Interim Hearing Recaps

  

Below we provide short recaps of criminal and juvenile justice-related interim hearings that TCJC participated in or monitored:

Access to Public Records [Criminal Histories]

On November 12, 2014, the Senate Committee on Open Government held an interim hearing on a charge to “review the Texas Public Information Act to ensure access to public records and information by the public remains fully transparent, but that governmental entities have the authority to protect the privacy interests of citizens, including primary and higher education students, from improper public disclosure.”

While all other witnesses provided testimony regarding access to educational records, TCJC’s Sarah Pahl provided testimony on access to criminal records. She reviewed the current statutory structure that allows public access to criminal records, both by criminal justice agencies and by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), described the scope of Texas’ population affected by these policies, outlined the key problems with how bulk criminal records are released, and provided recommendations for policy change.

Nearly 12 million people are included in Texas’ criminal history record system, which is maintained by DPS; it includes records for those who were arrested but not convicted, those who have completed their sentences, and those who have shown stability and established themselves in their communities. All of these individuals face various obstacles that automatically accompany any kind of criminal record.

TCJC’s key concern with criminal justice agencies releasing criminal records to businesses that profit from the sale and distribution of those records is the fact that many of these records are incomplete or inaccurate. For example, DPS reported in 2013 that only 81% of Texas adult arrests in 2011 had a reported disposition—a problem that does not occur when DPS is the agency releasing records to the public, because DPS only releases records with final dispositions. Further, because DPS is the only agency required by statute to provide updates to the private entities to which it releases criminal records (such as orders of nondisclosure and expunction), businesses that only obtain records from local criminal justice agencies may never receive updates to criminal record information.

Sarah recommended to the Committee that DPS be the only clearinghouse for the bulk dissemination of criminal records, which will ensure uniformity in record dissemination and promote a meaningful opportunity to ensure that businesses comply with regulations put in place to protect the privacy interests of all Texans from improper public disclosure.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Sarah’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on the play button for “Senate Committee on Open Government” in the Senate Video/Video Archive for 11/12/14. Sarah’s testimony begins at 01:05:18.

Deferred Adjudication, Nondisclosure, and Expunctions

On October 23, 2014, the Senate Committee on Jurisprudence held an interim hearing on two charges, one of which was to “Study and make recommendations on the availability and application of deferred adjudication, orders for non-disclosure, and expunctions. Study extending the use of expunction of criminal records history and non-disclosures to certain qualified individuals with low-level, non-violent convictions.”

TCJC’s Elizabeth Henneke was invited to provide testimony. She explained that Texas created the nondisclosure and expunction system because Texans with criminal records will have difficulty, or be absolutely barred from, obtaining employment or a place to live, receiving a license for particular occupations, obtaining certain types of educational assistance, or receiving federal or state benefits for basic human needs. By sealing or destroying these criminal records, orders of nondisclosure and expunction are designed to give Texans a genuine second chance to live as responsible citizens.

Despite Texas’ noble intentions in creating the nondisclosure and expunction system, however, many barriers remain that prevent these orders from having their intended effect. Elizabeth made the following points in support:

  • The eligibility criteria to petition for an order of nondisclosure—which include successful completion of deferred adjudication, a waiting period of two to five years, and offense limitations—are strict and not available to everyone.
  • Few orders of nondisclosure are issued compared to the number of eligible offenses; the Texas Department of Public Safety received less than 9,000 nondisclosure orders during 2012 and 2013 despite the fact that over 100,000 cases were eligible.
  • Even when issued, orders of nondisclosure and expunction are not always effective in limiting access to criminal records, as many private entities sell criminal records but are not required to update their data to reflect orders of nondisclosure or expunction. This potentially results in the ongoing dissemination of restricted or inaccurate information.

To address these issues, Elizabeth first recommended reforms to the qualification and procedures related to orders of nondisclosure. These include expanding the eligibility criteria for nonviolent offenses, reducing waiting periods, prohibiting the forfeiture of the right to nondisclosure in plea agreements, and prohibiting third parties from asking individuals to request records that are subject to an order of nondisclosure. Second, Elizabeth recommended that judges be allowed to automatically expunge records for cases that do not result in conviction and for those who successfully complete specialty court programs.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Elizabeth’s testimony, and click here for a guide to the differences between nondisclosures and expunctions in Texas.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on the play button for “Senate Committee on Jurisprudence” in the Senate Video/Video Archive for 10/23/14. Elizabeth’s testimony begins at 03:27:58.

