WIXLIB

INTRODUCTIONTHE REVOCATIONS From the selected CSCDs, 72 fewer offenders were revoked in the 2007 cohort ascompared to the 2005 cohort. Revocations with only technical violations alleged in the final Motion to Revoke(MTR) community supervision increased from approximately 53 percent in 2005 toapproximately 58 percent in 2007. Revocations with a new offense alleged in the final MTR decreased fromapproximately 47 percent in 2005 to 42 percent in 2007. Technical revocations alleging only one technical violation decreased fromapproximately 21 percent in 2005 to approximately 10 percent in 2007. On average, offenders in the 2007 sample received their first Motion to Revoke(MTR) more quickly (2.1 months) than offenders in the 2005 sample.POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The appropriation of additional community supervision funds was in part intended tomaintain offenders in the community under local supervision by providing additionalrehabilitative and diversion options. During this time period (September 2005through September 2007) the combination of additional funds and shifts in localpolicies and practices contributed to the decrease in the number of felony revocationsto prison and state jail within the five CSCDs studied. The January 2007 report,Texas Community Supervision Revocation Project: Fiscal Year 2006 Follow-upStudy, documents the community supervision diversion programs and initiatives aswell as the way in which the progressive sanctions model was implemented withinthese departments. Offender Files and Record Retention - Complete and accurate offender files and theirretention may enhance future research, improve offender management, and assiststatewide policy decisions. Absconders - A more accurate profile and assessment of offenders prior to or atcommunity supervision placement may assist CSCDs to identify potential abscondersand to implement policies to better manage this population. Informal Sanctions - Systematic methods for documenting informal sanctions areessential to further study of the effectiveness of the progressive sanctions model.Legislative Budget Board4August 2008

INTRODUCTIONPROJECT TIMELINEFigure 1: Project Timeline from 79th Regular Legislative Session to Completion79TH REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSIONJANUARY 2005 55.5 Million Additional Funding for CommunitySupervision to be expended in the 2006–07 biennium 28.2 million for Caseload Reduction 27.3 million for Residential Treatment andSanction BedsDATA COHORTFALL 2005REPORTSEPTEMBER 2006LBB Staff visit 5 largest CSCDs to collect baselinequantitative data on felons whose communitysupervision was revoked in September 2005Texas Community Supervision RevocationProject: A Profile of Revoked Felons DuringSeptember 2005IMPLEMENTATION AND PROCESS REVIEWFALL 2006REPORTJANUARY 2007LBB Staff visit 5 largest CSCDs to document thepreliminary impact of the additional funding and processchanges which occurred during fiscal year 2006Texas Community Supervision RevocationProject: Fiscal Year 2006 Follow-upStudyDATA COHORTFALL 200780TH REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSIONJANUARY 2007LBB Staff visit 5 largest CSCDs to collect follow-upquantitative data on felons whose communitysupervision was revoked in September 2007 71.4 Million Additional Funding for CommunitySupervision to be expended in the 2008–09 biennium 32.3 million for 800 Residential Treatmentbeds; 17.1 million for 700 Intermediate SanctionFacility beds; 10.0 million for Basic Supervision funding; 10.0 million for Outpatient Substance AbuseTreatment; and 2.0 million for Medically Targeted SubstanceAbuse TreatmentREPORTAUGUST 2008Texas Community Supervision RevocationProject: A Comparison of Revoked FelonsDuring September 2005 and September2007Legislative Budget Board5August 2008

INTRODUCTIONREVOCATION DATA: COMPARING THE COHORTS TO THE STATEThe five largest CSCDs in the state: Bexar, Dallas, Harris, Tarrant, and Travis counties received 38.8 million of the additional 55.5 million appropriated by the Seventy-ninth Legislature, 2005for caseload reductions and additional residential treatment and sanction beds. The tables belowprovide aggregate revocation data for the CSCDs from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2007to demonstrate the results of the additional funding. Statewide aggregate revocation data is alsoprovided for contextual comparison. 852 fewer felony revocations among the five largest CSCDs.Number of Felons RevokedTable 1: Number of Felons Revoked in the 5 Largest Community Supervision and CorrectionsDepartments and Statewide5 Largest CommunitySupervision and CorrectionsDepartmentsAll Other CommunitySupervision and CorrectionsDepartmentsStatewideFY 2005FY 2006FY 2007% changeFY 2005 toFY 5,74124,92125,8300.3%Source: Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Community Justice Assistance Division (TDCJ-CJAD) Monthly Community Supervisionand Corrections Report (MCSCR) 8.2 percent decrease in the felony revocation rate among the five largest CSCDs.Felony Revocation RatesTable 2: Felony Revocation Rate in the 5 Largest Community Supervision and CorrectionsDepartments and Statewide5 Largest CommunitySupervision and CorrectionsDepartmentsAll Other CommunitySupervision and CorrectionsDepartmentsStatewideFY 2005FY 2006FY 2007% changeFY 2005 toFY .7%15.9%-2.6%Source: TDCJ-CJAD Monthly Community Supervision and Corrections Report (MCSCR)Legislative Budget Board6August 2008

