reentry basics resource, june 2014

Incarceration and Reentry in Texas

a working paper by the Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy

1 Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy June 2014

This report provides an overview of the state of adult incarceration, reentry and recidivism, and recent state efforts to improve reentry programs and reduce recidivism. The increasing cost of incarceration, both in economic terms and in the human impact on incarcerated individuals, families and communities, requires the ongoing attention of state and local leadership. Recent changes in Texas have improved the outlook for successful reentry into communities from the criminal justice system, but resources may be uneven across the state and other successful approaches in states and communities across the country bear review and consideration.

Faith groups in Texas and throughout the country are closely connected to issues of incarceration and reentry and share concerns about the efficacy of current programs and policies in building safe and welcoming communities. The Interfaith Center has compiled the information in this paper to increase the information available to people of faith and the general public on issues associated with reentry. We are continuing to build our understanding of the issues and will post updated versions of this working paper as we develop conclusions and recommendations. We welcome comments and questions about the paper and our work on this issue. For more information, please contact us at [email protected]

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Adult correctional supervision is a major program in Texas. The United States had nearly 7 million people under the supervision of adult state and local correctional systems, either incarcerated or under community supervision, in 2012—one in every 35 adults. About one in every 50 adult residents in communities was on probation or parole.1 Texas had more than 730,000 people under state and local supervision at any time in 2012—about one in every 26 adults. About one in every 37 adult residents in communities was on probation or parole.2 The Texas correctional system includes several agencies and programs. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) is the state agency responsible for incarcerating adults convicted of felonies in prisons and state jails and supervising conditional releases of individuals from prison into communities through the parole system. It also has responsibility for their successful reentry and reintegration into communities. In addition, TDCJ provides for prison diversion by funding community supervision and correction departments across the state for probation and community-‐based programs.

The Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles (TBPP) is responsible for paroling individuals from prison into communities, and new legislation requires the board to take into consideration not only the needs and risk assessment for the subjects of potential parole, but their individual treatment plans as well.

The Texas Commission on Jail Standards develops and monitors standards for construction and maintenance of local jails in counties and cities, as well as the care and treatment of incarcerated

1 Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Correctional Populations in the United States, 2012,” December 2013, p. 1. Available at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus12.pdf 2 Based on calculations from data issued by the U.S. Census, “State & County Quick Facts: Texas.” Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html; Texas Department of Criminal Justice, “Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, December 1, 2013, p. III.A.7, 21. Available at: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/documents/finance/Agency_Operating_Budget_FY2014_Governor.pdf; Texas Commission on Jail Standards, “2013 Annual Report,” January 31, 2014, pp. 10-‐12. Available at: http://www.tcjs.state.tx.us/docs/2013AnnualJailReport.pdf; and Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Probation and Parole in the US, 2012,” December 19, 2013, NCJ 243936, pp. 19-‐20. Available at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus12.pdf




individuals, including rehabilitation and education, and further assists communities in developing reentry programs. In addition, counties operate 241 county jails and 5 for-‐profit detention facilities and are responsible for the actual supervision of individuals released in the community in lieu of serving jail time. They are the only facilities to detain people in the pre-‐trial phase after their arrest. County sheriffs are responsible for the operation of county jails, which counties fund primarily through local property taxes. Texas prisons and jails house individuals under a number of categories of incarceration.

The TDCJ correctional inmate population as of the end of April 2014 was 150,549, not including inmates in intermediate sanction facilities due to parole violations.3 As of May 2014, was 175,471 inmates held in 112 facilities in 62 counties across the state. The table below illustrates the type of state facilities and programs and number of inmates in each type of facility or program.4

3 Legislative Budget Board, “Monthly Tracking of Adult Correctional Population Indicators,” May 2014. Available at: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Publications/Info_Graphic/812_MonthlyReport_FY2014.pdf 4 The Texas Tribune, “Prison Units,” May 2014. (Based on data from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.)

