FINAL REPORT ____________________________________ Criminal Justice Review Harris County May 2021 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 1 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 2 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. 3 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. 4 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. 5 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 6 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 5th among benchmark counties. 9 Between CY 9Per 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. 7 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. 8 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. 9 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 16Research 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/. 10 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/. 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 organization or university. Courtwatch projects rely on a large set of trained volunteers to sit in courtrooms every day to record information that is not typically captured in court information systems. 15 Among other things, courtwatch volunteers can record how information is explained to defendants, victims, and witnesses; reasons provided for particular actions, like a request for continuance; interactions between the judge and counsel; sidebar conversations; interactions between counsel and defendants, victims, and witnesses; and more. This form of independent, observational measurement is a well-established and important means of collecting information on government performance. To ensure its independence, the government should not operate or fund a courtwatch project itself, but it can support the creation of one. For example, it can identify a local organization to take leadership, it can connect that organization to potential funders in the business or philanthropic communities, it can fund third-party technical assistance to start up the project, and it can help navigate resistance among criminal justice entities. Support Independent Oversight of Law Enforcement and Other Criminal Justice Entities: The potential benefits of independent oversight—increasing trust, legitimacy, and transparency in law enforcement and the criminal justice system as a whole—are fundamental to a democratic system of governance and a criminal justice system that is efficient, effective, equitable, and fair. As the PFM team recommended in the Final Report of the Operational Review, the County should create an independent inspector general. To the extent permitted by law, the independent inspector general should have jurisdiction over the criminal justice and public safety entities funded by the County. In addition, the County should move to create a civilian oversight board with jurisdiction over HCSO and the eight constables. 19 The four components of oversight over Harris County criminal justice agencies should be: • HCDAO investigates and prosecutes cases where there is evidence of a crime committed by a law enforcement official. HCDAO should begin publishing its findings from these investigations—whether they result in a prosecution or not—on its website. • Both the HCSO Office of Inspector General Bureau and the internal affairs divisions of the constables should publish regular reports on use of force data, complaints and investigations and their outcomes. • Harris County should create a single law enforcement civilian oversight board to handle complaints from the public about officer misconduct, whether by constable or HCSO deputies. 19In a recommendation later in this report, the PFM team recommends that Harris County consolidate all County- funded law enforcement personnel and activities under the control of HCSO. Multiple recommendations in this report describe constables as law enforcement agencies, which reflects the constables’ current role in Harris County, not the recommended role once the County acts to limit constables’ role to non-law enforcement activities. 16 • In the Final Report of the Operational Review, the PFM team recommended the County appoint an independent inspector general (IG). This Final Report recommends the County extend the IG’s scope to include the criminal justice entities. To initiate action on this recommendation, Harris County should first determine whether state law places any limitations on civilian review or independent oversight. If so, the County may need to pursue changes to state legislation. Establish an Open Data Portal for the Criminal Justice System: JAD should lead a collaborative, system-wide effort to make more criminal justice data available to the public through an open data portal. This recommendation should be implemented in conjunction with the recommendation the PFM team made in the Operational Review’s Final Report to create a County-wide open data portal. JAD should not create a separate policy or portal; this effort should happen in tandem with the County-wide effort. The Criminal Justice Information Sharing (CJIS) Standing Committee that was recommended in the JAD chapter of the Summary Report should act as a criminal justice-focused data governance subcommittee of the central data governance committee leading an open data policy process for the County. The standing committee should establish policies about what information can be shared and what should be redacted based on safety and privacy concerns; identify all existing datasets and establish a prioritization order for publication; and prepare relevant datasets for publication. The County Attorney’s Office and USD should also be engaged in this effort from the beginning to advise on legal and technical limitations to sharing. Establish System-Level Performance Measures and Release Semi-Annual Reports: The CJCC, with the support of JAD, should establish a set of performance measures that provide insight into the impact and outcomes of the criminal justice system. Once established, JAD should produce a semi-annual report with trend analyses for each performance measure, review the findings with the CJCC and Commissioners Court, and publish it on JAD and the CJCC’s websites. JAD should also make the reported statistics available for exporting through the open data portal recommended in this Final Report. The performance measures should assess whether the County is reaching its goal for justice and safety, and they should assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. As the system improves its ability to collect and analyze more data, and as new policies or programs launch, this list should expand to adapt to the new environment. To the extent feasible, each data point should be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, age, and indigency status. Increase County’s Capacity to Analyze Data to Support Performance Measurement: Harris County lacks sufficient data analysis capacity, both within criminal justice entities and within JAD, to achieve its goals for data-driven decision-making. The County should increase JAD’s 17 data analysis personnel to fully maximize the data warehouse it is building and provide deeper insight into the effectiveness and efficiency of the justice system. With additional staff, JAD has the opportunity to build expertise and capacity that, in addition to serving County-wide policy- setting, could be leveraged by individual departments for department-specific inquiries and decision-making. Despite JAD’s expanded capabilities, some departments may choose to build their internal data capacity. To ensure high quality analysis, departments should jointly define a consistent set of requirements for data analysts’ knowledge, skills, and experience. Even if departments hire their own data analysts, each department should still integrate its data into JAD’s data warehouse to facilitate routine and ad hoc analysis and reporting. Prevent Violence and Trauma The PFM team recommends the following steps to prevent violence and trauma: Develop a Multi-Agency, Prevention-First Crime Reduction Strategy: Harris County must address its violent crime problem and do so with a comprehensive, prevention-first strategy that is based on a public health approach. Proactively engaging a “whole of government” approach ensures that adequate services are available to address criminogenic and social disorder risk factors specific to individual community needs. Besides traditional law enforcement crime prevention, the County’s social services, health, and regulatory departments can be directed to provide targeted, coordinated, and accountable responses to reduce environmental and social conditions that can contribute to crime and disorder. The County should first analyze its law enforcement and social services data comprehensively across the county to understand its crime problem better. Then, it should engage members of the public, victims of crime, and justice-involved individuals in the development of its strategy. Harris County should also develop performance measures for each component of its strategy before it launches activities. A multi-agency, comprehensive approach like the one detailed in this recommendation must be centrally coordinated and managed. Although law enforcement should have a role in developing and implementing the strategy, it should not lead the effort. Coordinate the Criminal Justice System’s Role in Victim Services: Harris County should take steps to ensure victims receive the same level of service and assistance regardless of which law enforcement agency responds and regardless of whether charges are filed. The County should provide greater coordination of community-based services and improve the criminal justice system’s services and policies. In its role as a liaison between criminal justice entities and service providers, Harris County should explore ways to better coordinate services and make them more easily accessible to victims. There are at least five ways Harris County can improve the criminal justice system’s victim- related services and policies: consistent training for law enforcement across all agencies; 18 develop a system-wide domestic violence policy response; standardize and integrate data collection and reporting; increase funding and capacity for victims services among County departments; and increase coordination between criminal justice entities and community-based service providers. Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities The PFM team recommends the following steps to reduce racial and ethnic disparities: Implement Equity Framework for Performance Management: The County should direct all departments and offices to develop racial equity plans and equity-related performance measures, and it should develop prompts for departments and offices to reflect on equity impact. This recommendation also builds on a recent equity framework the County developed to guide its investments related to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The Harris County Equity Framework sets goals, strategies, and an approach to advancing equity with ARPA funds. It also includes prompts to consider the equity impact of project proposals, and a scoring matrix that assesses to what degree the project considers existing and potential disparities. The County should implement this framework for all major funding requests made by departments as a means for departments to reflect on their potential impact on equity. Release an Annual Racial and Ethnic Disparities Report: Harris County should produce an annual report that examines racial and ethnic disparities at each of seven key decision points: arrest; charging decision; bail setting; assignment of counsel; pre-disposition settings and trial; disposition/sentencing; and community supervision. Harris County has set a goal to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system; this annual report provides an opportunity for Harris County to track progress on its goal and to look at disparities at the system-level in addition to the department level. The County’s Human Resources and Risk Management (HRRM) team should also be engaged to produce an annual analysis of employee demographics among criminal justice entities. 20 Harris County’s current ability to identify racial and ethnic disparities (and other disparities related to age, gender, physical ability, income, and sexual orientation) is limited by data quality and data access, which is discussed in greater detail in the Summary Report and other recommendations in this report. To produce this annual report, Harris County will need to create a plan to improve both data quality and data access. 20 As part of the Operational Review, the PFM team recommended in the HRRM Summary Report that the County create an Office of Workforce Equity within HRRM. This office should coordinate with JAD on annual reporting of employee demographics. 19 Increase Language Accessibility: In Harris County, 20.3 percent of the population reported that they speak English less than very well, 21 which can significantly impact how a victim or defendant interacts with the criminal justice system and their understanding of the process and decisions made. Harris County needs to comprehensively increase the language accessibility of the criminal justice system and the information it shares with the public. Each criminal justice entity should translate into Spanish and Vietnamese the forms it makes available to defendants, victims, and the general public. Signage in the Criminal Justice Center and other key buildings should be in English and Spanish. Notices for the public that are posted on the criminal courts and other entities’ websites should be translated into Spanish and Vietnamese as well. The webpage that JAD created for monitoring reports related to the ODonnell consent decree provides an example of notices translated for multiple audiences. Finally, all criminal justice entities should integrate translation services into their websites. Google Translate is available for Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Mozilla’s Firefox. Currently, only HCSO, HCPS, and JAD embed Google Translate in their websites. Establish a Criminal Justice Legislative Agenda: Harris County should develop a criminal justice legislative agenda as part of its efforts to address inequities in the criminal justice system. The County’s agenda should seek to eliminate the per diem funding structure for community supervision; allow judges to maintain their discretion to waive the Consolidated Court Cost and all other currently-mandatory fees for defendants unable to pay; and make people with a felony conviction who have completed their term of probation or parole eligible for jury duty. Minimize Criminal Justice System Exposure The PFM team recommends the following steps to minimize criminal justice exposure: Reduce Reliance on Criminal Justice-Related Fees: Harris County charges defendants fees for supervision, monitoring, diversion, and jail-based services; many of these charges are incurred prior to case disposition. Harris County should establish a policy that people who are found indigent for the purposes of assigning counsel and/or people who do not have money in their Inmate Trust Fund should not be assessed any fees that would prevent them from accessing a service or diversion due to