each year. TDCJ-CJAD developed and distributed to CSCDs a request for program proposals for DWI drug court funds. The request for proposals was distributed on August 30, 2007 with a deadline of receiving proposals September 24, 2007. Harris County CSCD was awarded a one-time diversion grant for $270,000 for DWI drug court services. Chart title: DWI court implementation timeline. DWI Drug Court Implementation Timeline August 30, 2007, Request for proposals distributed to CSCDs. September 24, 2007, Deadline for CSCDs to submit proposals for DWI Court program. December 26, 2007, Harris County CSCD met with core group of participating Harris County judges to discuss supervision of DWI Court clients. January 3, 2008, TDCJ-CJAD awards Harris County CSCD with a DWI Court grant for $270,000. January 5, 2008, The first participant began the DWI Court program supervised by a CSO assigned to the court. January 7, 2008, Harris County CSCD staff met with Harris County judges to discuss implementation issues. January 16, 2008, Harris County CSCD met with TDCJ-CJAD Research and Evaluation Unit to discuss uniform data collection instrument and evaluation study methodology. January 31, 2008, Harris County CSCD conducts training on the program for judges and officers involved in the program. March 27, 2008, Harris County CSCD provides substance abuse overview class to train officers on programs, dynamics of abuse and relapse, treatment modalities, and monitoring systems. The class was repeated two more times during FY2008. May, 2008, DWI Court program fully operational in 10 of the 15 Harris County Criminal Courts At Law. End of chart. Page 26 Harris County DWI Court Program The Harris County CSCD DWI Court program is a 24-month program that incorporates the 10 essential characteristics of a drug court program (as stipulated in §469.001, Health and Safety Code) for repeat misdemeanor DWI offenders. The first three phases include approximately 12 months of substance abuse treatment while the fourth phase includes an additional 12 months of aftercare. Participants may also be required to complete residential substance abuse treatment. All participants are tested randomly for drugs and alcohol and may be monitored using ignition interlock devices. Participants attend individual and group counseling sessions and 12-step program meetings, attend court, meet with a community supervision officer, attend a DWI repeat offender course, and pay fees. Participants are rewarded when compliant with program rules and participation conditions; they are sanctioned for violations of program rules and participation conditions. Ten Harris County Criminal Courts at Law are participating in the DWI court program as of the date of this publication: numbers 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15. Implementation Challenges. Harris County CSCD has cited diffiulties in finding offenders who are willing to participate in the program. Like drug courts, DWI courts are intensive long-term programs that require participants to commit to the demands of the program. Drug court programs can offer incentives, such as dismissed criminal cases and shortened sentences, if participants successfully complete the program. However, statutory limitations prevent DWI courts from offering these incentives. Harris County CSCD stated that "...the absence of any legislative statutes requiring second time DWI offenders to enter this program along with the lack of legal incentives for doing so has resulted in enrollment being much lower than anticipated. Jail time, even long term, seems to be the easier route for most defendants to take. It is important to note that statewide, DWI probation placements have dropped from 58,203 in FY2005 to 39,927 in FY2007. Page 27 Coordinating exchange of information between the participating entities has posed a challenge for Harris County CSCD. DWI Court programs require communication among a number of entities (CSCDs, judges, court personnel, and staff from the district attorney’s office). Plans have been developed to address communication issues during FY2009. The Harris County CSCD DWI Court began serving offenders on January 5, 2008, since that time 31 offenders have entered the program. As of August 31, 2008, 30 offenders were participating in the program (one offender’s supervision was transferred to his jurisdiction of residence). Due to the length of the program, there have been no program completions, and therefore no successful discharges, to date. However, of the 31 offenders who entered the program, Harris County reports: "The community and the clients appear to be benefitting from the enhanced level of supervision and treatment." Of the 148 DWI Offenders Referred to Harris County CSCD DWI Court Program from January to August, 2008, 31 endered the program, 113 refused to participate, and 4 were deemed ineligible for the program. Page 28 RIDER 89: MEDICALLY TARGETED SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT Article V, Rider 89 of the 2007 General Appropriations Act (GAA) stipulates: "From funds appropriated above in Strategy A.1.2, Diversion Programs, $1,000,000 in fi scal year 2008 and $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2009 may be used to provide physician supervised acute medical treatment for methamphetamine and/or cocaine-addicted offenders within the context of an integrated approach that combines medical and psychosocial treatment approaches. The treatment should not be chronic in nature and should not utilize substitute medications that are known to be addictive. Treatment should be administered in an outpatient setting in conjunction with ongoing psychosocial care and medical oversight provided by the contracting entity. The agency shall submit a report to the Legislative Budget Board and the Governor’s Office summarizing the effectiveness of the treatment program by December 1, 2008. It is the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Criminal Justice shall give preference to those counties with the greatest need in order to maximize