FINAL REPORT ____________________________________ Criminal Justice Review Harris County May 202 1 1 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 3 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW .......................................................................... 29 CHAPTER 2: CURRENT STATE OF JUSTICE AND SAFETY IN HARRIS COUNTY ............... 38 CHAPTER 3: PATH TO AN EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE, EQUITABLE, AND FAIR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ..................................................................................................................... 50 CHAPTER 4: IMMEDIATE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEPARTMENTS ............................. 113 CHAPTER 5: NEAR-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEPARTMENTS ........................... 121 CHAPTER 6: LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEPARTMENTS ........................... 141 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 143 2 HARRIS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE REVIEW TEAM PFM • David Eichenthal, Managing Director and Engagement Manager • Sarah Schirmer, Director and Project Manager • Seth Williams, Director • Caroling Sylvan, Director • Chloe Bohm, Senior Managing Consultant • Ebony Wortham, Senior Managing Consultant • Kevin Watters, Senior Managing Consultant • Ellen Ramage, Senior Analyst • Victoria Asare, Analyst • Shua-Kym McLean, Analyst • Hannah Kohanzadeh, Analyst • David Benson, Consultant and Editor in Chief • David Neustadt, Consultant and Editor • Gabriella Darden, Associate • Ron Serpas, Senior Advisor • R. Erich Caulfield, Consultant Square Button Consulting • Charles West, President • Nainish Gupta, Director • Ralph Russo • William Rials 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Harris County Commissioners Court selected PFM Group Consulting LLC (the “PFM team”) to undertake a multi-phase review of the County’s criminal justice system (the “Criminal Justice Review” or “Review”). The scope of the Review focused on developing department- and office- specific assessments for 17 criminal justice entities and a system-level assessment. 1 These assessments were completed to provide Commissioners Court with: • A view of problematic practices and inefficiencies that diminish the system’s fairness and effectiveness • Insight regarding the impact of resource allocation among criminal justice agencies • An empirical foundation for improvements The PFM team reviewed the following Harris County criminal justice entities: Sheriff’s Office, all eight constable precincts, District Attorney’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, District Clerk’s Office, the County Criminal Courts at Law, the Criminal District Courts, Pretrial Services, Community Supervision and Corrections Department, and Justice Administration Department. The Review also included The Harris Center’s services for justice-involved individuals. This Final Report directly addresses the Criminal Justice Review. An advisory committee of representatives of each of the members of Commissioners Court has overseen the work of the PFM team. The County Auditor’s Office has facilitated the advisory committee’s work; the PFM team has met by phone with the County Auditor’s Office weekly. The PFM team conducted detailed research on current operations for each entity reviewed. In addition to its review of Harris County criminal justice entities, the PFM team also sought information from benchmark jurisdictions identified at the outset of the process in collaboration with the advisory committee. 2 From the 10 benchmark counties, the PFM team collected data and other information to put its findings related to Harris County into context. At the same time, the PFM team sought to compare Harris County criminal justice operations and performance to best or promising practices in other county-level jurisdictions. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the conduct of this review. While members of the PFM team were on the ground and conducting interviews and meetings in Harris County with County staff and external stakeholders from December 2019 until late February 2020, travel was suspended in mid-March. The team had to rely on remote communications with the County. In addition, several departments directly involved in the response to the public health crisis had to delay meetings and production of data and documents for several months as their 1 This report uses the term “criminal justice entity” throughout to include County-managed departments, offices led by elected officials, each criminal court, and the Community Supervision and Corrections Department, which is not a County department and is funded primarily by the State. 2 The ten benchmark counties are Bexar, Dallas, Travis and Tarrant counties in Texas; Los Angeles and San Diego counties in California; Clark County, NV; Cook County, IL; Maricopa County, AZ; and Miami-Dade County, FL. 4 attention rightly turned to the immediate emergency facing the County and its residents and businesses. The PFM team was able to collect a substantial amount of data and information from benchmark jurisdictions. In most cases, this information was available on the comparator counties’ websites. The team had hoped to attain additional information from these counties, but cooperation essentially ceased with the onset of the COVID-19 crisis. For each preliminary report and the summary report, the PFM team provided a draft of the relevant chapter to entity leadership for review prior to developing a final version. The findings and recommendations, however, are those of the PFM team alone. A COMPLEX CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Harris County is the most populated county in Texas and third most populated county in the U.S.; its criminal justice system is equally large and complex. • There are more than 60 law enforcement agencies in the county. 