inability to pay. Harris County should take action in three ways—eliminate the fees it has authority over (e.g., medical co-pays in the jail, specialty court and diversion participation fees), negotiate with vendors for the lowest rates possible (e.g., jail-based phone calls, Inmate Trust Fund deposit fees, commissary mark-up), and cease to recoup the contract cost of monitoring and 21 Compared to 13.7 percent statewide and 8.4 percent nationwide. U.S. Census Bureau, “Place of Birth by Language Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English in the United States,” American Community Survey: 2019 5 Year Estimates, Table B06007, accessed May 9, 2021, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=ACSDT1Y2019.B06007&g=0100000US&tid=ACSDT5Y2019.B06007&hidePr eview=true. 20 supervision for any defendant found indigent (e.g., electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol testing). Sustain Remote Alternatives and Options Implemented During COVID-19 Response: While COVID-19 presented new and uniquely challenging disruptions to criminal justice operations, it was neither the first, nor will it be the last, significant event to create a disruption. Pending an analysis of outcomes, the alternative approaches to accessing services, supervision check-ins, and court appearances instituted by criminal justice entities in response to COVID-19 should be maintained after the system’s operations fully resume. The flexibility afforded by these changes are less disruptive to defendants who must balance employment, childcare, and transportation challenges with their court appearances and supervision check-ins, and may have resulted in fewer failures to appear. Harris County should review the numerous changes that have been instituted and determine which have created a positive change and should be sustained. These remote and virtual solutions should be maintained in addition to not in lieu of the processes that existed prior to COVID-19. This recommendation is intended to provide greater flexibility for all parties and better prepare Harris County for its next major disruption. Strengthen Access to Jail-Based and Community-Based Services The PFM team recommends the following steps to strengthen access to jail-based and community-based services: Establish a Reentry Coalition: To improve coordination and access to services and treatment, Harris County should adopt a coordinated approach to reentry that begins at the point of booking and continues past release. This approach should also address challenges facing people released from state jail and prison, not just the County’s jail. The purpose of a reentry coalition is to coordinate the disparate services offered in jail and prison with the services offered in the community and establish pathways between the two. A reentry coalition should include participation from criminal justice entities (including diversion program managers), community-based organizations, state officials, and formerly incarcerated individuals. A steering committee will lead the planning process and set strategic goals, which should be informed by working groups dedicated to employment and education, housing, treatment, collateral consequences, and data collection. The reentry coalition should first engage in a planning process to identify shared goals and determine the initial scope of the coalition. Shared goals and a strategic plan that lays out immediate, near-term, and long-term goals will help the coalition succeed and not expand too quickly. A data collection working group should establish a baseline for performance, facilitate information sharing among the coalition members, and track performance trends going forward. Develop Neighborhood Resource Centers: Harris County should explore the resources needed to launch neighborhood resource centers across the county. These centers could co- 21 locate some County functions and social services in locations away from downtown Houston, and make it easier for people to comply with supervision conditions while accessing services. Harris County needs to embrace place-based pretrial and community supervision to a greater extent; neighborhood resource centers provide an opportunity to make services and treatment easily available to people under supervision and their families. The County should engage members of the public throughout the planning process, including selection of the neighborhood(s), selection of the physical space(s), and identification of services to be housed in the centers. Incorporate Defendant Treatment Services and Healthcare for Justice-Involved Individuals into County Health Coordination Efforts: In the Final Report of the Operational Review, the PFM team recommended creating an umbrella agency to better integrate the work of Harris County Public Health, the Harris Health System, and The Harris Center. This Final Report recommends that Harris County incorporate correctional health and treatment services for justice-involved populations into any coordination efforts that the County decides to implement. Harris County’s health integration efforts should include, by direct participation, County departments and divisions that play key roles in aspects of health related to homelessness, substance use disorder, incarcerated individuals, and reentry. In the current structure, this would include HCSO Medical Services (unless or until medical services shift to Harris Health), HCSO Reentry Services, and the Community Service Department’s Office of Social Services (OSS). Substance use disorder treatment in Harris County is provided primarily by community-based organizations and there is no County-led coordination. As part of the development of a more coordinated approach to health issues, the County should also make sure that there is coordination for SUD treatment services that includes community-based treatment for justice- involved individuals. Increase Data Sharing Between County Entities and Community-Based Service Providers by Developing a Centralized Provider Resource: The Harris County criminal justice system currently uses several databases and information sharing platforms to collect and report on data. The health coordinating entity that the PFM team recommended in the Operational Review should first review existing data collection platforms and data consolidation/dashboard programs to determine whether any can be leveraged, connected, or expanded to better understand outcomes and coordinate care without needing to develop an entirely new system. A more centralized approach to collecting and sharing behavioral health- and services-related data should accomplish three goals (while maintaining appropriate controls to protect patient privacy): 22 • Information is readily available that captures individuals’ engagement in the criminal justice system and connections to system-based and community-based services. • Care is better coordinated with access to information on prior treatment programs, case management, and relevant medical information. • Data collection facilitates development of a “No Wrong Door” system, wherein patients’ identification and background documents, medical history, and income information is entered only once and persists in the system. Develop a “No Wrong Door” Approach to Defendant Services: The No Wrong Door approach is typically applied to social services accessed directly in the community, but Harris County’s criminal justice system is well-positioned to apply this philosophy to services accessed by justice-involved individuals. With this approach, individuals who need help will get it, whether they walk into a clinic or get picked up by law enforcement. Common