Decriminalizing Failure to Attend School

On October 23, 2014, the Senate Jurisprudence Committee held an interim hearing on two charges, including to “Study and make recommendations on the feasibility of removing failure to attend school (Section 25.094, Texas Education Code) as a Class C misdemeanor offense and determine the feasibility of adjudicating juvenile truancy as a civil offense.”

Although TCJC did not provide testimony during this hearing, we strongly support the recommendations provided by our colleagues at the Texas Public Policy Foundation:

  • Recommendation #1: Eliminate the mandatory filings associated with the offense of failure to attend school, which is triggered by a youth’s 10th unexcused absence.
  • Recommendation #2: Mandate a graduated sanctions framework – or a multi-tiered continuum of interventions – to more effectively address the underlying needs contributing to a youth’s truancy.
  • Recommendation #3: Eliminate “out-of-school” punishments for failure to attend school.
  • Recommendation #4: Decriminalize the failure to attend school.

We would also like to stress that a youth’s truancy is often indicative of a larger problem. For instance, attending school likely seems trivial for youth who are the primary caregiver of younger siblings, cousins, or a disabled guardian; for youth who are homeless and without a dining room table on which to complete homework; for youth who are being abused at home or who fear that an abuser will find them at school; and for youth who are disabled and who constantly struggle with the hardships of that disability.

By continuing to criminalize students for failing to attend school, we are only fanning the flames that these youth are struggling to extinguish. And after the smoke settles, youth are left with a criminal record and a lifetime of collateral consequences – including difficulties finding employment or furthering their education.

TCJC strongly encourages policy-makers to decriminalize failure to attend school and to work with school districts to determine tailored approaches for addressing the underlying needs associated with a student’s truancy.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on the play button for “Senate Committee on Jurisprudence” in the Senate Video/Video Archive for 10/23/14.

The Harris County Jail and the Texas Commission on Jail Standards

On October 20, 2014, the House Committee on County Affairs held an interim hearing on “the Texas Commission on Jail Standards and issues jails currently face, including the mental health of those in jail”; the Committee was also interested in learning more about a recent case in Harris County, where a probationer with mental health issues, jailed on a marijuana charge, was left in his cell for weeks without being let out.

The Committee invited testimony from TCJC, Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia, Texas Commission on Jail Standards Executive Director Brandon Wood, and Sheriffs’ Association of Texas President A.J. Louderback.

Sheriff Garcia outlined the internal measures that his Office has implemented to improve jail oversight and care of mentally ill inmates. He also spoke to the heavy burden on his jail (and other, ill-equipped jails) to care for individuals with mental health problems, who could be better treated outside of confinement, especially with a significantly improved, comprehensive, well-resourced mental health infrastructure in Texas.

Mr. Wood similarly stressed the burden on county practitioners, especially in rural counties, to provide individuals access to mental health services. According to Mr. Wood, county jail administrators reach out to the Commission on a daily basis for assistance in this area.

Sheriff Louderback briefly spoke, mentioning the substantial time, money, and personnel it is costing Texas sheriffs (and, in turn, the state) to address individuals with mental health issues, given the lack of comprehensive mental health resources in Texas; he noted that his organization will continue to aggressively advocate for improvements in this area until it is corrected.

TCJC’s Ana Yáñez-Correa emphasized the need to right-size Texas’ entire criminal justice system, which can significantly reduce the burden on county jails; among other items, she recommended more effectively addressing low-level drug offenses; requiring local behavioral health authorities to prioritize criminal justice system-involved clients and coordinate their efforts with other system practitioners; and improving access to mental health crisis beds. Dr. Ana Yáñez-Correa also recommended greater support for the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, including increased funding to bolster their jail monitoring and technical assistance efforts, as well as additional information from counties on jail conditions and investigations, which can better inform Commission assistance to particular jails.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Ana’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “County Affairs” in the Archived Videos section for 10/20/14. The hearing on this charge begins at 06:23:52, and Ana’s testimony begins at 06:52:44.

Texas Juvenile Justice Department Facilities and Processes

On October 8, 2014, the House Committee on Corrections held an interim hearing on a charge “to study and review the correctional facilities and processes within the Texas Juvenile Justice Department” (Department). TCJC’s Solutions for Youth Justice Team was among the three organizations (including the Department) that were invited to testify about the agency’s progress.