Prison 52 103,366 Private Prison 7 5,172 State Jail 15 28,082 Private State Jail 4 7,193 Transfer Facility 14 18,874 Private Pre-‐parole Transfer Facility 1 342 Medical 3 892 Psychiatric 3 2,043 Pre-‐release Facility 4 5,752 Work Program 3 688 Private Work Program 1 608 Baby and Mother Bonding Initiative 1 31 Developmental Disabilities Program 1 986 Geriatric Facility 1 583 Boot Camp 1 5 Private Multi-‐use Facility 1 853 Total 112 175,470

Source: The Texas Tribune , "Prison Units," May 2014. (Based on data from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.) Available at: http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/texas-‐prisons/units/

Texas State Prison Units/Programs and Inmate PopulationMay 2014

Note:Does not include 5 Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facilities. Does not include parolees in Intermediate Sanction Facilities. May include duplicate counts.




Of approximately 75,000 new admissions to TDCJ facilities in 2012, about 50,000 of those admitted were new court commitments and another 24,000 were for parole violations, including those with violations of conditions of release or commission of new crimes.5 Violations of common parole conditions of release include failure to pass a drug test, report to a parole officer, continue employment or education, refrain from contacting certain individuals, or refrain from possessing a firearm or other prohibited weapon. The local jail population in Texas was 61,183 on January 1, 2013, and 66,807 on December 1, 2013, with jails collectively operating at 70% of capacity. Of the total jail population, 57,940 were local, 6,751 were federal, 235 were from New Mexico and Arkansas, 41 were state inmates, and the remainder undetermined. More than half of individuals in Texas county jails are in a pre-‐trial status. Pre-‐trial detention of those accused of misdemeanors accounted for about 9 percent, and pre-‐trial detention of those accused of felonies accounted for about 47 percent of the total county jail population.6 The Texas Criminal Justice Coalition website provides data sheets by county that lists counts of the local incarcerated population as well as detailed data concerning local jail facilities, charge type, community supervision, and recidivism.7 Some incarcerated individuals in Texas receive pre-‐release services, which are intended to prepare them for life after incarceration.

In addition to ongoing mental health and substance abuse treatment within its prisons, TDCJ operates several specific pre-‐release programs to prepare individuals for reentry. TDCJ reported that 5,931 individuals completed treatment in SAFPF facilities in FY 2013. Another 6,157 completed treatment in Transitional Treatment Centers across the state.8 The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) Program, which served 125 people in FY 2012, intends to reduce recidivism by preparing those who have been in administrative segregation to reenter the community. TDCJ also served 11 inmates in the Baby and Mother Bonding Initiative program, which intends to improve parenting outcomes by placing pregnant and new mothers at residential facilities.9 TDCJ employed an average of 4,881 inmates at 35 factories operated by the Correctional Industries Program. In addition, 5,045 incarcerated students enrolled in academic and vocational training. TDCJ inmates received 1,622 degrees and vocational certificates in FY 2013 with 60.4 percent being community/technical college degrees.10 TDCJ served a daily average of 19,885 students in the

5 Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Prisoners in 2012: Trends in Admissions and Releases, 1991-‐2012,” December 2013, pp. 34-‐35. Available at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p12tar9112.pdf 6 Texas Commission on State Jail Standards, 2013 Annual Report, January 31, 2014, pp. 10-‐12. Available at: http://www.tcjs.state.tx.us/docs/2013AnnualJailReport.pdf 7 Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, “County Data Sheets.” Available at: http://countyresources.texascjc.org/publications 8 Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, December 1, 2013, pp. III.A.23, 25, 28, and III.D.1. Available at: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/documents/finance/Agency_Operating_Budget_FY2014_Governor.pdf 9 Legislative Budget Board, “Criminal Justice Uniform Cost Report, Fiscal Years 2010-‐2012,” Submitted to the 83rd Texas Legislature, January 2013, p. 33. Available at: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/Uniform_Cost/Criminal%20Justice%20Uniform%20Cost%20Report%20Fiscal%20Years%202010%20to%202012.pdf 10 Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, December 1, 2013, pp. III.A.23, 25, 28, and III.D.1. Available at: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/documents/finance/Agency_Operating_Budget_FY2014_Governor.pdf




Windham School District, which is the correctional system’s school district. Students in literacy programs spend about 15 hours per week in school and inmates in vocational programs spend about 30 hours per week.11 Many more individuals are under the supervision of the criminal justice system in their local communities than are incarcerated.