needs include mental health and SUD treatment, but can also be extended to homeless services. The No Wrong Door approach consists of three components, two of which build on other recommendations to increase access to services: a health integration structure that facilitates coordination of services; a single database to collect and share data; and coordinated case management. A primary case manager should also be tasked with connecting with an in-jail case manager upon both entry and discharge, developing a unified care plan, and regularly reviewing the care plan to measure an individual’s progress and make updates as needed. Prioritize Continuity of Care and Consistent Support as Individuals Transition from Jail into the Community and Between Treatment Services: Harris County improved its continuum of mental health treatment and services after completing the Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) mapping exercise because the process identified gaps in services at crucial points. Building from that success, the County should engage in a similar mapping exercise to identify gaps in continuity of care as people transition from community-based and jail-based services include arrest, release from jail, and completion of a supportive program like diversion, residential treatment, or a reentry program. As part of the effort to improve continuity of care, Harris County should invest in initiatives that cross multiple service areas and engage community-based service providers. Community- based providers are crucial to providing services and treatment to people when they are involved with the criminal justice system and upon reentry (from jail, community supervision, or dismissal of a case). However, many providers lack the necessary resources to support greater continuity of care. The County could provide matching funds for grants, fund limited aspects of pilot programs, and/or provide planning and implementation funds for new approaches or strategies. 23 Align Law Enforcement Funding and Structure with County Goals The PFM team recommends the following steps to align law enforcement funding and structure with County goals: Limit Funding For, and Operation of, Constables to Non-Law Enforcement Responsibilities: Beginning for FY 2023, as part of a County-wide strategy to improve justice, safety, efficiency, effectiveness, and equity, Harris County should fund constable precincts for only their statutory civil and justice of the peace duties, with all law enforcement functions transferring to HCSO under the sheriff’s responsibility to maintain peace throughout the county. 22 As a start, funding for constable law enforcement functions should be transferred to HCSO, including but not limited to: constable primary patrol, contract patrol, park patrol, traffic patrol and enforcement (including HCTRA contracts), investigations, call taking, dispatch, task forces, property and evidence, specialized operations, and other law enforcement functions and technology. This approach is common among other large Texas counties and most Texas counties generally. To do so, the County should ensure that HCSO’s law enforcement staffing level is appropriately resourced to provide core safety and justice duties in unincorporated Harris County. The County can ensure that it both preserves the option for contract patrol, and balances that service with the fundamental requirement that the County provide sufficient primary patrol services to all unincorporated residents, not only those areas that can afford it. To do so, Harris County should combine this action with the PFM team’s Summary Report recommendation that HCSO only provide contract patrol services when a contract is 100 percent funded by the contracting entity (i.e., eliminate 70/30 and 80/20 percentage splits). With this approach, current constable patrol contracts could be absorbed by HCSO with additional personnel as the contracts come before the Commissioners Court in the next calendar year. To blunt some of the transition shock associated with this action, HCSO and HRRM should work to identify opportunities to phase-out certain positions through attrition to minimize the displacement of as many constable employees as possible. Current constable employees should have the opportunity to be considered as candidates to fill the positions that will be 22 As noted in the preliminary reports, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures places responsibility in the sheriff to maintain peace throughout the entire county (see: Texas Code of Criminal Procedures, Art. 2.17, accessed August 19, 2020, https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/SDocs/CODEOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE.pdf. While other law enforcement agencies within Harris County – including constables and incorporated law enforcement agencies – may legally refuse calls for service, HCSO cannot do so, even if the call comes from another jurisdiction within Harris County that is served by another police agency. This results in demand for Harris County Sheriff’s Office deputies to, at times, fill gaps in services provided by other law enforcement agencies in the County. Texas statute further dictates that county sheriffs be charged with patrolling highways that lie outside of the county seat, see “Chapter 701,” Texas Statutes, accessed August 19, 2020, https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.701.htm; Texas Statutes § 85.006, accessed August 19, 2020, https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/LG/htm/LG.85.htm#85.006e. Constables are independently elected and have statutory responsibilities that include providing bailiffs for justice of the peace courts and serving civil process. Constables are also authorized to provide law enforcement services, but do this to varying degrees across the state. 24 required in HCSO to adequately staff a coordinated, efficient law enforcement service for unincorporated Harris County. Additionally, constables should work to transfer individuals to unfilled, but necessary civil process and Justice Courts assignments. Reduce Number of Constables to the Norm Under the State Constitution and Redistrict Boundaries for Equitable and Efficient Delivery of Services: The Commissioners Court determines the boundaries and number of constable precincts in Harris County subject to the constitutional requirement for at least four precincts. In addition to consolidating County law enforcement functions under HCSO (see prior recommendation), Harris County should reduce the number of constable offices to four, and redistrict the new constable precincts to match the forthcoming revisions (post-2020 Census redistricting) to commissioner precincts. 23 While commissioner precincts are redistricted—and have been in Harris County following decennial Census results—according to published reports, the last major redistricting in Harris County constable precincts was in 1973. The composition, location, and diversity of Harris County has changed markedly since that time. Commissioner precincts were last redistricted after the 2010 Census. Together, the forthcoming 2020 decennial Census results, the Commissioners Court’s focus on re-thinking the County’s approach to the criminal justice system, and revising constable involvement in law enforcement functions provide a unique moment in time to take actions to fundamentally shift the County’s law enforcement operations. Increase Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Diversity of Law Enforcement Staff: All eight Constables should work as a unit with HRRM to develop a coordinated strategy to increase race, ethnicity, and gender representation throughout the ranks and among senior staff in particular. 