INTRODUCTION 17.2 percent decrease in the number of technical revocations and 5.5 percent increase innumber of new offense revocations among the five largest CSCDs.Number of Felons RevokedTable 3: Felony Revocations in the 5 Largest Community Supervision and Corrections Departmentsand Statewide% changeFY 2005FY 2006FY 2007FY 2005 toFY 20075 Largest Community Supervisionand Corrections Departments4,7804,9455,0425.5%New Offense6,4655,4455,351-17.2%TechnicalAll Other Community Supervisionand Corrections Departments7,4577,5328,0057.3%New 12,47713,0476.6%New Offense13,50412,44412,783-5.3%TechnicalSource: TDCJ-CJAD Monthly Community Supervision and Corrections Report (MCSCR)Legislative Budget Board7August 2008

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGYLegislative Budget Board8August 2008

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGYThe purpose of this final report is to address the potential impact of the additional funds providedduring the Seventy-ninth Legislative Session and shifts in local policies and practices bycapturing information on all felons revoked during September 2007 from the five largestCommunity Supervision and Corrections Departments (CSCDs) in the state (Bexar, Dallas,Harris, Tarrant, and Travis counties) and comparing the findings with the 2005 cohort. As in2005, these CSCDs accounted for a significant portion of statewide felony offenders oncommunity supervision (39.8 percent) and statewide felony revocations (40.2 percent) in fiscalyear 2007.As in 2005, each CSCD was asked to retain offender files for all of the felony communitysupervision revocations which occurred in September 2007. Travis County CSCD was used as atraining site for additional staff that participated in data collection in 2007, but had notparticipated in 2005.Between the months of October 2007 and January 2008, teams of three to six LBB staff visitedeach CSCD and collected information on all felony revocations that occurred during September2007.Information was gathered on all offenders who: 1) were on community supervision for a felonyoffense and 2) had a verified revocation between September 1, 2007 and September 30, 2007. Atotal of 795 offenders with a total of 921 offenses were eligible for the revocation project (seetable below). Missing data caused two revoked offenders from Harris County CSCD to beexcluded from analysis. For additional details on the project methodology, see Appendix B.Table 4: Number of Revoked Offenders and Offenses by Community Supervision and CorrectionsDepartment, September 2007BexarDallasHarrisTarrantTravisTotalNumber ofOffenders85217*26415376795Number ofOffenses9228128017989921*The total reported for Dallas County includes 16 revoked offenders whose files could not be located. Substitutefiles were provided by Dallas County CSCD containing information recreated from the CSCD’s computer system.Legislative Budget Board9August 2008

THE OFFENDERSLegislative Budget Board10August 2008

THE OFFENDERS Revoked offenders in the two cohorts only differed in a few areasThe 2005 and 2007 cohorts were very similar in most demographic, criminal history, risk/need,and current offense variables. Table 5 below lists all similar and notably different offenderbased variables. Variables with differences between cohorts greater than five percent wereconsidered notably different. Certain variables with substantial differences in unknown ormissing data between the cohorts were excluded from the table below. The following pages willdescribe the notably different variables in greater detail, but for additional information on allvariables by CSCD, see Appendices D and E.Table 5: List of Variables by Variable TypeSimilarAgeSexNotably DifferentCommunity Supervision TypeSupervision LevelRace/EthnicityCitizenshipEmploymentAt IntakeAt IntakeAt RevocationRisk/Need AssessmentAt RevocationAt RevocationEducationAt IntakeAt RevocationCriminal HistoryRisk/Need AssessmentAt IntakeCurrent OffenseLegislative Budget Board11August 2008

THE OFFENDERSNOTABLY DIFFERENT VARIABLESCOMMUNITY SUPERVISION TYPE Increase in deferred adjudication placementsAt placement, offenders may be placed on deferred adjudication or adjudicated communitysupervision for each current offense. Deferred adjudication and adjudicated communitysupervision have comparable conditions of community supervision, but offenders on deferredadjudication may have their criminal conviction withheld upon successful completion of theircommunity supervision term. The figure below describes the proportions of deferredadjudication and adjudicated community supervision placements for the 2005 and 2007 cohorts.See Appendices D and E for the breakdown of community supervision type by CSCD.Figure 2: Percentage of Revoked Offenders Originally Placed on Adjudicated Community Supervision orDeferred Adjudication100%80%61.6%72.9%60%Deferred AdjudicationAdjudicated40%20%38.4%27.1%0%20052007 The percentage of offenders placed on deferred adjudication increased from 61.6 percent inthe 2005 cohort to 72.9 percent in the 2007 cohort. The percentage of offenders placed on deferred adjudication statewide increasedapproximately four percent from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2007. The proportion ofdeferred adjudication placements has increased since fiscal year 1999. While adjudicated offenders receive a sentence of incarceration at placement (not to exceedten years) on community supervision, those placed on deferred adjudication do not receive asentence because the judgment has been deferred. At revocation, a judge can impose themaximum sentence of incarceration for those offenders placed on deferred adjudication. Thesentence range for a 1st degree felony is 5 to 99 years, 2nd degree felony is 2 to 20 years, 3rddegree felony is 2 to 10 years, and a state jail felony 180 days to 2 years.Legislative Budget Board12August 2008