the positive effect of reducing recidivism and providing alternatives to incarceration within the criminal justice system." TDCJ-CJAD issued a request for proposals to the CSCDs in September 2007 and issued subsequent requests in October 2007 and June 2008. Three CSCDs received Rider 89 funds for FY2008. As of the publication of this report: Dallas County CSCD continues to hire and train program staff, and their contract with the vendor remains to be finalized by December 2008; Harris County CSCD continues to seek a vendor and finalize their program budget; and Nueces County CSCD has submitted a program budget and is reviewing the details of their vendor contract. Final Rider 89 Funds FY2008 funds distributed to CSCDs were 492,715 dollars to Dallas CSCD, 384,950 dollars to Harris CSCD, and 122,335 to Nueces CSCD, for a total of one million dollars. Page 29 Below is a timeline detailing TDCJ-CJAD’s activities and efforts to implement Rider 89 funds for FY2008. September 5, 2007, TDCJ-CJAD distributed request for proposals to the 15 CSCDs with the largest direct offender population. October 22, 2007, TDCJ-CJAD distributed request for proposals to all CSCDs. October November, 2007, TDCJ-CJAD received proposals from Caldwell, Collin, Denton, Lubbock, and Nueces County CSCDs. October, 2007, TDCJ-CJAD notified Denton County CSCD their RFP was not accepted because of a lack of progressive sanctions model. December 20, 2007, To comply with the Rider, TDCJ-CJAD notified Caldwell, Collin, Lubbock, and Nueces County CSCDs that funds would not be released until an RFP from a vendor was in place. March 25, 2008, Collin County CSCD notified TDCJ-CJAD they dropped out of consideration for Rider 89 funds. March 26, 2008, Caldwell County CSCD notified TDCJ-CJAD they dropped out of consideration for Rider 89 funds because they were unable to find a vendor to provide services. June 24, 2008, TDCJ-CJAD received notice from Lubbock County CSCD declining funding for FY2008 because they were unable to finalize an inter-local agreement with their local MHMR service provider. July 23, 2008, TDCJ-CJAD distributed request for proposals to Bexar, Dallas, and Harris County CSCDs to use Rider 89 funds for dual diagnosis offenders who are cocaine or methamphetamine addicted and suffer from mental illness. July 28, 2008, TDCJ-CJAD received proposal from Dallas County CSCD. August 1, 2008, TDCJ-CJAD received proposal from Harris County CSCD. August 25, 2008, Final grant award statements for Dallas, Harris and Nueces CSCDs were executed. Page 30 Appendix table of contents 31 Appendix A: Distribution of FY2008 Rider 84 Diversion Program Funding 33 Appendix B: Definitions of Evaluation Criteria 34 Appendix C: Revocations by CSCD, FY2005 vs. FY2008 38 Appendix D: Progressive Sanctions Supervision Model Page 31 APPENDIX A: DISTRIBUTION OF FY2008 RIDER 84 DIVERSION PROGRAM FUNDING. Chart title: FY2008 Outpatient Treatment as Directed by Rider 84a. Angelina $56,671 Bell $15,000 Bexar $184,593 Brazoria $191,472 Brazos $40,229 Caldwell $199,444 Cameron $123,221 Dallas $521,383 Deaf Smith $35,050 El Paso $277,994 Ellis $102,350 Fort Bend $126,000 Grayson $209,725 Harris $821,706 Hill $57,510 Jefferson $105,250 Kleberg $119,938 Lavaca $8,160 Lubbock $210,823 McLennan $14,400 Midland $61,854 Moore $12,102 Nueces $58,771 Orange $15,000 Potter $187,930 Reeves $71,232 Scurry $115,316 Tarrant $60,327 Taylor $88,469 Tom Green $125,303 Travis $630,444 Upshur $35,157 Uvalde $7,030 Victoria $34,769 Webb $75,377 Total Allocated $5,000,000 End of chart. Page 32 APPENDIX A: DISTRIBUTION OF FY2008 RIDER 84 DIVERSION PROGRAM FUNDING. Chart title: FY2008 Residential Beds as Directed by Rider 84c (as of August 31, 2008) Bowie 100 beds $1,900,000 Cass 8 beds $101,359 Dallas 30 beds $744,455 El Paso 22 beds $388,303 Gregg 56 beds $937,302 Hidalgo 96 beds $453,050 Terry 14 beds $203,116 Tom Green (expected) 90 beds $645,517 Tom Green (expected) 60 beds $418,928 Travis (expected) 24 beds $580,350 Uvalde (expected) 20 beds $190,000 Funding to Support Lost Beds 144 beds $2,809,657 Additional Funding Allocated for Residential/Aftercare Treatment $1,101,280 Total Residential Beds 664 beds $10,473,317 End of chart. Chart title: FY2008 Contract Residential Beds. Angelina $328,560 Bell $120,000 Brazoria $57,451 Collin $4,000 Dallas $694,547 Denton $48,000 Ellis $30,000 El Paso $125,000 Fort Bend $590,368 Hidalgo $14,000 Kendall $28,500 Lubbock $169,311 Orange $50,000 Parker $42,954 Potter $125,145 San Patricio $118,237 Scurry $71,560 Tarrant $287,154 Tom Green $115,675 Travis $643,460 Victoria $48,000 Webb $68,500 Total Contract Residential $3,780,422 Total Allocated $14,253,739 End of chart. Page 33 Appendix B: DEFINITIONS OF EVALUATION CRITERIA. Appropriations Rider 79 (GAA 2007) requires TDCJ-CJAD to develop an accountability system to track the impact of new diversion program funding targeted at making a positive impact on the criminal justice system. TDCJ-CJAD has identified eight evaluation criteria to track, seven of which are discussed in this report. The TDCJ-CJAD website reports data by quarter comparing the first quarter of FY2005 to the first quarter of FY2006. The website will be updated each quarter of the Fiscal Year. The primary source of data for the Evaluation Criteria website is the Monthly Community Supervision and Corrections Report (MCSCR). The MCSCR is a monthly report submitted by Community Supervision and Corrections Departments (CSCDs) reporting aggregate counts of activities. The evaluation criteria definitions and data sources are detailed below: Felony Revocations to TDCJ: The total number of felony revocations to State Jail and TDCJ during the quarter. The source of this data is the number of Felony Revocations to State Jail and TDCJ as reported on the MCSCR. Felony Technical Revocations: The total number of “Other Reasons for Revocation” reported during the quarter. The source of this data is the number of felony revocations reported as “Other Reasons for Revocation” in the Reasons for Revocations as reported on the