According to federal data, which includes individuals convicted of federal crimes, Texas in total had 515,000 persons under some form of community supervision as of December 31, 2012. Nearly 200,000 entered and exited community supervision that year. Of the total under supervision, Texas had about 405,000 individuals on probation at the end of 2012 with about 160,000 entering and exiting the system that year. And, there were 112,000 individuals on parole at the end of 2012 with about 40,000 entering the system and 35,000 exiting that year.12 Inmates spent an average time of 53 months in Texas prisons and served an average of 60 percent of their sentence. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles reached a favorable parole decision in about 37 percent of cases in FY 2012 and released 39,492 people, excluding parole-‐in-‐absentia cases that involve inmates housed in other states (458) and Mandatory Supervision that involve releases that are legislatively mandated when actual calendar time and good conduct time equal the sentence (601).13 TDCJ monitored an average of 83,749 individuals under active parole supervision in FY 2012. The agency placed 8,296 individuals on parole on electronic monitoring and maintained an average of 3,089 on the tracking program during FY 2012. The agency also supervised 1,699 individuals on parole in halfway houses across the state during the year. TDCJ provided grants for 2,879 residential beds, of which 2,578 were in operation, and another 241 were funded by community corrections with 213 in operation in FY 2012. In addition, 11,760 people completed treatment alternatives to incarceration in communities across the state. TDCJ directed 25,006 individuals with special needs into treatment alternatives to incarceration.14 Altogether, Texas has 122 adult probation departments, now known as community supervision and corrections departments (CSCDs), across the state.15 These departments supervised an average of 168,487 people convicted of felonies and another 94,373 people convicted of misdemeanors under direct community supervision during FY 2012. Direct community supervision requires a face-‐to-‐face interview with a probation officer. CSCDs placed 54,363 people convicted of felonies and 103,514 people convicted of misdemeanors under community supervision across the state during the year.16

11 Legislative Budget Board, “Criminal Justice Uniform Cost Report, Fiscal Years 2010-‐2012,” Submitted to the 83rd Texas Legislature, January 2013, p. 33. Available at: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/Uniform_Cost/Criminal%20Justice%20Uniform%20Cost%20Report%20Fiscal%20Years%202010%20to%202012.pdf 12 Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Probation and Parole in the United States, 2012,” December 2013, pp. 15-‐17. Available at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus12.pdf 13 Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, December 1, 2013, pp. III.A.34. Available at: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/documents/finance/Agency_Operating_Budget_FY2014_Governor.pdf 14 Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, December 1, 2013, pp. III.A.1-‐5, 38, 40. Available at: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/documents/finance/Agency_Operating_Budget_FY2014_Governor.pdf 15 Texas Department of Criminal Justice, “Community Supervision & Corrections Department Directory For the State of Texas.” Available at: www.tdcj.state.tx.us/documents/CSCD_directory.pdf 16 Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, December 1, 2013, p. III.A.1. Available at: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/documents/finance/Agency_Operating_Budget_FY2014_Governor.pdf