For years, TCJC has been closely monitoring the juvenile justice system in Texas, and we support the overall purpose and goals of the Department, as well as the direction that current juvenile justice reform is heading. Over the past 7 years, state run facilities have been shuttered, a significant number of youth have been diverted from long-term commitment and are now being served within their communities, and various measures have been put in place to ensure the safety and security of not youth and staff. Though the Department has traversed a bumpy road, these developments demonstrate that Texas’ juvenile justice system as a whole has come far.

It is important to note, however, that significant hurdles remain to be overcome. These hurdles include the following:

  • The inability of the Department to lose the stigma associated with the former Texas Youth Commission
  • The inability of the Department to find stability within central administration
  • The need for adequate measures to evaluate the overall success of the juvenile system
  • The need for increased safety, security, and training in state secure facilities
  • The need for true independent oversight of all facilities under the Department’s purview
  • The need to provide counties with technical assistance to improve youth outcomes

Overcoming these hurdles is not impossible and the Department’s efforts to do so should be seen as a marathon, not a sprint. At this juncture, the Department is in need of support, and TCJC strongly encourages advocates, practitioners, families, youth, and policy-makers alike to promote and invest in the Department’s success.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read the testimony provided by TCJC’s Solutions for Youth Justice Team, Jennifer Carreon and Elizabeth Henneke

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Corrections” in the Committee Broadcast Archives for 10/08/14. Elizabeth’s testimony begins at 01:43:35, and Jennifer’s testimony begins at 01:56:45.

The Impact of School Ticketing Legislation

On October 8, 2014, the House Committees on Corrections and Public Education held an interim hearing on a charge to “Study the impact of SB 393 (83R) and SB 1114 (83R). Assess the impact of school discipline and school-based policing on referrals to the municipal, justice, and juvenile courts, and identify judicial policies or initiatives designed to reduce referrals without having a negative impact on school safety.”

Authored with the intent to dismantle Texas’ school-to-prison pipeline, SB 393 prohibits school law enforcement from issuing citations to students for misbehavior that rises to the level of a Class C misdemeanor (e.g., the use of profanity or offensive gestures). Pursuant to SB 1114, law enforcement is likewise prohibited from charging a student with disruption of class or disruption of transportation if the disruption occurred on the student’s own campus.

As confirmed by the Office of Court Administration, these bills are working. In the past year, Justice of the Peace and Municipal courts have seen an 83% drop in the number of cases being filed against students for their misbehavior. Given the unlikelihood that students simply stopped engaging in misconduct, it seems more plausible that the reduction in filings is a direct result of the legislation. Unfortunately, this decrease speaks to a much larger dilemma, which is that Texas public schools have become over-reliant on law enforcement to manage student misbehavior.

TCJC strongly believes in the old adage that “kids WILL BE kids,” and that common adolescent misbehavior should be dealt with in the school setting, not in the courtroom. But there is still much to be done. As evidenced by the testimony given in this hearing, practitioners – particularly school law enforcement and school administrators – have expressed concerns about effectively addressing student misbehavior without the ability to issue criminal citations.

Jennifer Carreon, TCJC’s Youth Justice Policy Researcher, was invited to provide testimony and spoke to practitioners’ concerns, emphasizing the need to mandate (rather than permit) graduated sanctions – or a multi-tiered continuum of interventions – to not only ensure accountability but also address the underlying problems associated with students’ misbehavior.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Jennifer’s testimony

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Joint Hearing: Corrections and Public Education” in the Committee Broadcast Archives for 10/08/14. Jennifer’s testimony begins at 02:05:55.

State Jails and Community Supervision

On October 7, 2014, the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence held an interim hearing on five charges, one of which was to “Examine the utilization of community supervision in state jail felonies and the effectiveness of the state jail in light of its original purpose.”

The Committee heard limited testimony on state jails and community supervision from TCJC, the Texas District and County Attorneys Association (TDCAA), and the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for Effective Justice (CEJ). CEJ’s Marc Levin offered suggestions to structurally reform state jails, including by returning to the original model of state jails where individuals were initially sentenced to probation and only incarcerated when probations conditions were violated. The greatest challenge in returning to this model is budgetary limitations. Marc also advocated for the use of commitment reductions plans in limiting the number of individuals incarcerated in state jails.

TDCAA’s Shannon Edmonds argued that, when state jails were created, they were intended to be therapeutic communities but were never sufficiently funded.