MCSCR. Caseload Size: The number of direct and pretrial offenders per regular CSO who supervises at least one direct case and spends at least 50% of his or her time on supervision or supervision-related duties. Early Terminations: The total number of felony early terminations reported during the quarter. The source of this data is the number of felony Early Terminations as reported on the MCSCR. Felony Community Supervision Placements: Total number of felony community supervision placements in the quarter. The source of this data is Felony Community Supervision Placements as reported on the MCSCR. Average Community Correctional Facility (CCF) Population: The average CCF population for the quarter. The source of this data is the Community Corrections Facilities population as reported on the MCSCR. Community Supervision Officers (CSOs) Employed: The average number of CSOs employed in the quarter. The source of this data is the Number of Paid Full-time CSOs as reported on the MCSCR. Page 34 Appendix C: Revocations by CSCD, FY2005 Vs. FY2008 by numeric change. Statewide. 24,126 revocations in FY2005. 24,028 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 98 (-0.4%). 3.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Harris. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 3,549 revocations in FY2005. 3,067 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 482 (-13.6%). -5.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Dallas. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 3,183 revocations in FY2005. 2,841 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 342 (-10.7%). 12.8% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Tarrant. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 1,733 revocations in FY2005. 1,441 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 292 (-16.8%). 7.4% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Travis. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 1,052 revocations in FY2005. 846 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 206 (-19.6%). -9.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Ector. Did not receive new funding. 219 revocations in FY2005. 152 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 67 (-30.6%). 5.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Potter. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 455 revocations in FY2005. 389 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 66 (-14.5%). 1.2% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Denton. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 294 revocations in FY2005. 231 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 63 (-21.4%). 19.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Jefferson. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 454 revocations in FY2005. 392 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 62 (-13.7%). 2.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Lubbock. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 433 revocations in FY2005. 371 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 62 (-14.3%). -1.9% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Cameron. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 357 revocations in FY2005. 297 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 60 (-16.8%). -3.4% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. El Paso. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 594 revocations in FY2005. 544 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 50 (-8.4%). -13.2% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Wichita. Did not receive new funding. 164 revocations in FY2005. 115 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 49 (-29.9%). -11.4% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Kleberg. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 99 revocations in FY2005. 54 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 45 (-45.5%). -5.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Hidalgo. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 703 revocations in FY2005. 662 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 41 (-5.8%). -1.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. McLennan. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 311 revocations in FY2005. 272 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 39 (-12.5%). 7.3% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Bowie. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 147 revocations in FY2005. 110 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 37 (-25.2%). 11.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Hale. Did not receive new funding. 113 revocations in FY2005. 82 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 31 (-27.4%). -11.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Howard. Did not receive new funding. 72 revocations in FY2005. 44 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 28 (-38.9%). 6.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Rockwall. Did not receive new funding. 94 revocations in FY2005. 67 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 27 (-28.7%). 7.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Hill. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 79 revocations in FY2005. 54 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 25 (-31.6%). 17.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Montague. Did not receive new funding. 54 revocations in FY2005. 32 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 22 (-40.7%). 10.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Brown. Did not receive new funding. 79 revocations in FY2005. 59 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 20 (-25.3%). -10.2% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Wood. Did not receive new funding. 63 revocations in FY2005. 43 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 20 (-31.7%). 7.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Angelina. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 165 revocations in FY2005. 