CSCDs also monitored another 64,931 people convicted of felonies and 60,918 people convicted of misdemeanors through indirect community supervision, which does not require face-‐to-‐face contact.17 The Texas Criminal Justice Coalition provides data sheets by county that lists the local population under community supervision.18 Of total felony supervision terminations conducted from March 2013 to February 2014, 30,488 were successful and 25,026 were unsuccessful—a success rate of about 55 percent. Of misdemeanor supervision terminations conducted during the same time period, 74,279 were successful and 23,291 were unsuccessful—a success rate of about 76 percent. Unsuccessful terminations include probation revocation and return to incarceration in county jail, state jail, prison, boot camp, or other revocation.19 Recidivism rates vary across states, and are different for different TDCJ populations. Recidivism rates vary substantially across the states and are not comparable since policies vary. For instance, some states apply incarceration to more serious crimes while others, like Texas, incarcerate for lesser crimes. According to national data, the Texas state prison three-‐year recidivism rate averaged 31.9 percent from 2004-‐2007. The national rate averaged 43.3 percent and ranged from 22.8 percent in Oregon to 61.2 percent in Minnesota during the same period.20 According to TDCJ, the felony community supervision annual revocation rate was 10.6 percent and the misdemeanor rate was 15.09 percent. During the year, the agency issued 34,486 pre-‐revocation warrants and placed 11,935 individuals, and an average of 2,391 individuals, in Intermediate Sanction Facilities. The three-‐year recidivism rate for individuals convicted of felonies from the 2009 cohort was 22.6 percent (9,059/40,093). Individuals with special needs who were directed to treatment alternatives had a three-‐year re-‐incarceration rate of 19.5 percent.21 The three-‐year re-‐arrest rate for individuals who were released from prison was 47.2 percent, while the rate for those released from state jail was 62.7 percent for the 2008 cohort, the latest data available. More than half of the re-‐arrests occurred within the first year.22 Incarceration is expensive.

17 Legislative Budget Board, “Criminal Justice Uniform Cost Report, Fiscal Years 2010-‐2012,” Submitted to the 83rd Texas Legislature, January 2013, p. 40. Available at: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/Uniform_Cost/Criminal%20Justice%20Uniform%20Cost%20Report%20Fiscal%20Years%202010%20to%202012.pdf 18 Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, “County Data Sheets.” Available at: http://countyresources.texascjc.org/publications 19 Legislative Budget Board, “Monthly Tracking of Adult Correctional Population Indicators (May 2014),” pp. 2-‐3, 5. 20 The Pew Center on the States, State of Recidivism, The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons, pp. 10-‐11. Available at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/sentencing_and_corrections/State_Recidivism_Revolving_Door_America_Prisons%20.pdf 21 Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, December 1, 2013, pp. III.A.38 and 41, and II.D.1. Available at: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/documents/finance/Agency_Operating_Budget_FY2014_Governor.pdf 22 Legislative Budget Board, “Statewide Criminal Justice Recidivism and Revocation Rates,” Submitted to the 83rd Texas Legislature, January 2013, p. 3. Available at: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/RecRev_Rates/Statewide%20Criminal%20Justice%20Recidivism%20and%20Revocation%20Rates2012.pdf




Generally, incarceration is the most expensive criminal justice option, and community supervision is the least expensive option. The Texas Legislative Budget Board (LBB) regularly calculates and compares criminal justice costs, which are similar to estimates made by outside groups. The LBB estimated the system-‐wide overall cost per bed per day in FY 2012 at $50.04 for the state’s correctional institutions.23 The Vera Institute of Justice estimated the overall cost per incarcerated state prison inmate at $58.60 in FY 2010 after taking into account costs, such as employee benefits, found in other parts of the state budget. (According to the Institute, the national average was $85.72 and ranged from $40 in Kentucky to $164.59 in New York.24 ) Local jail costs per inmate also vary throughout Texas, but the average per bed per day for local jails is about $59.25 In at least in one case, Liberty County, which uses a private contractor, has costs that are more expensive than TDCJ costs. Liberty County’s costs range from $64.25 to $70.90 per day per inmate, depending on the number of inmates. The cost per inmate increases as the number of inmates decline.26 Counties spend from 11 percent to 14 percent of their budgets on jails. Community supervision costs much less than incarceration. The cost of community supervision has been found to be far less than the cost of incarceration. Active supervision of individuals released on parole cost $3.63 per day in FY 2012, and super-‐intensive supervision cost $23.07. Non-‐residential substance abuse treatment was $26.16 per day. Residential treatment programs are more expensive than direct community supervision but usually less than or comparable to incarceration in a state prison facility. Halfway houses cost $40.85 per day, intermediate sanction facilities cost $45.81 per day, and residential substance abuse treatment cost $43.34 per day. The county jail work release program, which provides housing for individuals on parole who cannot obtain housing in the community, cost $55.89 per day. Community supervision for individuals on probation costs $2.99 per day with the state cost being $1.38 and the participant cost at $1.61. Intensive supervision probation costs the state $5.21 and the participant $1.61. Electronic monitoring is one way to augment community supervision and reduce perceived need for incarceration. The Texas Legislative Budget Board estimates FY 2012 electronic monitoring costs for community supervision at $14.54 per day, including the device and administrative and supervision costs, for those on parole and $6.72 per day for those under community supervision (on probation).27 States have generally used electronic monitoring for high risk parolees, such as those