24 A similar recommendation was made in the HCSO chapter of the Summary Report as a comparable lack of diversity was identified among HCSO’s patrol and corrections staff. Constables should first identify where racial and gender disparities begin or increase (e.g., at recruitment, in retention, in promotion) and develop targeted approaches to address the issue. Lack of demographic representation in the recruitment pool can be addressed through changes to where recruitment efforts are focused and the method of recruiting. Differences in retention rate may reflect work environment factors, pay, professional development, speed of advancement, or perception of opportunities for advancement. If differences in rate of advancement are identified, constables should examine the criteria being used to evaluate staff and make promotion decisions, as well as training and professional development opportunities. 23 This recommendation could impact the Justice of the Peace Courts. The potential impacts, beyond the scope of this engagement, would need to be examined as part of the County’s assessment of this action. 24 As noted above, this recommendation, like others in this report, reflects the constables’ current role in Harris County, not the recommended role once the County acts to limit constables’ role to non-law enforcement activities. 25 Improve Coordination and Collaboration The PFM team recommends the following steps to improve coordination and collaboration: Reorganize Harris County Pretrial Services’ Reporting Structure: HCPS’ has undergone three leadership changes since 2015, its caseload has increased ten-fold since 2016, and has a challenging relationship with some of the criminal courts. The department needs stronger County leadership to help it overcome these issues and evolve into a first-rate pretrial services agency. Harris County should implement county administrator structure recommended in the Final Report of the Operational Review. The County should place HCPS in a direct reporting relationship to the deputy county administrator of justice and safety. Once a permanent director is hired, and until the new county administrator structure is in place, the HCPS director should report to the director of JAD. This would allow JAD to provide greater administrative and data support as the department undergoes significant transitions due to the requirements of the ODonnell consent decree and the recommendations made in the Criminal Justice Review Summary Report. Provide Communications Support to Criminal Justice Entities: Harris County has a decentralized approach to external communications and media relations, which can result in inconsistent messaging that does not align with the County’s vision and goals, and there is a general lack of control over messaging. The absence of a communications strategy poses a real threat to the County’s ability to communicate a consistent message about justice and safety issues to the public. In the Final Report of the Operational Review, the PFM team recommended that the County’s Intergovernmental and Global Affairs (IGA) department develop a communications strategy on behalf of County departments. The strategy should promote the “story” of Harris County with key stakeholders. IGA can provide centralized support to departments with and without communications professionals, and guide messaging, draft and review press releases, and implement a communications and media strategy. Create a Criminal Justice Information Systems Multi-Year Strategic Plan: Modernizing and automating criminal justice processes and systems is a large undertaking, requiring time- intensive projects that involve many different entities within the system. There are significant logistical and financial barriers to making sweeping changes in a short period of time. Just as a capital plan lays out multiple years of investments, so too should the JTC develop and seek funding to lay out a multi-year strategy for technology improvements and governance. The JTC should develop a strategic plan that establishes priorities, sets measurable goals, guides decision-making, and ensures accountability for its actions. The members of the JTC, with leadership by its co-chairs in HCDCO, the CCCL, and the District Courts, should collaboratively develop the plan by identifying all the technology-related projects that are 26 needed, determining which will have the greatest impact on the operations of the system, and prioritizing the changes. The plan should identify the dependencies for each project (i.e., which projects need to precede others) and the associated costs. The JTC’s strategic plan should also reflect the other recommendations made in this Final Report and the Criminal Justice Review’s Summary Report that have technology elements. Increase Systems Integrations to Reduce Inefficient Operations: Harris County should prioritize greater integration of departmental information systems, data analysis, and external data sharing. Integrated data systems provide the information necessary to develop, implement and monitor criminal justice policy and programs. Integrating data systems addresses many of the common problems that inhibit system-wide data analysis, including inconsistent definitions of terms and lack of a unique identifier to link cases, defendants, etc. across systems. 25 The CCCL and the District Courts currently have departmental data warehouses that ingest data from other departments’ systems and JAD is currently building an inter-departmental data warehouse. Data warehouses consolidate and structure data from multiple sources to make reporting and analysis easier. The data warehouse currently being developed by JAD provides an opportunity to facilitate problem identification, performance measurement and systemic planning. CONCLUSION Harris County must develop and implement justice and safety policies that are effective and efficient in the advancement of both civil rights and civil order. Without both, neither can be achieved. In September 2020, the Commissioners Court adopted a clear goal for the County when it comes to both safety and justice: “Harris County will promote safe, healthy, thriving communities through restorative and evidence-based strategies that foster public trust, prevent violence and trauma, reduce racial and ethnic disparities, and minimize criminal justice system exposure where at all possible.” Historically, the County has invested significantly in the operations of its criminal justice system. Over the years, the majority of County employees have worked for a criminal justice entity and in FY 2020, 54 percent of General Fund expenditures were made by a criminal justice entity ($1.04 billion). Yet until recently, it was not clear what County taxpayers were getting for their investment. The largest city in the county—Houston—has the highest violent crime rate among the ten largest U.S. cities. It takes longer to resolve a criminal case in Harris County courts than in most other 25 Wickman, Aimee. 2013. The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Network Mini-Guide Series: Three Approaches to Integrated Data Systems. Arlington, VA: Justice Management Institute. 