146 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 19 (-11.5%). 1.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Dawson. Did not receive new funding. 62 revocations in FY2005. 43 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 19 (-30.6%). 12.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Palo Pinto. Did not receive new funding. 54 revocations in FY2005. 35 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 19 (-35.2%). 48.4% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Webb. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 100 revocations in FY2005. 81 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 19 (-19.0%). -14.3% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Falls. Did not receive new funding. 82 revocations in FY2005. 66 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 16 (-19.5%). 1.4% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Fannin. Did not receive new funding. 62 revocations in FY2005. 47 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 15 (-24.2%). 4.9% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Fort Bend. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 158 revocations in FY2005. 143 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 15 (-9.5%). 10.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Comanche. Did not receive new funding. 60 revocations in FY2005. 46 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 14 (-23.3%). 7.7% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Caldwell. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 287 revocations in FY2005. 274 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 13 (-4.5%). 2.7% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Nacogdoches. Did not receive new funding. 104 revocations in FY2005. 91 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 13 (-12.5%). 13.8% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Page 35 Appendix C: Revocations by CSCD, FY2005 Vs. FY2008 by numeric change continued. Childress. Did not receive new funding. 34 revocations in FY2005. 22 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 12 (-35.3%). 17.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Lavaca. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 75 revocations in FY2005. 63 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 12 (-16.0%). 4.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Andrews. Did not receive new funding. 37 revocations in FY2005. 26 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 11 (-29.7%). 21.8% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Burnet. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. FY2006-2007 diversion funded only. 70 revocations in FY2005. 59 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 11 (-15.7%). -1.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Cherokee. Did not receive new funding. 34 revocations in FY2005. 24 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 10 (-29.4%). -13.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Moore. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 48 revocations in FY2005. 38 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 10 (-20.8%). 11.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Gregg. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 111 revocations in FY2005. 102 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 9 (-8.1%). 12.2% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Starr. Did not receive new funding. 38 revocations in FY2005. 29 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 9 (-23.7%). 7.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Tom Green. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 233 revocations in FY2005. 224 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 9 (-3.9%). 10.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Nolan. Did not receive new funding. 54 revocations in FY2005. 46 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 8 (-14.8%). 8.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Pecos. Did not receive new funding. 40 revocations in FY2005. 32 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 8 (-20.0%). -19.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Floyd. Did not receive new funding. 15 revocations in FY2005. 8 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 7 (-46.7%). -17.3% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Lamar. Did not receive new funding. 89 revocations in FY2005. 82 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 7 (-7.9%). 8.3% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Baylor. Did not receive new funding. 13 revocations in FY2005. 7 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 6 (-46.2%). 5.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Deaf Smith. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 61 revocations in FY2005. 55 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 6 (-9.8%). -6.8% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Fayette. Did not receive new funding. 67 revocations in FY2005. 61 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 6 (-9.0%). -8.3% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Gray. Did not receive new funding. 42 revocations in FY2005. 37 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 5 (-11.9%). 39.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Crockett. Did not receive new funding. 19 revocations in FY2005. 16 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 3 (-15.8%). -2.4% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Bell. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 336 revocations in FY2005. 334 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 2 (-0.6%). -5.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Cass. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 43 revocations in FY2005. 41 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 2 (-4.7%). 4.2% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Panola. Did not receive new funding. 63 revocations in FY2005. 