23 Legislative Budget Board, “Criminal Justice Uniform Cost Report, Fiscal Years 2010-‐2012,” Submitted to the 83rd Texas Legislature, January 2013, p. 4. Available at: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/Uniform_Cost/Criminal%20Justice%20Uniform%20Cost%20Report%20Fiscal%20Years%202010%20to%202012.pdf 24 Calculations based on data from Vera Institute of Justice, The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers, January 2012, p. 8. Available at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/price-‐of-‐prisons-‐updated-‐version-‐021914.pdf 25 Brandon Wood, then Assistant Director of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, presentation at the American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section, Roundtable on Pretrial Detention in Texas, held in Austin, Texas, March 30, 2012. Figure reflects cost per jail bed per day. 26 Texas Jail Project, “Study on Costs of Liberty County Jail Inmates.” Available at: http://www.texasjailproject.org/2012/08/study-‐on-‐costs-‐of-‐liberty-‐county-‐jail-‐inmates/ 27 Legislative Budget Board, “Criminal Justice Uniform Cost Report, Fiscal Years 2010-‐2012,” Submitted to the 83rd Texas Legislature, January 2013, p. 11. Available at:




convicted of sex offenses, but various states and locations have recently begun to use it for alternative sentencing, pre-‐trial detention, and for sentenced individuals who are medically disabled or are self-‐employed, employed, have a promise of work, or are searching for work. The state saves state and local government the cost of incarceration, and the ability of the convicted person to work means that they can stay with their family and provide child and family support. A typical program requires individuals to pay a fee for the service, although states or localities could compare costs of electronic monitoring to incarceration and structure a fee schedule accordingly. One of the main reasons why so many people remain in jail pre-‐trial is because they cannot raise the funds for bonding out. While they remain in jail, they often lose their jobs, are unable to pay child support, attend church, and care for their families. In most cases, electronic monitoring costs will be less expensive than incarceration so it makes economic sense for both the government and the arrested individual, and the families involved.

• The Denver Department of Public Safety reduced nearly 100,000 jail bed days representing more than $1 million in savings, collected nearly $2 million in client fees, and provided community supervision as an alternative to jail with a 96 percent success rate for more than 3,200 individuals. The success rate for drug court referrals has been 88 percent, 96.4 percent for the alcohol monitoring program, and 89 percent for post-‐conviction monitoring as an alternative to jail or condition of probation.28

• The Ada, Idaho Sheriff’s Office uses electronic monitoring for pre-‐trial detention, alternative sentencing, and work release or for those with certain disabilities after sentencing.29

• Additionally, a recent evaluation of the Florida system indicated that electronic monitoring reduces the individual’s risk of failure by 31 percent. The study showed that the success of electronic monitoring in reducing the risk of failure applied to all types of crime, age groups, and type of monitoring.30

• Another study conducted for Washington, D.C., found substantial savings and improved outcomes.31