3 • There are 38 elected judges with jurisdiction over adult criminal matters, 16 elected justices of the peace, 8 elected constables, and an elected district clerk, district attorney and sheriff. • The Harris County jail population is the nation’s second largest in number and fifth largest per capita among the 10 largest jails. 4 • In 2019, the Harris County criminal justice system saw more than 100,000 bookings, 5 disposed of 78,283 criminal cases in the County Criminal Courts at Law (CCCL) and the District Courts, 6 supervised 12,964 pretrial defendants on personal bonds per day on average, 7 and housed 8,539 people in the jail per day on average. 8 3 Rice University Kinder Institute for Urban Research. 2018. Collaborations and Overlapping Services in Harris County Law Enforcement , Houston, TX: Rice University. Page 3. 4 “Incarceration Trends,” Vera Institute of Justice, accessed November 20, 2020, https://trends.vera.org/incarceration- rates?data=pretrial. Per capita based on 2018 county population from: “County Population Totals: 2010-2020, Annual Resident Population Estimates,” U.S. Census Bureau, accessed May 15, 2021, https://www.census.gov/programs- surveys/popest/technical-documentation/research/evaluation-estimates/2020-evaluation-estimates/2010s-counties- total.html. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=United%20States&tid=ACSDP5Y2019.DP05&hidePreview=false. 5 Due to HCSO’ implementation of a new offender management system (OMS) in early 2019, the way intakes and bookings are captured differ throughout the year. HCSO has worked diligently to identify the total number of bookings in 2019 using a similar methodology in the two systems, but as of May 21, 2021, the Office has not been able to produce a final number. 6 Calculation derived from Court Activity Database available through Texas Office of Court Administration, accessed January 9, 2020, https://card.txcourts.gov/. 7 Harris County Pretrial Services, “HCPS Defendant Count, 2015-2020” provided in response to PFM team information request, August 19, 2020. 8 Harris County Sheriff’s Office, “ADP 2014-2019” provided in response to PFM team information request, November 10, 2020. 5 The criminal justice system has a large footprint that impacts hundreds of thousands of people in Harris County directly and indirectly—as defendants, as victims, and as loved ones of defendants and victims. These populations are not distinct; people often interact with the criminal justice system in all three capacities. A significant share of County resources is dedicated to criminal justice and public safety. In FY 2020, the County expended $1.04 billion in General Fund dollars and budgeted 9,716.3 FTEs for those purposes. Although the Harris County Commissioners Court has primary responsibility for funding the County-level criminal justice entities that constitute the criminal justice system, policy and procedural decisions are established primarily by independently elected officials. In FY 2020, 97.4 percent of the General Fund dollars dedicated to criminal justice and public safety were allocated to entities run by elected officials or appointed officials independent from the Commissioners Court. The word “system” is used when talking about criminal justice because the entities that are involved in arresting, detaining, prosecuting, defending, and supervising people accused or convicted of a crime interact with one another. The more integrated the data, systems, and processes of these entities, the more efficiently and effectively the criminal justice system can operate as a functional system. However, the very nature of the adjudication process can present challenges to criminal justice entities working well together. The adversarial nature of adjudication can result in hesitation to share information, to trust information from opposing parties, and to work together. This does not mean sharing cannot or does not happen, just that there are natural challenges. Additionally, many of the entities in a criminal justice system are led by an independently elected official, or several independently elected officials, in the courts’ case. That means that each elected official sets their vision, priorities, and policies, unlike appointed department heads charged with fulfilling the vision and implementing the strategies of those who appoint them—in the case of Harris County, usually the Commissioners Court. Again, this does not mean that coordination cannot or does not happen, just that there are natural challenges. In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey inflicted significant damage on the Harris County Criminal Justice Center and Jury Assembly Plaza, among other County buildings. In addition to the challenges to staff morale, Hurricane Harvey’s damage to physical facilities, displacement of many criminal justice entities, and damage to space for jury assembly led to reduced access to defendants in the jail, delayed jury trials, and slowed time to disposition. Hurricane Harvey exacerbated case processing efficiency and time to disposition challenges, but the PFM team found that the criminal courts’ ability to meet time standards began to fall and the number of pending cases began to increase well before the storm. The County’s response to the public health concerns of COVID-19 has likely further exacerbated case processing efficiency and time to disposition challenges. Trials were halted from March through