61 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 2 (-3.2%). 11.2% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Crane. Did not receive new funding. 5 revocations in FY2005. 4 revocations in FY2008. Decrease of 1 (-20.0%). -9.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Jim Wells. Did not receive new funding. 11 revocations in FY2005. 11 revocations in FY2008. 0 (0.0%). -23.2% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Bastrop. Did not receive new funding. 181 revocations in FY2005. 182 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 1 (0.6%). -4.8% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Hardin. Did not receive new funding. 44 revocations in FY2005. 45 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 1 (2.3%). -13.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Haskell. Did not receive new funding. 21 revocations in FY2005. 22 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 1 (4.8%). 13.2% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Hockley. Did not receive new funding. 36 revocations in FY2005. 37 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 1 (2.8%). -7.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Uvalde. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 65 revocations in FY2005. 66 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 1 (1.5%). -2.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Young. Did not receive new funding. 22 revocations in FY2005. 23 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 1 (4.5%). -1.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Orange. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 146 revocations in FY2005. 148 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 2 (1.4%). -12.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Lamb. Did not receive new funding. 17 revocations in FY2005. 20 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 3 (17.6%). 2.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Tyler. Did not receive new funding. 15 revocations in FY2005. 18 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 3 (20.0%). 4.3% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Winkler. Did not receive new funding. 14 revocations in FY2005. 17 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 3 (21.4%). 15.9% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Scurry. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 15 revocations in FY2005. 20 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 5 (33.3%). 9.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Page 36 Appendix C: Revocations by CSCD, FY2005 Vs. FY2008 by numeric change continued. Wilbarger. Did not receive new funding. 13 revocations in FY2005. 18 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 5 (38.5%). 10.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Anderson. Did not receive new funding. 101 revocations in FY2005. 107 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 6 (5.9%). 21.3% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Kendall. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 20 revocations in FY2005. 26 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 6 (30.0%). -1.7% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Parmer. Did not receive new funding. 5 revocations in FY2005. 11 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 6 (120.0%). -7.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Cooke. Did not receive new funding. 38 revocations in FY2005. 45 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 7 (18.4%). 29.3% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Wheeler. Did not receive new funding. 10 revocations in FY2005. 17 revocations in FY2008. Increase of (7 70.0%). 31.7% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Erath. Did not receive new funding. 56 revocations in FY2005. 64 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 8 (14.3%). 13.4% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Jones. Did not receive new funding. 20 revocations in FY2005. 29 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 9 (45.0%). 8.9% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Midland. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 179 revocations in FY2005. 188 revocations in FY2008. Increase of (9 5.0%). 22.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Upshur. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 70 revocations in FY2005. 79 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 9 (12.9%). -3.8% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Val Verde. Did not receive new funding. 23 revocations in FY2005. 32 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 9 (39.1%). -4.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Hunt. Did not receive new funding. 132 revocations in FY2005. 142 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 10 (7.6%). 12.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. McCulloch. Did not receive new funding. 14 revocations in FY2005. 24 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 10 (71.4%). -18.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Brazoria. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 263 revocations in FY2005. 274 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 11 (4.2%). 4.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Harrison. Did not receive new funding. 57 revocations in FY2005. 68 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 11 (19.3%). 29.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Hood. Did not receive new funding. 68 revocations in FY2005. 79 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 11 (16.2%). -3.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Jack. Did not receive new funding. 65 revocations in FY2005. 76 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 11 (16.9%). 16.3% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Terry. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 24 revocations in FY2005. 36 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 12 (50.0%). 