TDCJ has been directed to increase its focus on reentry in recent years. To improve reentry experiences for those reentering the community from incarceration, their families and their communities, and to reduce recidivism, the 81st Legislature enacted H.B. 1711 in 2009, which established a Reentry Task Force in TDCJ to coordinate efforts of eight state and local agencies. TDCJ established a Reentry and Reintegration Division (RID) at that time. The 83rd Legislature enacted

http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/Uniform_Cost/Criminal%20Justice%20Uniform%20Cost%20Report%20Fiscal%20Years%202010%20to%202012.pdf 28 Denver Department of Public Safety, “Electronic Monitoring.” Available at: http://www.denvergov.org/safety/DepartmentofSafety/AlternativeCorrections/CommunityCorrections/ElectronicMonitoring/tabid/443473/Default.aspx 29 Ada County Sheriff’s Office, “Electronic Monitoring Program.” Available at: http://www.adasheriff.org/Jail/AlternativeSentencing/ElectronicMonitoring.aspx 30 The Florida State University, “A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring,” (Abstract), January 2010. Available at: http://criminology.fsu.edu/center/p/pdf/EM%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20for%20NIJ.pdf 31 John K. Roman, Ph.D., “The Costs and Benefits of Electronic Monitoring for Washington, D.C.,” (Urban Institute), September 2012. Available at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412678-‐The-‐Costs-‐and-‐Benefits-‐of-‐Electronic-‐Monitoring-‐for-‐Washington-‐DC.pdf




S.B. 213 in 2013, which requires an individual treatment plan for each inmate and expands the TDCJ Reentry Task Force from 8 to 23 agencies. It also requires agencies to identify their reentry and reintegration goals, the strategies for achieving those goals, and specific timelines to implement their particular plans.32

Also in response to legislation, TDCJ has developed a system to ensure that individuals released from TDCJ facilities have proper identification when they leave TDCJ facilities, such as a birth certificate, drivers license/ID card, and Social Security card.33 The division also offers a statewide hotline that can help individuals link to local organizations.

Reentry Task Force. Besides state and local agencies, current members of the task force include a representative from the faith community, inmate community, and the Sheriff’s Association of Texas:

Texas Department of Criminal Justice Texas Criminal Justice Coalition Office of Criminal Justice Coordination Office of Court Administration Covenant Church Health & Human Services Commission Sheriff's Association of Texas Travis County Sheriff Texas Veterans Commission Texas Inmates Families Association Nacogdoches County TCOOMMI Advisory Committee Travis County Criminal Justice Planning Department of Family Protective Services Texas Commission on Jail Standards Texas Juvenile Justice Department Department of State Health Services Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs Texas Workforce Commission Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles Tarrant County Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Texas Department of Public Safety Bexar County Windham School District34 The task force is charged with:

• developing a uniform, system-‐wide needs and risk assessment tool,

32 83rd Legislature, S.B. 213 (2013). Available at: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/SB00213F.HTM 33 Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Reentry and Integration Division, “Identification Document Processing.” Available at: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/divisions/rid/rid_texas_reentry_id_doc_processing.html 34 Texas Department of Criminal Justice, “Reentry Task Force Members.” Available at: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/documents/rid/RID_RTF_Member_List.pdf




• ensuring that each individual released has a reentry and reintegration plan, • reducing duplication of effort within and outside the agency, • improving the use of technology to facilitate internal and external information sharing, • establishing single points of contact within communities to coordinate pre and post release

reentry referrals and aftercare, • addressing housing and employment barriers, family unity and participation, transportation,

and issues affecting people with special needs, • coordinating with local jails, courts and Community Supervision and Corrections

Departments to improve the identification verification process during the offender’s initial involvement in the criminal justice system35

The task force has developed several workgroups in the areas of community reentry, employment, family and faith-‐based coordination, housing, information sharing, special needs and women convicted of crimes, to identify existing state and local initiatives, barriers to and gaps in services, and to develop a plan to coordinate task force efforts with existing state and local efforts, and develop recommendations for improvement. Reentry centers are established in some areas of the state.