September 2020 and have yet to resume their 2019 pace. 6 CURRENT STATE OF JUSTICE AND SAFETY IN HARRIS COUNTY The Criminal Justice Review’s preliminary reports identified many strengths and weaknesses related to the operations and performance of individual criminal justice entities and the system as a whole. Seven themes arose from the findings of the preliminary reports: • Harris County has created a foundation for continuing reform and improvement • Systemic challenges are obstacles to enhanced safety and justice • Use of law enforcement resources lacks coordination and may contribute to inequity • There is little use of data for management and transparency • Supervision practices and alternatives to traditional case processing do not align with best practices and research • A lack of inter-agency coordination exacerbates insufficient services and treatment for victims, defendants and families, eroding trust in the justice system and missing opportunities to reduce recidivism • Technology lacks sufficient governance, policies, protection, and integrations Harris County Has Created a Foundation for Continuing Reform and Improvement Harris County’s criminal justice system has evolved significantly in the last decade, and the Commissioners Court has recently invested in its criminal justice priorities in a manner largely consistent with its County-wide goal for justice and safety. Indigent defense is undergoing a fundamental change with the Court’s investment in the Public Defender’s Office (PDO) and holistic services and CCCL’s leadership in creating an Office of Managed Assigned Counsel (MAC) for misdemeanor indigent defense representation. As it continues to execute its vision for holistic services, PDO will be a leader among public defender offices nationally. Commissioners Court has also invested in reducing jail population with support from the MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC). Since 2015, Harris County has invested more than $6.7 million in General Fund expenditures in SJC-related activities on top of the $4.6 million received from the Foundation. Harris County has increased opportunities for deflection from arrest and diversion from detention, seeking to minimize criminal justice exposure where feasible. In addition to the Harris County Sheriff’s Office’s (HCSO) co-response models, law enforcement can deflect people from arrest and detention for some non-violent offenses using the Mental Health Jail Diversion 7 Program, the Misdemeanor Marijuana Diversion Program, and a cite and release policy that allows deputies and officers to issue a citation rather than book someone in jail. In its review, the PFM team found an eagerness for continued improvement from elected and appointed leadership and from management and line-level staff. Leadership and staff are open to reviewing their practices and have prioritized many of the same issues that PFM identified in its findings. There are also examples of criminal justice leaders collaborating toward a single end, including the launch of the Responsive Interventions for Change (RIC) Docket and other specialty courts, implementation of the CCCL’s amended Local Rule 9 and other ODonnell consent decree requirements, and the County’s response to both Hurricane Harvey and COVID-19. Systemic Challenges are Obstacles to Enhanced Safety and Justice Although the criminal justice system has undergone significant change in the last decade, the PFM team found significant performance issues that signal the system is not operating efficiently, effectively, or equitably. The County has contended with major disruptions related to Hurricane Harvey and COVID-19, but many of the issues identified by the PFM team existed prior to both events. • Harris County has high rates of both property and violent crime. • Jail population has decreased only slightly, and not consistently. • Black people are disproportionately more likely to be arrested and detained in the jail. • Criminal cases take longer to reach a disposition, leading to higher rates of detention. • Jury appearance rates are incredibly low and lack racial and socioeconomic diversity. Among the top 10 largest cities in the U.S., Houston’s violent crime rate per capita is 52.5 percent higher than the median and places it number one among the 10 largest cities. Although it has declined, property crime is also higher per capita; among the top 10 largest cities, Houston’s property crime rate per capita is 46.3 percent higher than the median, placing it number one among the 10 largest cities. Despite significant effort, investment, and reforms, the county’s jail population has decreased only slightly over the last several years. Harris County’s jail population is the second largest in the country and its population per capita places it 5 th among benchmark counties. 9 Between CY 9 Per capita calculations based on: “County Population Totals: 2010-2020, Annual Resident Population Estimates,” U.S. Census Bureau, accessed May 15, 2021, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical- documentation/research/evaluation-estimates/2020-evaluation-estimates/2010s-counties-total.html. 8 2015 and CY 2019, the average daily population declined 2.8 percent from 8,786 in 2015 to 8,539 in 2019, but it alternatively rose and fell each year in the period. 10 Black people are more likely to be arrested and detained in jail than white people. Black arrestees make up a share of the arrested population that is 1.7 times higher than their share of Harris County’s population. In CY 2018, HCSO and the constables made arrests that were 32.4 percent Black people, 31.9 percent Hispanic people of any race, 22.3 percent white people, and 13.3 percent Asian people, unknown ethnicity, or another race. 11 Comparatively, only 18.8 percent of people in Harris County and 17.2 percent of people in unincorporated Harris County are Black. The disparity is even more stark among the jail’s population; in CY 2019, Black people made up 51.9 percent of the average daily population. 