Chapter 11: Public Safety and Corrections
Public Safety and Corrections
Introduction
Texas has seen dramatic improvements in public safety in recent years. In
1991, Texas was regarded as one of America’s most dangerous states. In
fact, Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio were ranked
among the 14 most crime-ridden cities in the US. Currently, Dallas ranks as the
25th most dangerous city in the US, Houston as the 70th and Fort Worth as the
97th. As a state, Texas is ranked as the 17th most dangerous state, down from
number three in 1994. Texas’ annual number of criminal offenses has fallen
by 26 percent in the last eight years.
Nevertheless, with its prison population at an all-time high—and
projected to grow considerably more—and with little desire to begin
another prison building boom, Texas must look to some new approaches in public
safety and corrections. The overarching goal should be crime reduction, not
simply increased incarceration.
Ensure that Released Inmates Become Productive, Law-Abiding Citizens
To deter crime in the most effective way possible, our prisons must prepare
inmates to reintegrate successfully into society if crime rates are to continue
to fall. Texas should expand the use of proven reintegration methods for
released inmates, and ensure adequate and effective substance abuse treatment
for probationers and parolees.
The Prison Industry Enhancement (PIE) program in Texas allows private
industries to establish joint ventures with public agencies to use inmate labor
in producing goods for entry into interstate commerce. Inmates participating in
the program work in environments that simulate private workplaces, demonstrating
the value of hard work and teaching marketable skills that increase their
potential for successful reintegration into society upon release. The PIE
program has proven to be an exceptional way to cut prison costs, reduce
recidivism, and reintegrate released felons into communities.
PIE currently employs 222 inmates and has accounted for over $2.2 million
dollars to General Revenue since its certification in 1993. This number,
however, could be greatly increased with a concerted effort to expand PIE and
increase the amount PIE inmates pay toward their room and board. Moreover, the
state should create a funding mechanism for future PIE facility
construction.
To Ensure Adequate Prison Space for Violent Criminals, Explore
Alternatives to Incarceration for Some Nonviolent Criminals
Texas’ prisons are at or near capacity, and they impose a tremendous
cost on Texas taxpayers. Violent and dangerous criminals must be imprisoned, but
many cities and states are adopting alternatives to incarceration for some
nonviolent offenders. The goal is two-fold: first, to free prison space for
violent criminals; and second, to increase the chances for successful
rehabilitation of substance-abuse addicts, thereby lowering their recidivism
rates.
Several states have opted to fund substance abuse treatment as an
alternative to prison. Kings County, N.Y., reports that the recidivism rate for
Brooklyn’s Drug Treatment Alternative-To-Prison program graduates is less
than half that for comparable defendants who went to prison for drug-related
crimes.
Alternative placements for some nonviolent offenders could ease the
state’s overtaxed correctional system and provide much-needed space for
violent criminals. Cutting down on the interaction between these nonviolent
offenders and hardened criminals, furthermore, will give the former a better
chance to reform and lead productive lives. Alternative sanctions, coupled with
preventative programs, can reduce Texas’ number of felons and the enormous
costs of incarceration.
One growing and effective alternative to incarceration are drug courts which
are special judicial proceedings generally used only for nonviolent drug
offenders. Typically, the consequences of participation in a drug court include
monitoring by the judge, weekly supervision by probation officers, daily drug
tests and treatment sessions. If participants fail to comply with the program
requirements, they can receive additional sanctions including more intensive
treatment services, more frequent urinalysis, community service and
incarceration.
The United States now has more than 455 drug courts that have been widely
cited as a step forward in the fight against drug-related crime. Texas has five
operating drug courts in Dallas, Jefferson, Montgomery, Tarrant and Travis
counties. Webb County is in the final planning stages for a drug court that will
target individuals on probation. The state should expand the number of drug
courts and expand the capacity of existing drug courts.
Move Certain Elderly and Seriously Ill Texas Prisoners to
Alternative
Settings
Health care costs are considerably higher for aging inmates and inmates with
significant medical problems. More Texas prisons will need to be remodeled to
care for the growing elderly and sick inmate population.
One option for some of these inmates is incarceration in alternative
facilities, such as nursing homes designed to serve an inmate population.
Federal funds could defray most of these nursing home costs. Inmates who qualify
for release on special needs parole then can apply for federal entitlement
benefits including food stamps, Social Security income, Social Security
disability income, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, veteran’s
benefits, and Medicaid and Medicare payments.
The state should identify nonviolent inmates with the most significant
medical problems and include them in the pool of eligible inmates for Special
Needs Parole and establish secure nursing homes exclusively for ill inmates in
urban areas.
Do More to Combat Drunk Driving
After larceny and theft, driving while intoxicated (DWI) or under the
influence of drugs (DUI) is the most frequently committed crime in America. By
some estimates, the cost of drunk driving, which is often a chronic crime,
exceeds $110 billion a year, and a drunk driver kills someone in the US every 33
minutes. Texas should strengthen its DWI laws.
|