The TDCJ Reentry and Reintegration Division has also set up District Reentry Centers in five regions to coordinate reentry efforts and outreach to community reentry programs in 41 counties:

• Region I -‐ Beaumont (Jefferson County) and includes Hardin, Jefferson, Tyler counties • Region II -‐ Dallas I (Dallas County) and includes Dallas County and Fort Worth I (Tarrant

County) and includes Johnson and Tarrant counties • Region III -‐ Houston I (Harris County) and Houston VII (Harris County) and includes Galveston,

Brazoria, Fort Bend, Walker, Montgomery, Liberty, and Chambers counties • Region IV -‐ Austin II (Travis County) and includes Williamson, Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, and

Burnet counties; San Antonio DRC (Bexar County) and includes Comal, Guadalupe, Wilson, Atascosa, and Medina counties; Corpus Christi (Nueces County) and includes San Patricio, Jim Wells, and Kleberg counties; and McAllen (Hidalgo County) and includes Cameron and Starr counties

• Region V -‐ Lubbock (Lubbock County) and includes Hale, Crosby, Lynn, and Hockley counties and El Paso (El Paso County)36

Local communities and nonprofits are making reentry a priority. The recent state legislation and the coordination of state agencies through the new state Reentry Task Force has begun to set up mechanisms to assist these communities in providing a more coordinated, cohesive, and holistic approach to providing services. At the local level, Texas communities have begun to set up coordination efforts to assist in reentry. In addition, private, nonprofit organizations also provide information and assistance.

35 Texas Department of Criminal Justice, “The Texas Reentry Two-‐Step,” pp. 11-‐17. Available at: https://www.aca.org/conferences/Summer2012/WorkshopPresentations/C-‐2F_The_Texas_Reentry_Two-‐Step-‐Without_Stepping_on_Your_Partner's_Toes.pdf 36 Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Reentry and Integration Division, “Directory-‐District Reentry Centers.” Available at: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/divisions/parole/parole_drc.html




Nonprofits and agencies offer information and referral. The Texas Criminal Justice Coalition (TCJC) has developed a one-‐stop website called “Texas County Resources” that enables users to search for local reentry services across the state on a county basis. The site also provides information on statewide organizations that can assist with services locally, such as the Texas Veterans Commission. Another organization, Restorative Justice Community, also provides information to link users with organizations that can assist them with reentry. Users can sort its list alphabetically by service, state, city, or zip code.

The Texas 2-‐1-‐1 hotline network provides referrals to local services. In addition, state agencies involved in the Reentry Task Force are developing reentry coordination plans for programs within their purviews. Local reentry roundtables increase coordination and collaboration.

Four densely populated counties with significant parole and community supervisions populations have developed “roundtables” over the last several years to coordinate local reentry services: Bexar, Dallas, Tarrant, and Travis.

The Bexar County Reentry Council, formed in 2008, has 262 members representing 89 organizations and maintains a resource website that lists all organizations and programs available to assist with reentry by type of service. The goal of the Council is to reduce recidivism, save taxpayer dollars, and reinvest back reentry services. The Council has several committees:

• Employment and Education, • Housing and Social Services, • Substance Abuse and Mental Health, • Restorative Justice, • Faith-‐based Organizations, • Legislative Issues, and • Research and Evaluation.

The Council identifies savings of $12 million in jail costs among its accomplishments and the development of three courts: Veterans Treatment Court, Reentry Court, and Co-‐Occurring Disorders Court. In addition to the website, the Council provides each individual released from jail with a card that has important phone numbers. The Council has dedicated staff to assist with reentry and has been active in organizing legislative agendas.37 Volunteers of America: Texas operates the Dallas program. This program begins providing services pre-‐release, focusing on building life skills and working on addiction issues. Then, they assist with finding employment and building a support group. The program has special initiatives involving women and families and operates in Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and Hutchins.38 Tarrant County Reentry Coalition together with Tarrant Cares, which provides a wide range of services, including reentry, operates a website with a searchable online directory of reentry resources organized into 15 categories. Users may search by keyword or type of service. The coalition’s goal is to break the cycle of recidivism and is developing and executing a long-‐range strategic plan. The coalition launched in 2012 under contract with the county and its contract renewed in 2013.39