12 Misdemeanor and felony cases in the criminal courts take longer to reach a disposition, leading to higher rates of detention and extended loss of liberty. These delays deny swift justice for victims and defendants alike, keep some people detained in jail pending disposition, and are costly to the system. Finally, Harris County’s juror appearance and utilization rates are persistently low and those who appear are not racially or socioeconomically representative of Harris County. According to the Harris County District Clerk’s Office (HCDCO), while nearly 41 percent of Harris County’s population older than 18 and a U.S. citizen are white, more than 55 percent of people who appear for jury duty are white. 13 Use of Law Enforcement Resources Lacks Coordination and May Contribute to Inequity Harris County Commissioners Court funds both HCSO and the constables to perform similar law enforcement functions, but it has little insight into how the law enforcement agencies’ combined activities impact safety, justice, equity, and efficiency. 14 All told, there are more than 60 law enforcement agencies in Harris County, including 30 city police departments, the largest being the Houston Police Department (HPD). 15 In the unincorporated parts of the county, where more people live than in any municipality within the 10 Harris County Sheriff’s Office, “ADP 2014-2019” provided in response to PFM team information request, November 10, 2020. 11 Harris County Sheriff’s Office, Arrest data provided in response to PFM team information request, August 13, 2020. 12 Harris County Sheriff’s Office, “ADP 2014-2019” provided in response to PFM team information request, November 10, 2020. 13 Harris County District Clerk’s Office, “A Better Jury for Tomorrow: Our Plan to Increase Jury Participation and Jury Diversity in Harris County” provided by Harris County Budget Management Department, April 6, 2021. 14 Commissioners Court allocates General Funds to the constables for law enforcement activities that exceeds their expected revenue from patrol contracts. The County’s match on contracts and other non-contract-related law enforcement activities are primarily funded by the County’s General Fund. For example, in FY 2020, Constable Precinct 4 estimated non-contract patrol expenditures of $9.0 million, covering 104 FTEs. The Precinct’s contract expenditures were estimated to be $27.4 million while it expected to collect $22.7 million in fees for patrol services, $4.7 million less than its expenditures. 15 Rice University Kinder Institute for Urban Research. 2018. Collaborations and Overlapping Services in Harris County Law Enforcement , Houston, TX: Rice University. Page 3. 9 county other than Houston, the responsibility for law enforcement is divided between HCSO and the eight constables. With so many law enforcement agencies able to respond to calls for service, investigate offenses, and make arrests, coordination is paramount to manage the safety of the public and law enforcement officers, and to maximize the resources available to each agency. Instead, HCSO and the eight constables each have their own dispatch operation, decisions to conduct or not conduct an investigation are not always communicated by the constables to HCSO, and a review of self-initiated actions by the nine agencies suggests constables have an excess of available free time for community policing and HCSO may have too little. Both the constables and the sheriff provide supplemental patrol services by contracting with parts of incorporated Harris County that are willing to pay more for such services. The result is that homeowners associations and municipal utility districts with the means to do so can “buy” more public safety from public agencies. The public cost is that, in many cases, this results in fewer deputies available for “taxpayer funded” patrol and, in at least some cases, the cost of these contract services appear to be subsidized by County taxpayers. There is Little Use of Data for Management and Transparency The PFM team found little evidence of a culture that prioritizes system-wide performance measurement or sharing outcome information with the public for the purposes of transparency and accountability. There is a lack of measurement of certain specific functions (e.g., indigent defense, victim services, defendant services), of programs (e.g., specialty courts and other diversions), and of the system (e.g., cross-departmental measures). The County’s fragmented approach to performance measurement means there is little information about system-wide operations, let alone the performance of individual entities. There is no regular reporting of total arrests; calls for service and use of force across law enforcement entities; overall pretrial release; total costs and outcomes for indigent defense; and case information across the courts, e.g., total filings, conviction rates, etc. The County has inadequate aggregate data and information about operations and services that multiple agencies provide. As a result, Harris County does not sufficiently use data to manage its operations and track its outcomes. There is little data-driven understanding of how a new policy or increase in investment in one area will impact the rest of the system. Commissioners Court and the criminal justice entities lack the information they need to make strategic funding decisions to expand the scale of certain programs or redirect funding elsewhere. 