27 large Texas counties or in the state as a whole. And Harris County’s jail system holds more inmates per capita than all but four of the ten largest local jail systems in the nation. Harris County is taking steps to align its investment with its goals and the outcomes it seeks. It commissioned this Review to further that effort. The County has taken steps to transform its budget process to be more focused on outcomes. And numerous national organizations are currently partnering with the County on a variety of efforts at reform. There are real challenges facing Harris County’s efforts to reform—there are conflicting views of what justice and safety mean and it can be difficult to find common ground among more than 60 law enforcement agencies, 38 criminal court judges, 16 justices of the peace, and an elected district attorney, sheriff, and district clerk. But this is the time for the County to take bold, innovative steps with its approach to justice and safety. It must have the courage to end approaches that don’t reflect best practices and to push back against programs and policies that cause harm and deepen disparities. Harris County needs a criminal justice system that seeks to protect all of its residents in order to reach its goal of safe, healthy, thriving communities. It must build community capacity to be a part of the solution—the criminal justice system should not be the primary point of services and support. The County must invest in its community supports and resources in order to minimize criminal justice exposure. As this Final Report and the Criminal Justice Review’s preliminary reports have discussed, the County faces a series of structural, operational, and operational challenges that prevent it from maximizing efficiency, effectiveness, equity, and fairness. However, as this report and the Criminal Justice Review’s preliminary reports have shown, there is a strong foundation and willingness for change in Harris County. For Harris County’s criminal justice system to achieve better outcomes and minimize disparities, the criminal justice entities, in partnership with County departments and community-based organizations, must implement reforms to become more efficient, effective, equitable, and fair. By taking the steps detailed in this report, Harris County can position itself to take on both existing and future challenges. It can develop and deliver both justice and safety in order to achieve its goal of safe, healthy, thriving communities. 28 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW 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. 26 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. The Criminal Justice Review consists of seven reports, five of which focus on findings and two of which focus on recommendations and implementation. 27 • The first preliminary report (the “Organizational Assessment”) reviewed the organizational elements of each entity included in the Criminal Justice Review, emphasizing areas of responsibility, adherence to best practices, strategic priorities, technology maturity, and investment in personnel and funding. • The second preliminary report (the “Process and Performance Assessment”) 28 examined the methods each criminal justice entity uses to communicate internally and externally. Providing a more detailed look at the processes used to execute key operations and 26 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. 27 In June 2020, Harris County Commissioners Court voted to expand the scope of the Criminal Justice Review to include the eight Harris County constables. Due to the difference in start dates, the PFM team’s assessment of the constables was delivered in a separate report from the other preliminary reports. 28 The review of HCDAO in the Organizational Assessment was limited in scope and relied on information provided by County departments, publicly available information, and information that the PFM team learned from interviews with other criminal justice entities. Information about HCDAO’s processes and performance is not readily available online or through other public documents. As a result, HCDAO was not within scope of the Process and Performance Assessment nor the Summary Report. 29 services described in the Organizational Assessment, the report also measured each entity’s performance based on metrics submitted in the FY 2021 budget process. 29 • The third preliminary report (the “System Assessment”) examined the criminal justice system from a system-wide perspective to assess how system-level processes meet the needs of, and deliver services for, defendants and victims. In particular, the System Assessment focused on treatment and services available to justice-involved people with mental illness and/or substance use disorder, people recently released from jail, and people who are homeless. • The District Attorney Budget Memo provided Commissioners Court with a methodology for considering budget requests from the Harris County District Attorney’s Office (HCDAO), including potential data requests, questions to pose, and considerations for how an HCDAO request may impact system operations. • The Constables Initial Assessment analyzed constables’ law enforcement operational data, including known offense data, calls for service and arrest activity, and reviewed personnel, expenditures, and revenue for each constable precinct. • The Summary Report recommended actions to improve efficiency, effectiveness, equity, and fairness in each criminal justice entity. The report also identified areas that would benefit from additional in-depth analysis and provided an implementation plan to execute recommendations. • This Final Report identifies the highest-impact recommendations that affect the whole system, targeting system-wide gaps and overlaps in service delivery and opportunities for greater collaboration. 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. This involved collecting and analyzing volumes of data related to programs and services, processes, performance, spending, and personnel. The work was greatly aided by the cooperation of the leadership of each entity under review, who provided data and made themselves and line staff available for interviews, roundtable discussions and follow-up questions. The PFM team also sought out and interviewed internal and external stakeholders to solicit their views on system operations and performance. In total, the PFM team held 81 interviews with County employees, community organizations, and justice-involved individuals. 29During the FY 2022 budget process, all County departments submitted a new set of performance metrics to be reported on in subsequent budget cycles. Many of the submitted metrics were new and in some cases may require a new collection process. As a result, the Process and Performance Assessment analyzed performance based on measures submitted in the FY 2021 budget process. 30 In addition to its review of Harris County criminal justice entities, the PFM team also sought information from 10 benchmark jurisdictions—identified at the outset of the process in collaboration with the advisory committee—to collect data and other information to put the team’s findings related to Harris County into context. 30 While it is always difficult to establish “apples to apples” comparisons between jurisdictions, benchmarking can help identify potential issues for further review. In other words, benchmarking alone is not dispositive, but it can be informative. 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. Best practices were frequently based on the findings of national organizations—such as the American Bar Association, National Institute of Corrections, National Center for State Courts, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Brennan Center for Justice, Vera Institute of Justice, American Probation and Parole Association, National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies—or on academic research. 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 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. 