THE OFFENDERSSUPERVISION LEVEL AT INTAKE Increase in offenders placed on a maximum supervision caseload Increase in offenders confirmed as abscondersThe supervision level refers to the amount of supervision by, or number of times an offender is toreport to, a community supervision officer. Exact reporting times for each supervision level varyamong CSCDs and by officer judgment (unless specifically ordered by a judge). Offenders maybe supervised indirectly for various reasons, and offenders who fail to report in person withinthree months and cannot be located may be classified as an absconder. Supervision level islargely determined by a standardized risk assessment score.The following charts detail the percentages of offenders by supervision level for each cohort atintake and revocation. Appendices D and E provides a breakdown of supervision level at intakeby CSCD, supervision level at revocation by CSCD, and risk score by CSCD.Figure 3: Percentage of Offenders by Supervision Level at Intake20052007n 867n 6%Indirect/ Transfer4.7%Indirect/ Transfer1.7%Maximum/Intensive29.1% m/Intensive40.3%The percentage of offenders placed on maximum/intensive caseloads at intake increasedfrom 29.1 percent in 2005 to 40.3 percent in 2007.Legislative Budget Board13August 2008

THE OFFENDERSSUPERVISION LEVEL AT REVOCATION Substantial increase in offenders confirmed as absconders at revocation Decrease in minimum or medium supervision offenders revokedSimilar to supervision level at intake, supervision level at revocation is largely determined by astandardized risk score. Individualized risk/need assessments are required to be completed everyyear for offenders on community supervision; supervision levels may increase or decrease,depending on the outcome of the assessment and the offenders’ past compliance with conditionsof community supervision.Figure 4: Percentage of Offenders by Supervision Level at Revocation20052007n 867n 795Unknown edium30.6%Absconder35.0%Absconder5.8%Indirect/ e27.3%Indirect/ Transfer6.4% Approximately 68 percent of the offenders revoked in 2007 were either onmaximum/intensive supervision caseloads or absconders, compared to approximately 33percent in 2005. However, supervision level was unknown for 25 percent of the 2005sample; some of the unknown offenders may have been absconders. Approximately 35 percent of the offenders in the 2007 sample were absconders at the time ofrevocation. Approximately 17 percent of the offenders revoked in 2007 were on a minimum or mediumcaseload, compared to approximately 36 percent in 2005.Legislative Budget Board14August 2008

THE OFFENDERSRISK LEVEL AT REVOCATION Increase in offenders classified as high risk Decrease in offenders classified as minimum or medium riskRisk level is determined by a standardized risk assessment score. Offenders with scores of 0-7are considered minimum risk, offenders with scores of 8-14 are considered medium risk, andoffenders with scores of 15 or greater are considered maximum risk. Examples of riskassessment items include, but are not limited to: number of address changes, alcohol usage, andprior involvement with the criminal justice system. Figure 5 demonstrates the percentages ofoffenders assigned to each risk level for the 2005 and 2007 samples. Appendices D and Eprovide greater detail of risk score by CSCD.Figure 5: Percentage of Offenders by Assigned Risk Level at umMaximum40%60.3%20%44.0%0%20052007 At the time of revocation, the percentage of offenders with maximum risk scores increasedfrom 44.0 percent in 2005 to 60.3 percent in 2007. Overall, more high-risk offenders were revoked in 2007 compared to those revoked in 2005.Note: Due to large amounts of missing data and occasional use of the Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R) assessmenttool, the 2005 sample size for risk level at revocation is 325 and the sample size for the 2007 sample is 224.Legislative Budget Board15August 2008

THE OFFENDERSNEEDS LEVEL AT REVOCATION Increase in offender needsOffenders’ needs levels are assessed at intake and every year thereafter while on communitysupervision. The most recent needs assessment, taken w

Bexar County CSCD Bill Fitzgerald, Director Mary Moncivais Dallas CSCD Michael Noyes, Director Carol Fowler Marlene Hamann Jim Harman Melinda Schlager . Tarrant County CSCD experienced the largest decrease in revocations, approximately 14 percent from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2007. Dallas County CSCD experienced the