10 Commissioners Court is increasingly asking for workload and performance data before making funding decisions, both in the annual budgeting process and in response to mid-year budget requests. In preparation for the FY 2022 budget process, Harris County departments and offices were asked to reconsider their performance measures to better align funding requests and allocation decisions with their goals, strategic objectives, and performance. Overall, the new set of performance measures improves the criminal justice entities’ FY 2021 measures. The Criminal Justice Review’s Summary Report identified additional measures that each entity should adopt to complement those established during the budget process, but real progress will depend on entities’ ability to report on their measures. When the PFM team requested data to measure performance, many criminal justice entities struggled to respond due to issues with their information systems, questionable data quality, lack of analytic or technical capacity, and paper-based records. Harris County’s vision for governance is to be transparent in all that it does. Government has a responsibility to be transparent with its use of tax dollars and the impact of its resource allocation decisions. There are some encouraging improvements in sharing data with the public about the criminal justice system. But overall, Harris County does not meet its goal for transparency in the criminal justice system. Supervision Practices and Alternatives to Traditional Case Processing Do Not Align with Best Practices and Research Numerous criminal justice and community stakeholders indicated that there is an on-going issue related to over-conditioning defendants released pretrial to Harris County Pretrial Services (HCPS) and defendants sentenced to community supervision with Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (HCCSCD). Judges often order defendants to participate in specific treatment programs, testing, and monitoring to address underlying mental health or substance use issues. Drug testing requirements, particularly for those at higher supervision levels with testing at more frequent intervals, present an additional barrier to success for defendants with limited access to transportation, and those for whom the appointments affect their ability to maintain employment and care for dependents (children or others). When criminal law hearing officers and judges (“judicial officers”) set bail, they often order additional conditions of release on top of pretrial supervision, such as electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol testing, or a curfew. Although research has shown drug testing is not an effective tool for managing pretrial release, 16 in CY 2020, judicial officers ordered drug 16 Research has shown that drug testing does not improve court appearance or reduce the incidence of new criminal activity as a condition of pretrial release. “Pretrial Research Summary: Pretrial Drug Testing,” Advancing Pretrial Policy & Research, accessed January 28, 2021, https://advancingpretrial.org/appr/appr-resources/pretrial-research- summaries/. 11 screening for 31.5 percent of people released to pretrial supervision and ordered abstinence from alcohol for 27.7 percent. 17 Similarly, 6 out of 7 studies on electronic monitoring found the device did not improve court appearance or reduce pretrial arrests, 18 but in CY 2020, judicial officers ordered it for 9.9 percent of people released to pretrial supervision. Based on the needs of the jurisdiction, prosecutor-led diversion now includes pre-filing and post- filing diversion, eligibility includes misdemeanors and felonies, and defendants are not automatically excluded for previous convictions. Of the seven benchmark counties offering prosecutorial diversion, six reach populations that are not served by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office’s (HCDAO) diversion programs (eligibility criteria for the seventh county is not publicly available). All six have at least one diversion program that is available to defendants charged with a felony offense and, for those that specify, most are available to defendants with prior non-violent, non-felony convictions. HCDAO’s programs largely exclude defendants with any prior convictions and it does not offer any diversion for defendants charged with a felony offense. A Lack of Inter-Agency Coordination Exacerbates Insufficient Services and Treatment for Victims, Defendants and Families The services provided to victims and defendants lack coordination and management. In particular, defendants struggle upon release to maintain treatment they receive in the jail because the support structures used to facilitate the transition have insufficient capacity. Victim services are poorly coordinated in Harris County and there are no efforts to quantify the total number of victims served each year. Among law enforcement agencies alone, HPD, HCSO, eight constables, and other municipal police departments each provide victim services in varying ways. The level of services provided and ability to serve all victims varies widely among the agencies. This has produced a result in which the law enforcement agency that responds to a crime determines the type and level of services provided to victims. HCSO and HCDAO have improved how they coordinate communication with, and services provided to, victims. However, the limited scale of HCSO’s victim services unit requires it to narrowly target the victims it supports, which is a concern since HCDAO does not provide services if charges are not filed. There are community-based organizations and health care providers that offer direct services like counseling, examinations and testing, and treatment, but victims who don’t receive services from law enforcement or HCDAO must find alternative methods to connect with them and find the appropriate organization for their needs. Among services related to mental health, substance use, homelessness, and reentry, mental health services are the most coordinated because The Harris Center is the centralized provider, 17 Harris County Pretrial Services. 