31 For each preliminary report and the summary report, the PFM team provided a draft of the relevant chapter to entity leadership for review before developing a final version. This was done to ensure the accuracy of the data and information in the reports. Entities may disagree with the PFM team’s interpretation of the data, the conclusions based on the data, or the recommendations. Still, the team sought to ensure that each entity had every opportunity to correct errors and provide input. All entities did so, and their input was an important part of the review process. The findings and recommendations, however, are those of the PFM team alone. 30 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. 31 Letters from County Judge Hidalgo to benchmark jurisdictions soliciting their participation in the project were finalized on February 24, 2020—a little more than two weeks before the first declaration of a public health emergency. 31 In addition to the preliminary reports and the Summary Report, the PFM team was also tasked with developing this Final Report, which addresses three primary purposes: • Chapter 2 of the Final Report looks across the criminal justice system and identifies cross-cutting themes related to challenges and opportunities that affect multiple entities. • Based on the findings in the System Report and the Chapter 2 summary of system-wide challenges and opportunities, this Final Report makes a series of recommendations. This discussion can be found in Chapter 3, along with a plan and timeline for implementation. • In addition to system-wide recommendations, this Final Report will turn back to the department-level recommendations from the Summary Report. In total, the PFM team identified more than 70 recommendations with more than 250 detailed action steps across the chapters of the Summary Report. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of this report identify those recommendations with the highest impact—with the individual chapters devoted to immediate, near-term and long-term recommendations. 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. 32 • 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 ten largest jails. 33 However, in 2019 (the most recent year for which national data is available), the County Jail’s population was 181.2 per 100,000 residents, 34 well below the national average of 224 per 100,000. 35 32 Rice University Kinder Institute for Urban Research. 2018. Collaborations and Overlapping Services in Harris County Law Enforcement, Houston, TX: Rice University. Page 3. 33 “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. 34 Harris County Sheriff’s Office, “ADP 2014-2019” provided in response to PFM team information request, November 10, 2020. 35 Minton, Todd D., and Zhen Zeng. 2016. Jail Inmates in 2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Page 6. Zeng, Zhen and Todd D. Minton. 2021. Jail Inmates in 2019. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Page 1. 32 In 2019, the Harris County criminal justice system saw more than 100,000 bookings, 36 disposed of 78,283 criminal cases in the County Criminal Courts at Law (CCCL) and the District Courts, 37 supervised 12,964 pretrial defendants on personal bonds per day on average, 38 and housed 8,539 people in the jail per day on average. 39 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. FY 2020 Investment in Criminal Justice FY 2020 FY 2020 Criminal Justice Entity GF Expenditures Budgeted FTEs Constables $212,436,206 2,101.9 Law Sheriff’s Office - Patrol $230,973,852 2,207.5 Enforcement Sheriff's Office - Detention + Medical $319,569,404 3,062.6 Subtotal $762,979,462 7,372.0 County Criminal Courts at Law (incl OCM) $15,874,832 105.9 District Courts (All Divisions) $27,594,024 250.0 Courts Justice Courts $25,623,115 334.7 Subtotal $69,091,971 690.6 County Court Appointed Attorney Fees $5,479,552 N/A Indigent District Court Appointed Attorney Fees $48,827,102 N/A Defense Public Defender’s Office $16,121,419 144.5 Subtotal $70,428,073 144.5 36 Due to HCSO’s implementation of a new offender management system (OMS) in early 2019, the way intakes and bookings are captured differ throughout that 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 27, 2021, the Office has not been able to produce a final number. 37 Calculation derived from Court Activity Database available through Texas Office of Court Administration, accessed January 9, 2020, https://card.txcourts.gov/. 38 Harris County Pretrial Services, “HCPS Defendant Count, 2015-2020” provided in response to PFM team information request, August 19, 2020. 39 Harris County Sheriff’s Office, “ADP 2014-2019” provided in response to PFM team information request, November 10, 2020. 33 FY 2020 FY 2020 Criminal Justice Entity GF Expenditures Budgeted FTEs Community Supervision and Corrections $2,538,136 N/A Department District Attorney’s Office $89,260,454 807.9 Other District Clerk’s Office $35,161,141 537.0 Justice Administration Department $181,668 8.0 Pretrial Services $11,046,868 156.3 Subtotal $138,188,267 1,509.2 Total Criminal Justice Investment $1,040,687,773 9,716.3 Source: Harris County FY 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; Harris County Budget Management Department, Human Resources & Risk Management 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. An increase or decrease in arrests may impact the number of cases accepted for prosecution, docket size, need for indigent defense, and number of people supervised pretrial and post-disposition. Beyond arrest, decisions are made at each point in the legal process that increase or decrease each entity’s workload and speed of work. 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. Adjudication of a criminal case is an adversarial process: two opposing parties present their case before an impartial body charged with making a judgment. In other words, the prosecutor and defense counsel represent their respective parties in front of a judge or jury in anticipation of a disposition of guilty or not guilty for the defendant. 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 criminal 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 September 2020, the Commissioners Court took an initial step to communicate its goals for the criminal justice system. The Court adopted a County-wide vision statement that establishes the Court’s priorities and vision for the future, and it adopted a set of high-level goals for key aspects of county government that communicate how it aims to achieve its vision. The statements include a focus on equity, transparency, evidence-based practices, and a smaller 34 footprint, indicating to criminal justice leaders and the public the Court’s approach to criminal justice funding and policies. County-wide Vision Harris County will build a more dynamic, vibrant, and resilient community while being inclusive, equitable and transparent in all that we do. Justice and Safety Goal Harris County will promote safe, healthy, thriving communities through restorative and evidence-based strategies that foster public trust, prevent violence and trauma, reduce racial and ethnic disparities, and minimize criminal justice system exposure where at all possible. IMPACT OF HURRICANE HARVEY AND COVID-19 In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey inflicted significant damage on the Harris County Criminal Justice Center and Jury Assembly Plaza, among other County buildings. Damage to the Criminal Justice Center displaced HCDAO, the Public Defender’s Office (PDO), some of the Harris County District Clerk’s Office’s (HCDCO) operations, and holding cells used by the Harris County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO). HCDAO staff and their files relocated to multiple facilities for some time before they began leasing office space 1.5 miles from the Criminal Justice Center. Criminal District Courts judges and County Criminal Courts at Law (CCCL) judges were also significantly impacted long after the storm. Damage to the courtrooms resulted in judges rotating among available courtrooms in the Criminal Justice Center and the Civil Courthouse. Judges rotated courtrooms and alternated weeks hearing cases in which the defendant was released on bond and cases in which the defendant remained in jail pretrial. CCCL judges returned to their courtrooms full time only recently, in December 2020. 