4.4% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Hutchinson. Did not receive new funding. 47 revocations in FY2005. 60 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 13 (27.7%). 4.4% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Limestone. Did not receive new funding. 87 revocations in FY2005. 100 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 13 (14.9%). -9.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Milam. Did not receive new funding. 36 revocations in FY2005. 49 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 13 (36.1%). 11.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Montgomery. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 257 revocations in FY2005. 270 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 13 (5.1%). 5.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Coryell. Did not receive new funding. 50 revocations in FY2005. 64 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 14 (28.0%). 13.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Kaufman. Did not receive new funding. 20 revocations in FY2005. 34 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 14 (70.0%). 13.4% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Van Zandt. Did not receive new funding. 43 revocations in FY2005. 58 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 15 (34.9%). 8.3% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Atascosa. Did not receive new funding. 106 revocations in FY2005. 127 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 21 (19.8%). 3.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Matagorda. Did not receive new funding. 102 revocations in FY2005. 124 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 22 (21.6%). 3.2% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Rusk. Did not receive new funding. 20 revocations in FY2005. 43 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 23 (115.0%). 34.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Guadalupe. Did not receive new funding. 92 revocations in FY2005. 116 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 24 (26.1%). 2.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Navarro. Did not receive new funding. 79 revocations in FY2005. 105 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 26 (32.9%). 1.8% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Eastland. Did not receive new funding. 22 revocations in FY2005. 49 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 27 (122.7%). 63.2% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Reeves. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 29 revocations in FY2005. 56 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 27 (93.1%). 3.3% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Johnson. Did not receive new funding. 194 revocations in FY2005. 222 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 28 (14.4%). 7.2% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Walker. Did not receive new funding. 109 revocations in FY2005. 137 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 28 (25.7%). -8.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Maverick. Did not receive new funding. 18 revocations in FY2005. 48 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 30 (166.7%). 10.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Page 37 Appendix C: Revocations by CSCD, FY2005 Vs. FY2008 by numeric change continued. San Patricio. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 86 revocations in FY2005. 117 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 31 (36.0%). 15.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Liberty. Did not receive new funding. 122 revocations in FY2005. 154 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 32 (26.2%). 4.6% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Hopkins. Did not receive new funding. 131 revocations in FY2005. 165 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 34 (26.0%). 9.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Parker. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 91 revocations in FY2005. 127 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 36 (39.6%). 23.3% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Jasper. Did not receive new funding. 43 revocations in FY2005. 81 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 38 (88.4%). -4.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Brazos. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 126 revocations in FY2005. 165 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 39 (31.0%). 2.8% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Morris. Did not receive new funding. 46 revocations in FY2005. 90 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 44 (95.7%). 50.9% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Henderson. Did not receive new funding. 120 revocations in FY2005. 166 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 46 (38.3%). 9.8% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Kerr. Did not receive new funding. 99 revocations in FY2005. 145 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 46 (46.5%). -1.2% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Taylor. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 209 revocations in FY2005. 259 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 50 (23.9%). 7.1% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Victoria. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 148 revocations in FY2005. 198 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 50 (33.8%). 11.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Williamson. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 228 revocations in FY2005. 278 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 50 (21.9%). 16.7% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Nueces. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 505 revocations in FY2005. 559 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 54 (10.7%). 