Texas Repaying Debts Project American Probation & Parole Association

1. Texas Repaying Debts ProjectAmerican Probation & Parole Association Jamie Yoon, Council of State Governments Justice Center Carl Reynolds, Texas Office of Court Administration February 12, 2008

2. What is the Council of State Governments? • Non-profit, non-partisan membership association of state government officials • Funded largely through state dues • Represents all three branches of state government: legislature, judiciary, and executive branch • 4 regional offices • Provides non-partisan setting to discuss controversial criminal justice topics outside of the public spotlight

3. Prisoner Re-Entry • 97 percent of the people in prison will be released from prison at some point, and virtually all sentenced offenders in jail will return to the community. • Approximately 625,000 individuals will exit prison this year. • Jail administrators across the U.S. make approximately 7 million releases each year. • 1 in 32 adults was in jail or prison, or on probation or parole, in 2002.

4. Re-Entry Policy Council Partners Association of State Correctional Administrators • American Probation and Parole Association National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials • National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors • National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors • National Association of Workforce Boards • National Center for State Courts • Corporation for Supportive Housing • Urban Institute • Police Executive Research Forum

5. Re-Entry Policy Council Report • 34 Policy Statements • Research highlights • Hundreds of detailed action recommendations • 175+ examples of programs from across the U.S. • Reflects consensus among Republican and Democrat elected officials and key stakeholders from workforce development, corrections, housing, health and human services, community corrections, and law enforcement from across the country

6. Repaying Debts Report

7. Policy Statements and Recommendations

8. Texas Project: Collection Improvement Program

9. A fine is a punishment and not a “BILL.” The payment is the defendant’s responsibility. It is expected that the defendant must sacrifice to pay. The defendant must give payment the highest priority. The defendant must expect consequences if payment is not made. The defendant needs to understand the consequences. The payment is a Court Order, a sentence which may not be convenient. A court is not where people prefer to spend money. But, many people come to court with money. Collection Program Principles

10. Collection Program Components • Staff or staff time dedicated to collection activities. This may include county or city employees or contract employees. • Expectation that all court costs, fees, and fines are generally due at the time of sentencing or pleading. • In most cases, defendants unable to pay in full on the day of sentencing or pleading are required to complete an application for extension of time to pay. • Application information is verified and evaluated to establish an appropriate payment plan for the defendant.

11. Collection Program Components • Payment terms are usually strict (e.g., 50% of the total amount due must be paid within 48 hours; 80% within 30 days; and 100% within 60 days). • Alternative enforcement options (e.g., community service) are available for those who do not qualify for a payment plan. • Defendants are closely monitored for compliance, and action is taken promptly for non-compliance. • Actions include telephone contact, letter notification, and possible issuance of warrant.

12. Collection Program Components • A county or city may contract with a private attorney or a public or private vendor for the provision of collection services on delinquent cases (61+ days), after in-house collection efforts are exhausted. • Application of statutorily permitted collection remedies, such as programs for non-renewal of driver’s license or vehicle registration. • Issue and serve warrants, as appropriate.

13. Probation Context • “Although the program can be utilized by a judge in virtually every criminal case to effectuate the judge’s financial orders, it is not designed to influence the judicial determination of whether to order payment of costs, fees and fines, or otherwise to affect the sentencing or other disposition decision that is within the judge’s discretion.”

14. Parole/Re-Entry Context • “Although the program focuses on collection of court costs, fees and fines, it should be implemented in the context of local, state and national efforts to develop and apply systemic policy to the competing financial obligations of people in the criminal justice system.”

15. Cohesive Framework • Identify gaps in policy impacting collection • Identify coordination and prioritization issues among policies and agencies • Identify operational/administrative changes within OCA or other participating agencies that can improve the administration of policies in this area • Acquire data to create a “financial obligation” profile for offenders on probation and parole that includes court, probation fees and child support obligations • Create a model, following private sector credit rating model experience, to understand “financial risk factors” that may relate to “default” and recidivism risks • Provide impact analysis to the legislature

16. Conclusion Comments? Questions? for further information: carl.reynolds@courts.state.tx.us jyoon@csg.org