Speeding release of parolees could ease prison guard shortage, lawmakers say

Whitmire, Madden question prison policies that keep inmates who are approved for release behind bars.

By Mike Ward
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, January 11, 2008
As Texas' prison system struggles with an acute shortage of guards, two legislative leaders called Thursday for a review of whether thousands of convicts who have been approved for parole but still are awaiting release could be let go to ease the crisis.

As many as 11,000 convicts could be good candidates for hastened releases from Texas' understaffed prisons, according to Sen. John Whitmire and Rep. Jerry Madden, who head legislative committees that oversee prisons. Thousands of inmates would already be on parole but for paperwork delays or a lack of enough treatment programs, which lawmakers last spring ordered drastically expanded.

Although guard shortages have been building for several years, primarily because of low pay and poor working conditions, the magnitude of the current problems took some state leaders by surprise this week when it was disclosed that a 300-bed wing in a Panhandle prison had been closed because there weren't enough guards to staff it. And although lawmakers began talking Thursday about how to remedy the situation, nobody was suggesting a pay raise for correctional officers. Legislative analysts said a pay hike that correctional officers are seeking is not currently possible because it could cost upward of $500 million, a big-ticket item not in the state budget.

"In my judgment, we have thousands of people locked up who don't need to be there," said Whitmire, D-Houston, chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.

"Last year, there were 6,200 trusties in the system � the lowest, lowest-risk offenders � and 5,700 of those were parole-eligible. But they were still locked up. ... There were 1,500 that were already approved for parole with a release date for next summer.

"Why not go ahead and process them out, drop the population of the system so we have enough correctional officers to properly cover shifts?"

Trusties are the lowest-risk, lowest-security prisoners in the system, and they often are assigned jobs helping run the units, including cooking, laundry and filing.

"These are the inmates who are helping staff these units, and I have to wonder whether they (prison officials) want to keep them there just to keep the units running," Whitmire said. "The public safety danger now is really not over whether to let these already paroled inmates get out � it's about not doing anything."

In the past, suggestions of speeding up releases have triggered criticism from prosecutors and victims' groups who insist that freeing thousands of convicts is not the best way to address prison problems.

Two decades ago, they note, such a decision resulted in a spike in violent crime in Houston and other areas, triggering a backlash for longer sentences and more prisons.

Madden, chairman of the House Corrections Committee, agreed that the already approved parolees still in prison should be reviewed.

"We shouldn't let anyone out of prison who shouldn't be out, but I would urge (prison and parole officials) to look at this," said Madden, R-Richardson. "We must ensure that we have safe staffing levels in our prisons � which I can't say now that we do at some sites � and closing some additional wings of some units seems a wise way to stretch the short staff farther."

Prison officials last October quietly mothballed a wing at a Dalhart prison because they didn't have enough guards to properly operate the unit. About the same time, officials relocated 300 high-security convicts from a prison in Northeast Texas and replaced them with lower-risk felons, who take fewer correctional officers to supervise.

The moves marked the first time in recent years that chronic staffing shortages have forced such changes. Prison officials insisted that proper security is being maintained, an assertion challenged by some correctional officers who warn that the situation is becoming dangerous.

Whitmire, Madden and other lawmakers on Thursday questioned the opening of two new prisons � former Texas Youth Commission lockups in San Saba and Marlin are to open this spring as 616-bed adult prisons � when existing units are plagued by critical shortages.

Lawmakers last spring approved funding for an additional 6,000 treatment and rehabilitation beds in a bid to cut recidivism and gave prison officials authority to build two new prisons.

Michelle Lyons, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Huntsville, said those conversions were mandated by the Legislature last spring. Other prison officials said all options are being reviewed to ensure public safety.

It is bewildering to realize that many policy makers do not understand that certain criminals need to be locked up for the benefit of the law abiding public. Why can't they see that the victims of these criminals are their own constituents? More often than not the first time offenders don't even go to the pokey unless they violate probation.

How very frustrating!

Amazing, too, that some politician can make a sweeping statement about thousands of inmates AFTER a judge, jury and parole panel has made an individualized decision based on actual information. No notice to the public. No hearing. Just a sweeping announcement that criminals need to go free sooner than the system provides. And why? Simply because the politician wants to pronounce he is saving some money. Well, thanks, but no thanks.

Well, the one thing that cannot be debated is that closing certain existing facilities while opening others is nuts (unless it can be demonstrated it is so much easier to hire guards in Marlin than in the panhandle that the additional capital expenditure is offset). Does anyone really know who should be locked up for how long? Personally, I am skeptical of anyone who claims more than a modicum of success in that endeavor.

I tried to raise this point before, but some people basically jumped all over my arguments.

In the article below, sweeping budget cuts have been planned for ALL state agencies. Obviously, some people here in this forum want all of the money to go to public safety and corrections. That is compleley unrealistic. Every state agency serves a valuable purpose to the public. Whether it is public schools, healthcare, or firefighting.