TCJC’s Sarah Pahl was invited to testify. She stressed that state jails are expensive, ineffective, and improperly utilized. State jails are far more expensive than community-based alternatives and have higher recidivism rates than both community supervision and prisons. TCJC also believes that state jails are improperly used: About half of individuals housed in state jail facilities are serving time for crimes that are not state jail felonies, and they are not receiving the programming and services they should be receiving in prison facilities. Recommendations submitted to the Committee include incentivizing individuals with certain nonviolent state jail felonies to complete probation by offering the opportunity to reduce the state jail felony to a Class A misdemeanor; allowing the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to award credits for participation in available self-improvement programming in state jails; and creating an advisory committee to examine the state jail system and make recommendations for its improvement.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Sarah’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Criminal Jurisprudence” in the Committee Broadcast Archives for 10/07/14. Sarah’s testimony begins at 05:19:20.

Graffiti Offenses

On October 7, 2014, the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence held an interim hearing on five charges, one of which was to “Examine the current pecuniary loss thresholds associated with graffiti offenses [and to] study the costs of enhancing the penalties associated with the offense of graffiti, as well as a study of pretrial diversion programs that exist in other states and are specific to persons convicted of graffiti offenses.”

TCJC’s Jorge Renaud was invited to present testimony. He informed the Committee that current approaches to graffiti, along with attempts to enhance graffiti penalties, imposed costs to individuals and communities far beyond those involved in simply cleaning up graffiti damage. Jorge made the following points:

  • Graffiti convictions leave create unjust lifelong consequences for those, mostly youth, who are caught, charged, and convicted.
  • Graffiti convictions provide little incentive to change.
  • Graffiti convictions do not take into consideration the preferences of those whose property has been damaged by graffiti, nor does it fit their idea of true restitution, which often takes the form of physical restoration of their property by graffitists.

Graffiti costs Texas cities millions of dollars yearly, pointing to the need to focus on prevention measures. Jorge told the Committee that there were two alternative approaches that seemed to be productive: (1) prevention through diversion into arts programming, and (2) a rapid-response model. The first involves diverting those convicted of graffiti into programs that would challenge them to develop and use their artistic abilities and create community-focused murals, while still requiring them to do community service in the form of graffiti cleanup. The second, used in Corpus Christi and the Greater East End Management District of Harris County, requires investment in a team of cleanup workers who scour graffiti from buildings within 48-72 hours of its discovery.

Jorge also recommended that the Committee explore the possibility of creating a Class C misdemeanor category for graffiti. Currently, the minimum punishment for graffiti, even the very minimal act of pasting a decal on a public sign, is a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of up to 18 months in jail and a $2,000 fine.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Jorge’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Criminal Jurisprudence” in the Committee Broadcast Archives for 10/07/14. Jorge’s testimony begins at 04:59:23.

Nondisclosure and Expunction

On October 7, 2014, the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence held an interim hearing on five charges, one of which was to “Study the effectiveness of deferred adjudication and orders for non-disclosure in spite of the many exceptions to the statute. Study extending the use of expunction of criminal records history and non-disclosures to certain qualified individuals with low-level, non-violent convictions.”

The Committee heard testimony from many individuals and organizations, including TCJC, UT Law School’s William Wayne Justice Center for Public Interest Law, the City of Houston, Texas Family Council, the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (TCDLA), the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for Effective Justice, Law Office of Richard Tenenbown, Law Office of Paul Quinzi, the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, and the Texas Department of Safety.

Several witnesses, including Houston municipal judge David Fraga and TCDLA’s Patricia Cummings, raised concerns about the procedure and cost involved in obtaining expunction orders. Judge Fraga expressed his desire to sign orders of expunction in the municipal court, rather than sending petitioners to the district court to initiate additional proceedings and pay additional costs. Further, Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Marc Levin explained why the waiting periods required to petition for an order of nondisclosure should be shortened or eliminated.

TCJC’s Sarah Pahl was invited to present testimony. She highlighted the challenges involved in obtaining orders of nondisclosure and the fact that few orders of nondisclosure are issued compared to the number of offenses eligible for nondisclosure. She also explained that, even when issued, orders of nondisclosure and expunction are not always effective in limiting access to criminal records, potentially resulting in the ongoing dissemination of restricted or inaccurate information. TCJC recommended to the Committee that the qualifications and procedures related to orders of nondisclosure be reformed in various ways: by expanding the eligibility criteria for nonviolent offenses and reducing waiting times before being permitted to petition for orders of nondisclosure; by prohibiting the forfeiture of the right to nondisclosure in plea agreements; and by prohibiting third parties from asking individuals to request records that are subject to an order of nondisclosure. TCJC also recommended that judges be allowed to expunge records for cases that do not result in conviction and for those who successfully complete specialty court programs.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Sarah’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Criminal Jurisprudence” in the Committee Broadcast Archives for 10/07/14. Sarah’s testimony begins at 03:35:47.