13.4% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Smith. Did not receive new funding. 316 revocations in FY2005. 370 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 54 (17.1%). 16.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Polk. Did not receive new funding. 137 revocations in FY2005. 198 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 61 (44.5%). 4.0% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Ellis. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 183 revocations in FY2005. 250 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 67 (36.6%). 9.9% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Grayson. FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 138 revocations in FY2005. 217 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 79 (57.2%). 19.9% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Galveston. Did not receive new funding. 325 revocations in FY2005. 469 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 144 (44.3%). -9.3% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Collin. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 239 revocations in FY2005. 458 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 219 (91.6%). 18.5% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. Bexar. FY2006-2007 and FY2008-2009 diversion funded. 816 revocations in FY2005. 1,468 revocations in FY2008. Increase of 652 (79.9%). 7.8% change direct and indirect population between FY2005 and FY2008. End of chart. Page 38 APPENDIX D: PROGRESSIVE SANCTIONS SUPERVISION MODEL (from July 1, 2006 Diversion Program Funding Announcement) An acceptable Progressive Sanctions Supervision Model or Court must include the following components: 1. Reduced and specialized caseloads for supervision officers, which may include components such as substance abuse testing of defendants; (Explanation: Medium and High Risk offenders will be supervised on reduced and/or specialized caseloads and may use services such as substance abuse testing only as a tool and not as the primary focus of the program.) 2. The creation, designation, and fiscal support of courts and associated infrastructure necessary to increase judicial oversight and reduce revocations; (Explanation: Increased use of the courts and judicial intervention is to be used when administering sanctions and incentives.) 3. Increased monitoring and field contact by supervision offi cers; (Explanation: Field contacts should be specific as to quantity and quality in accordance with the Special Grant Conditions.) 4. Shortened terms of community supervision, with increased supervision during the earliest part of the term; (Explanation: Contact and supervision is differential based on Risk and Needs levels which are typically higher at the beginning of the supervision term; therefore, increased supervision should occur at the earliest part of probation Defendants should not be kept under supervision for excessively long terms if successful completion of probation conditions warrants early termination.) 5. Graduated sanctions and incentives, offered to a defendant by both the departments and courts served by the department; (Explanation: Sanctions are to be spelled out specifically for each violation and should be graduated according to the severity of the violation, severity of the initial offense and risk to the community. A system of incentives will also be developed by the CSCD in conjunction with the Court, and well defined to the community supervision officer. Both sanctions and incentives should be clear and specific and easily understood by the defendant.) 6. The use of inpatient and outpatient treatment options, including substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, and cognitive and behavioral programs for defendants. For identified need areas, TDCJ-CJAD approved assessment/ evaluation instruments should be utilized to ensure offender placement into appropriate levels of treatment/intervention. Page 39 APPENDIX D: PROGRESSIVE SANCTIONS SUPERVISION MODEL continued 7. The use of intermediate sanctions facilities; (Explanation: ISFs should be used as part of the progressive sanctions when numerous other interventions have been attempted but have failed to prevent the offender from continuing to violate conditions of supervision. 8. The use of community corrections beds; (Explanation: Community corrections beds including various types of treatment facilities and restitution centers will be used as part of the sanctions and services. Jail time should be considered before a defendant is ordered into a community corrections facility.) 9. Early termination strategies and capabilities; (Explanation: Early termination strategies should be spelled out specifi cally, including time frames for judicial review, and used as an appropriate incentive.) 10. Gang intervention strategies; (Explanation: Gang intervention strategies should be developed, including identifi cation of gang members and services used for high risk offenders.) 11. Risk assessment techniques and reassessment techniques; and (Explanation: The type of Risk/Needs assessments and reassessments used will be identified. Determining risk/needs levels is integral to determining the amount of contact and supervision needed and to focusing sanctions and services on medium and high risk offenders.) 12. A method of tracking and reporting revocations. (Explanation: It is crucial to have a method of tracking and reporting revocations as well as successful completions of programs.) Page 40 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REPORT PREPARED BY: Aimee Perez, Director of Research and Evaluation Jennifer Geffken, Technical Writer Jason Clement, Executive Assistant Neal Carter, Graphic Designer WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF: Carey Welebob Tom Chandonnet Sharisa Jones Nancy Espinoza Lynn Arneson Marcia Roberts TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMUNITY JUSTICE ASSISTANCE DIVISION 209 W. 14TH STREET, SUITE #400 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 (512) 305-9300 WWW.TDCJ.STATE.TX.US End of report.