Since the Texas inmates described above have ALREADY been approved for release, why not just go ahead and release them?? Why the wait? No one seems to be talking about releasing people who have not been approved for early release. They seem to be talking about releasing those who have already been approved.

So whats the problem?? I would not want our state to end up in the same mess that California is in.


The governor's budget cuts nearly every state department.

SFGate.com 1/12/08

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, acknowledging that California faces tough economic times, proposed an austere budget Thursday for the next fiscal year that would take billions of dollars from public schools, shut down four dozen state parks and release tens of thousands of prisoners to close a projected $14.5 billion deficit.

Virtually every state department was required to slash 10 percent from this year's spending, a move that would cut services for many Californians, especially the poor, the elderly and the disabled.

"I understand how difficult (the cuts) will be for many people," Schwarzenegger said as he unveiled the budget at a Sacramento news conference. "But we need to be fiscally responsible and spend only the money we have."

The governor also declared a fiscal emergency and called a special session of the Legislature to trim spending during the current year, which at today's levels is expected to put the state as much as $3.3 billion in the hole by the end of the fiscal year in June.

Some of the people who would be directly affected by the cuts called the governor's plan shortsighted.

"The Legislature would be well-served to automatically dismiss these cuts," said Herb Meyer, 76, a disabled resident of Larkspur who relies on state-funded home health care that is targeted for cuts.

Democratic leaders of the Legislature vowed to vigorously oppose Schwarzenegger's proposal. "This budget would cause tremendous permanent damage," said Assembly Speaker Fabian N��ez, D-Los Angeles.

Schwarzenegger's planned trims include the elimination of $4.8 billion from public schools over the next 1 1/2 years and a reduction of prison imates by 35,000, including the early release of 22,000 inmates over the next two years. The budget would also cut prison staff by 6,000, including the layoffs of 2,000 prison guards.

The governor also wants to close many of California's parks. Under his budget, 48 of the state's 280 parks would be affected: 43 parks would be temporarily shut down - among them nine in the Bay Area, including Portola Redwoods in San Mateo County, Tomales Bay in Marin and Candlestick Point in San Francisco; two parks would be partially closed; and the openings of three new parks would be delayed.

Not all of the deficit would be erased by cuts. Schwarzenegger proposes that the state borrow $3.3 billion from previously approved bond money.

As Schwarzenegger pushes for an overhaul of the state's health care system to cover nearly all of California's uninsured residents, he also is ready to cut as much as $1 billion from Medi-Cal, the state's medical service program for the poor, elderly and disabled.

To achieve the savings, administration officials said they want to eliminate some Medi-Cal benefits - such as dental care for low-income adults - instead of reducing the number of people who get basic medical services.

The Republican governor's proposed budget does not include new taxes except for a few small increases in fees, including one on homeowner's insurance to help pay for rural firefighting.

"I have made it very clear we cannot tax our way out of this problem," Schwarzenegger said. "There's no reason to tax anyone because our system doesn't work."

But Democratic leaders argued that voters might not support a plan to balance the budget with cuts only. When Republican Gov. Pete Wilson faced a similar budget deficit 17 years ago, he and lawmakers agreed to raise taxes, the last major hike approved by the Legislature.

"A blind pledge to never raise any taxes at any time I believe is a straitjacket that ill fits California and the needs of the people we represent," said N��ez.

But Republicans gave the governor's plan high marks. "We must regain control of spending and live within our means," said Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman, R-Irvine.

The governor's plan would spend a total of $141 billion in the next fiscal year - less than the $145 billion the state had been scheduled to spend this fiscal year before cuts that lawmakers will debate in the coming weeks. The governor's emergency declaration started the count on a 45-day period in which the Legislature must act on the pending $3.3 billion shortfall.

Schwarzenegger has asked for several cuts immediately, including $400 million from schools and community colleges, $33 million from Medi-Cal, $74 million from welfare programs and $25 million from a project at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.

The 10 percent across-the-board cuts next year also would apply to the governor's own budget as well as legislative and constitutional offices.

K-12 education, which normally receives about 40 percent of general fund tax money under Proposition 98 guarantees approved by the voters, would take the biggest hit under the budget plan. To cut as much money as the governor is proposing, lawmakers would have to suspend the measure - which happened only once before, during the 2004-05 fiscal crisis.

Such a move is likely to face stiff opposition from the state's powerful education lobby.

California educators, who expected that 2008 would be the "Year of Education" that Schwarzenegger promised last spring, are seething over his proposal to make what some called the deepest cuts to schools in California history.

The governor wants to take more than $1 billion from before- and after-school programs for low-scoring students, career and technical classes and the small-class-size program. He also wants to spend $358 million less on special education.

He also is proposing changes to the welfare system that would allow the state to drop families - including children - from state aid if parents do not find employment within certain time frames. Schwarzenegger proposed that change last year, but Democrats, who form a legislative majority, rejected it.