2020. 2019 Annual Report. Houston, TX: HCPS. Pages 11-12. 18 “Release Conditions Matrix Presentation,” Advancing Pretrial Policy & Research, accessed January 28, 2021, https://advancingpretrial.org/implementation/guides/. 12 contracts with the County to provide jail-based and diversion-based mental health services, and chairs the Mental Health Standing Committee of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC). Alternatively, substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs lack a coordinating coalition or committee and there is a gap in strategic planning, resource sharing, coordinated data collection and analysis, and other types of collaborative planning and information sharing that could strengthen Harris County’s ability to plan for reentry and connect individuals to services. In-jail reentry services have long waiting lists which prevents many inmates from accessing them prior to release. The current request structure does not provide a clear and consistent consideration of highest need when determining who should receive services. While services are targeted to several specific populations (such as veterans, mothers, etc.), other sectors of the population have disproportionately fewer opportunities to participate in in-jail reentry services. There is little support for continuity of care for people exiting the jail who need to access services and treatment in the community upon release. The Harris Center’s Continuity of Care Unit has limited capacity, with only four staff, to ensure that individuals maintain connections to mental health treatment services as they move through the criminal justice system. Stakeholders report that individuals often struggle to continue their treatment or other services when they transition from jail into the community and from a residential treatment program or transitional housing to permanent housing. Without a clear plan for continuing care in the community, the progress made in jail or a residential program is likely to be lost. Technology Lacks Sufficient Governance, Policies, Protection, and Integrations No County entity or committee is responsible for policy decisions related to data sharing, security, definitions, quality and validation, and retention. Harris County’s decentralized technology governance is inadequate to ensure efficiency of major County-wide IT initiatives, policies, and practices. The Justice Technology Committee (JTC) and its various subcommittees provide a regular venue for discussing IT projects that impact multiple criminal justice entities. However, the JTC has shortcomings that limit its ability to fully coordinate the IT investments of the criminal justice system. The JTC’s decisions are not binding; major unilateral policy changes, such as the implementation of the Cite and Release Docket, have redirected IT resources from the jointly decided upon priorities; and the JTC also doesn’t provide adequate data governance, as evidenced by the lack of clear data definitions and data sharing policies across departments. There is no County-wide Enterprise Architecture in place—each department’s IT systems, vendors and data structures are designed independently. The result is the disparate use of data, databases, and overall data structure. This makes data sharing and application integrations 13 costly and difficult, and significantly hinders the ability to implement true County-wide decision- making. Each department makes IT investments—by implementing new hardware, software, and other technology solutions—based on its needs. Although some collaborative technology solutions— most notably JWEB—have been successfully implemented, most solutions are implemented by individual departments with little thought and planning given to the overall County-wide impact and cohesion with other systems supporting County-wide goals. Systems have been deployed without integrations to existing applications, necessitating manual data entry, which introduces errors and stymies data-driven efforts to improve outcomes. It has been especially harmful that systems have been designed without considering how they might interface with existing data structures. Many criminal justice entities lack thorough documentation of IT assets, policies, and procedures, leaving them overly reliant on the institutional knowledge of IT staff and increasing the risk of significant downtimes following an emergency. Not all departments take advantage of Universal Services Department’s (USD) data center, which has redundant power and network connectivity, or the County’s disaster recovery/business continuity site. Most County departments use USD’s data center for disaster recovery, but the CCCL, the District Courts, the Justice Courts, and HCDAO do not. All County departments benefit from USD’s cybersecurity mechanisms (e.g., firewalls). However, there are insufficient department-level mechanisms, policies, and practices across Harris County criminal justice entities. There is a common misconception that USD performs department-level cybersecurity risk assessments and penetration testing. Previously, USD conducted regular cybersecurity vulnerability scans, but they have ceased, and while these scans were valuable, they didn’t meet the requirements of a risk