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. Still, the PFM team found that the 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. In some cases, 35 plea dispositions have been delayed due to COVID-19, despite significant changes in court operations to accommodate remote hearings: pleas in the CCCL typically require a hearing with the defendant physically present. 40 Statute allows for pleas by video conference, a process which is used occasionally by the CCCL, but is reportedly difficult to scale in part because of the relatively low number of misdemeanor defendants detained in jail. 41 A plea disposition requires the ability to collect signatures and thumbprints; this can be done in the Harris County Jail using tablets, but these are not as readily available for defendants in the community. The District Courts, which have a significant number of defendants detained in the Harris County Jail pretrial, developed a formal process for remote pleas for detained defendants in 2020 in coordination with HCSO and HCDCO. EXTERNAL STUDIES The PFM review occurs at a time of extraordinary interest in the Harris County criminal justice system from external researchers and partners. National funders—the MacArthur Foundation and Houston-based Arnold Ventures—have invested in a series of reforms. Academic and non-profit research organizations, including Harvard University, The Kinder Institute, Texas Southern University, Texas Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute, Vera Institute of Justice, Justice Management Institute, Burns Institute, and Pretrial Justice Institute have all either been engaged by the County or independently sought to study aspects of the system. In conducting the Criminal Justice Review, the PFM team spoke with representatives from most of these organizations and read relevant materials to ensure its research and findings were not presented in a vacuum. CONCLUSION Harris County is not unique among large counties in some of its challenges navigating the complex relationships and interrelated responsibilities of the criminal justice entities that constitute its criminal justice system. As this Introduction indicates, the term “system” is often a misnomer; it assumes that decisions are made collaboratively, and that decision-makers consider potential impacts on other criminal justice entities. Harris County’s criminal justice system’s policies, processes, information 40 Tex. Code of Crim. Proced. § 27.18. 41 County Criminal Courts at Law, email to the PFM team, March 15, 2021. 36 systems, and funding decisions are highly fragmented and are implemented by leaders who may have dissimilar, or even conflicting, priorities. In 2009, Justice Management Institute (JMI) conducted a comprehensive assessment of the Harris County criminal justice system and put forth a series of recommendations to reduce reliance on the jail, modernize information and communications technology, and increase capacity to analyze system-wide operations and performance. Harris County addressed many of the recommendations made in the report. The Commissioners Court swiftly adopted two of the report’s recommendations before the report was finalized, starting the process to create a public defender’s office and establishing a criminal justice coordinating council. Since then, the criminal justice system’s leaders have continued implementing many of the recommendations, which led to an increase in best and promising practices in the county. Chapter 2 of this report will discuss many of the same cross-cutting themes that JMI identified in its 2009 assessment. This is because, 12 years later, many of the issues facing the County persist. The improvements Harris County has made to the criminal justice system’s operations and priorities since 2009 position it well to take the necessary next steps toward a more efficient, effective, equitable, and fair system in the future. 37 CHAPTER 2: 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. For each of these findings, this report highlights examples from individual criminal justice entities, as detailed in the preliminary reports. All preliminary reports have been separately transmitted to the advisory committee and relevant chapters have been shared with the leadership of each criminal justice entity. HARRIS COUNTY HAS CREATED A FOUNDATION FOR CONTINUING REFORM AND IMPROVEMENT Harris County’s criminal justice system has evolved significantly since the last comprehensive review of its operations and policies in 2009, 42 and the Commissioners Court has recently invested in its criminal justice priorities in a manner largely consistent with its goal for justice and safety. Indigent defense is undergoing a fundamental change with the Court’s investment in PDO and holistic services and CCCL’s leadership in creating an Office of Managed Assigned Counsel 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. 42Justice Management Institute. 2009. Harris County Criminal Justice System Improvement Project: Phase 1 Report. Denver, CO: Justice Management Institute. 38 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 HCSO co- response models that pair licensed clinicians with law enforcement as a way to better respond to calls related to mental health, law enforcement has three options to make a decision other than arrest for some non-violent misdemeanor offenses. The Mental Health Jail Diversion Program and Misdemeanor Marijuana Diversion Program are deflection approaches that avoid arrest and filed charges. The cite and release policy allows deputies and officers to issue a citation rather than book someone in jail for a small number of Class A and Class B misdemeanor offenses. 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. As an example of an entity changing approaches, since 2013, HCCSCD has implemented a culture shift that reimagined the relationship between community service officers and people on community supervision. Leadership and staff report a significant change from old philosophies; community service officers are encouraged to support the needs of their clients rather than solely monitor compliance with conditions of probation. HCCSCD focuses on interventions intended to prevent clients from repeating detrimental behavior, rather than focusing solely on punishment to deter such behaviors. There are also examples of criminal justice leaders collaborating toward a single end. The County’s initial and subsequent applications to the SJC initiative to reduce jail population, the launch of the Responsive Interventions for Change (RIC) Docket and other specialty courts, the operations of the Justice Technology Committee, implementation of the CCCL’s amended Local Rule 9 and other ODonnell consent decree requirements, the conversion of JIMS to JWEB, and the County’s response to both Hurricane Harvey and COVID-19 have all required the coordination among the criminal justice entities. 39
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-