State higher education officials were stunned by the budget proposal, which would virtually guarantee student fee increases while forcing officials to consider cuts to existing services or limiting enrollment.

"This is going to be a very bad year for California students and their families," said Pat Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education. "This is more likely to hit the families who have the toughest time paying for college anyway."

But the governor said tough choices have to be made.

"We need to control this budget because right now the budget is controlling us," Schwarzenegger said, adding: "We have to be disciplined this year and look at it as an opportunity to solve this problem."

The releases mentioned in the Texas article are not so clear as you suggest Hoover. While in some of the cases the Parole Board has approved a FUTURE parole date, that date has not arrived for everyone. For others, the early release was contingent on the availability and the successful completion of certain programs, such as drug and alcohol treatment. For other inmates, no release has been approved yet -- the politicians have simply announced that the release is appropriate in their amazing opinions.

In all of the cases, the Parole Board retains control over the actual release. The Board consists of individuals who were appointed by the Governor and who receive information that allows them to make educated decisions on an individualized basis. The politicians have no legal authority over release and have no personal information about whether individual releases would be safe or appropriate.

At the risk of repeating myself, Grassy Knoll, the politicians are violating the constitutional safeguards put into place to provide a separation in the roles of government. Having set the rules by passing laws, the politicians should not be jumping into another branch's job. The politicians want to make the rules and be able to change them through the power of their own voices. That's not how we do it here in Texas.

I suppose the politicians might think it is their job to exert political pressure on the Parole Board to weaken their will to follow the law and their own principles. That has happened before. It lead to a extraordinary rise in the parole rate, a rise in the crime rate, and innocent victims when criminals who shouldn't have been release hurt more people.

Hoover, we do share one thought: apparently we both don't want Texas to be anything like California. For example, they have a death penalty they don't exercise. Solidarity, brother.

quote:

---

Every state agency serves a valuable purpose to the public.

---

I fundamentally disagree with that statement.

Apologies to all for going off-topic. Some things are a reflex.

It would be interesting to see a list of "state agencies" for every 10 years over the last 100 years. Anyone think that list gets shorter?

Texas has a Sunset Commission designed to make agencies justify their existence every few years. Unfortunately, nothing ever gets eliminated because of politics.

Actually, RTC, I don't know of any prosecutor or cop who wants ALL the state money to go to state prisons.

The good news is, that is not necessary. You see, only about 1.4 per cent of the State's operating budget is spent on incarcerating felons. If you include all of TDCJ's other functions, it is only 1.8 per cent. Education gets over 40 per cent of the state budget, while health and human services gets over 30 per cent.

If the state doubled the amount of money spent on TDCJ, and took all the money out of education (which, BTW, gets even more money from school district ad valorem taxes), it would have no effect on the education children get, but it would have a huge effect on public safety. And public safety is the first purpose of government. Education did not become a public responsibility until the 19th century, and is way down the list of priorities.

Another thing to understand is that being "parole elgible" simply means that an inmate has accumalated enough actual time and good time to be considered for parole. It does not take into consideration his prior criminal history, or his future criminal dangerousness. There are many extremely destructive criminals who function quite well in prison, and make good trustees, but they are hell on wheels once they get out. Al Capone, for example, was a model prisoner, and was soon made a trustee (he was known as "the wop with the mop," by his politically incorrect fellow inmates). Because he was doing time for a "non-violent crime," he would have been elgible for parole fairly early under the Texas systems of parole. There are lots of people who fit Al's model who are "parole elgible." These are the people the parole board keeps in prison, and these are the people Madden and Whitmire are complaining should be released.

The real failure in the system is not that the parole board keeps such people locked up. The real failure is that the legislature, which just finished its last session last summer, didn't address the problem of low recruiting of guards back then. This is not a problem that suddenly came about in the last few months.

[This message was edited by Terry Breen on 01-14-08 at .]

Stockton prison short of guards

Avalanche news services
1/17/08

Texas is having problems hiring enough prison guards, and Fort Stockton's unit is one of the state's most understaffed.

That became obvious last week when a group of officers went public with concerns that staffing shortages in Texas prisons have reached dangerous levels after years of administrators transferring convicts and tweaking overtime pay and schedules to try to maintain proper security in the face of dwindling staff.


"Because of this chronic shortage, we've had to lower our hiring standards. ... We're now taking 18-year-olds just a few months out of high school; we're hiring 70-plus-year-old guards and others who are physically not able to protect themselves or others," state Sen. John Whitemire, Houston, told the Austin American Statesman.

Prison officials said that adequate security is being maintained at Texas' 112 lockups, which house 157,000 felons. But they acknowledged that staffing shortages are an increasing problem and that low pay is a chief complaint.

quote:

---

low pay is a chief complaint.

---

That's an understatement. Correctional officer pay is so low it's ridiculous.

Maybe TDCJ should start hiring illegal aliens -- after all, I keep hearing that we need to keep them here because "they'll do the jobs Americans won't do" ...