37 Bexar County Council, “Bexar County Reentry Program.” Available at: http://gov.bexar.org/reentry/ 38 Volunteers of America: Texas, “Community Re-‐entry.” Available at: http://www.voatx.org/programs/community-‐re-‐entry 39 Tarrant County Reentry Coalition, “Home.” Available at: http://www.tcreentry.org/




The Austin/Travis County Reentry Roundtable began operation in 2011 and issues an annual action plan. Its mission is “to be a robust, community-‐wide collaborative and catalyst for system change that educates, facilitates, and advocates to promote public safety through effective reentry and reintegration of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated persons.” The Roundtable has three standing committees: Support Systems, Policy Reform, and Evidence-‐Based Practices. The Policy Reform committee is active in developing the Roundtable’s legislative agenda. The Roundtable also has three issue area committees: Housing, Employment, and Behavioral Health/Substance Abuse. The Roundtable maintains a Travis County Reentry Success Guide and links to a two-‐page “Travis County Handy Guide for Reentry” that provides key contact information for resources available in Travis County.40 Counties without reentry roundtables have less formal coordination and therefore may not have optimal services.

Other than the roundtables, most counties do not provide much in the way of coordinating local resources but rely on sheriff’s offices and various state or community organizations to coordinate reentry services. In Harris County, the Chaplain’s Office provides considerable assistance and coordination, operating a volunteer Reentry Team that assists about 150 individuals per week in finding local services. 41 But, such coordination efforts are not always available, particularly in less populated counties. Fewer reentry services are available in less populated counties, according to directories of services on such websites as the one that the TCJC operates.

All areas of the state receive employment services through the state’s 28 local workforce development boards that operate one-‐stop workforce centers in their areas. Until recently, Project RIO (Reintegration of Offenders) provided specialized employment services at the centers, but workforce centers now provide the reentry population the same services as the general population. For those unable to find employment, community and technical colleges and other adult learning and literacy programs can provide education and financial aid assistance in most of the state. Although faith-‐based and nonprofit organizations sometimes provide health, mental health, substance treatment, or housing assistance, these programs are sparse throughout most of the state except in more densely urban areas.42 A 2010 survey of professionals that regularly provide services to individuals attempting reentry found significant barriers involving case management, coordination with service providers, and availability of services for reentry.43 Conclusion

40 Austin/Travis County Roundtable, “About,” and “Get Help.” Available at: http://www.reentryroundtable.net/about-‐us/ and http://www.reentryroundtable.net/get-‐help/ 41 Harris County Sheriff’s Office, “Jail Chaplaincy and Reentry Services.” Available at: http://www.harriscountyso.org/chaplain_services.aspx 42 Conclusion based on review of services by county identified in the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition “Texas County Resources” online directory and the Restorative Justice Community “Texas Resource Directory” online directory. Available at: http://countyresources.texascjc.org/ and http://www.restorativejusticecommunity.org/ResourceDirectory/dirDisplay_MapDir.asp?activity=&statef=TX&stylesheet=0&DoAction=ShowList&ref=413 43 Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, “Re-‐entry Survey Identifying Current Barriers and Needs in Rural and Urban Areas,” (regarding Interim Charge 3, House Committee on Corrections), June 30, 2010. Available at: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/publications/Reentry%20Survey%20-‐%20Identifying%20Barriers%20and%20Needs%20(June%202010).pdf




The high rate of re-‐arrest and re-‐incarceration of those released from incarceration into communities, along with the high cost of and risks associated with crime, arrest, legal defense, and incarceration, indicates that individuals convicted of crimes, citizens, and taxpayers would benefit from improved coordination of reentry services, as well as the development of additional reentry services at the local level. Recent efforts to improve coordination between state and local resources through the Reentry Task Force are laudable, but much more needs done at the local level to improve county coordination of local public and private reentry services. The continued development of case management services and individual reentry and treatment plans, including ensuring proper identification will also help, but insufficient reentry services at the local level will continue to be a significant barrier to successful reintegration and will continue to fuel re-‐arrest and re-‐incarceration rates.