assessment. PATH TO AN EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE, EQUITABLE, AND FAIR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Harris County must pursue a series of reforms and investments in its criminal justice system to ensure a system that provides justice and safety for all county residents. In 2020, Harris County adopted a justice and safety goal that prioritizes restorative and evidence-based strategies, public trust, prevention of violence and trauma, reductions in racial and ethnic disparities, and limited criminal justice exposure where possible. This goal is ambitious but achievable if the County takes decisive and coordinated action. The reforms and investments recommended in this report will result in significant progress toward the County’s goals, but they will be challenging to accomplish without the engagement of leadership across the criminal justice system. Each elected official and department head in the 14 criminal justice system has a vision for their office and role in the criminal justice system, and the system as a whole. There are many ways these visions may intersect, but also the possibility that they diverge as well. Harris County seeks to reduce its criminal justice footprint, but it must also confront the reality of a serious violent and property crime problem. To do so, it must simultaneously expand the County’s services and treatment footprint to provide appropriate and necessary support to individuals who might otherwise be engaged in the criminal justice system. Without a complementary focus on addressing defendants’ and victims’ needs, Harris County will fail to promote safe, healthy, and thriving communities. In the Criminal Justice Review’s Summary Report, the PFM team offered recommendations with more than 250 action steps designed to set Harris County on a path to reform. This Final Report highlights many of those department-level recommendations and offers a set of broader recommendations that are cross-cutting and will require action by multiple departments and/or the Commissioners Court. In November 2019, Commissioners Court engaged PFM to conduct a separate report on some of the largest County departments that report to Commissioners Court (the “Operational Review”). Similar to the Criminal Justice Review, the Operational Review concluded with a Final Report that set forth a series of cross-cutting recommendations to address government-wide issues; some of the criminal justice system-level recommendations in this Final Report reflect those recommendations. The system-level recommendations are arranged under eight categories that connect to the County’s goal for justice and safety: • Promote restorative and evidence-based strategies • Foster public trust • Prevent violence and trauma • Reduce racial and ethnic disparities • Minimize criminal justice system exposure • Strengthen access to jail-based and community-based services • Align law enforcement funding and structure with County goals • Improve coordination and collaboration 15 Promote Restorative and Evidence-Based Strategies The PFM team recommends the following steps to promote restorative and evidence-based strategies: Increase Measurement and Use of Deflection and Diversion Programs: Harris County makes a number of deflection and diversion programs and policies available through its criminal justice system, but the County has very little information about whether these policies and programs are effective. Harris County should dedicate resources to regularly assessing its existing deflection and diversion programs with the aim of aligning its investments with successful programs and testing new approaches to meet defendants’ needs. Programs that do not reduce recidivism and/or improve personal outcomes after adjustments are made should be discontinued. Regular measurement can be completed in-house by JAD, but third-party evaluation will also be useful for larger and/or more complex programs. Evaluations should measure outcomes for a follow-up window that extends beyond program involvement; follow the scientific method and include a comparison group; and measure in-program and post-program outcomes that align with the program’s goals, such as health, treatment, and life success outcomes in addition to reduced justice system involvement. Expand Oversight and Management to all Indigent Defense Representation: There is little to no oversight and management over the current system of appointing private attorneys to represent indigent defendants. As the County’s new Office of Managed Assigned Counsel (MAC) launches a management program for the CCCL, pending any initial challenges, Harris County should expand MAC’s scope to include indigent defense representation in the District Courts. As it is in the CCCL, if the MAC expands to manage representation in the District Courts, it should assume responsibility for assigning counsel on felony offenses. Similar to PDO’s expansion of holistic services, the MAC should also develop a robust holistic defense approach to ensure indigent defendants receive a similar level of service whether they are represented by a public defender or appointed attorney. As the County scales up holistic defense within PDO and the MAC, the two offices should meet regularly with HCPS to navigate referral processes, court requirements, and information about community-based resources. Foster Public Trust The PFM team recommends the following steps to foster public trust: Support the Creation of a Community-Based Courtwatch Project: In furtherance of its goal to increase public trust and hold government operations accountable, Harris County should support the development of a courtwatch project in a non-profit org