Sale of Criminal Histories

On October 7, 2014, the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence held an interim hearing on five charges, one of which was to “Study the impact of SB 1289 (83R). Examine the sale of criminal histories that may be erroneous as well as the lasting impact that arrest records have on individuals who are arrested but not charged or convicted.”

The Committee heard testimony from a wide array of organizations and agencies, including TCJC, PublicData.com, Texas Public Policy Foundation Center for Effective Justice, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (TCDLA), Law Office of Paul Quinzi, Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), Texas Office of Court Administration (OCA), County and District Clerks Association of Texas, UT Law School’s William Wayne Justice Center for Public Interest Law, and Texas Family Council.

Bruce Stringfellow of PublicData.com testified that the company’s “appetite is large” and it requests records from every entity it can, including DPS and county and district clerks. All data is collected under the Public Information Act. He further explained that PublicData.com does not have a procedure to address inaccurate or incomplete information, but it updates its information as often as agencies will provide updates, usually monthly or weekly. When individuals want to pursue a remedy against the company for the dissemination of inaccurate information, their only option is to file suit. Committee Chair Abel Herrero voiced concern regarding those who are negatively affected by this practice.

Other witnesses responded to Mr. Stringfellow’s testimony, including Ted Wood of the Office of Court Administration. He said that, although the phrase “sale of criminal histories” sounds like a moneymaking operation for counties, it is a burdensome and time-consuming task for many of them. Further, Sheri Woodfin of the County and District Clerks Association of Texas reported that counties receive very little money for the records they provide under the Public Information Act and go through “a lot of trouble” to provide the records. She testified that it would not be a detriment to county and district clerks to stop selling records.

TCJC’s Sarah Pahl was invited to present testimony. She discussed the impact of SB 1289 on the sale of criminal records and how, while taking steps in the right direction, the bill did not go far enough to protect people from incomplete or erroneous criminal records being sold and disseminated. SB 1289, codified in Chapter 109 of the Business and Commerce Code, only applies to business entities that require payment of a fee to remove, correct, or modify criminal record information, meaning that any business that refuses to accept payment to update records is not bound by this law. Sarah also described the irregular and erratic policies currently governing the sale and distribution of criminal records and provided practical recommendations for easing the unfair burden placed on many with criminal records. Some of the presented recommendations include: restrict the sale of criminal history record information to private entities until a final case disposition is entered; prohibit the bulk sale of criminal history record information and mug shots or, alternatively, allow the Texas Department of Public Safety to be the only clearinghouse for the sale of criminal records; and reform the qualifications and procedures related to orders of nondisclosure and expunction.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Sarah’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Criminal Jurisprudence” in the Committee Broadcast Archives for 10/07/14. Sarah’s testimony begins at 02:58:27.

The Rule of Lenity

On October 7, 2014, the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence held an interim hearing on five charges, one of which was to “Evaluate the approximately 1,500 non-traditional criminal offenses that can be found outside of the Penal Code. Study the feasibility of streamlining these offenses and examine ambiguities in the law. Study the existing use of the Rule of Lenity and Mens Rea requirements in Texas and the benefit of codifying both of these standards.”

The Committee heard testimony from many individuals and organizations, including TCJC, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Texas District and County Attorneys Association, and the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer’s Association (TCDLA).

TCJC’s Elizabeth Henneke was invited to present testimony on the Rule of Lenity. The Rule of Lenity is a tool that courts employ when trying to interpret ambiguous statutes, rules, or codes related to criminal conduct. The Rule is simple: If the meaning of a statute is unclear after a court has employed all other legitimate tools of interpretation, the court must choose the interpretation most favorable to the defendant.

TCJC recommended to the Committee that Texas should codify the Rule of Lenity by adding it to the Code of Construction, making clear to courts its importance in protecting the rights of defendants to avoid prosecution pursuant to ambiguous laws. TCJC stressed that this Rule should only apply after all the legitimate tools of interpretation have been applied and a “reasonable doubt persists.” Finally, TCJC clarified that the Rule of Lenity should apply to all statutes, rules, and codes that result in punishment, including the Penal Code and the Controlled Substances Act. Because the Rule of Lenity is merely a longstanding rule of statutory interpretation and by itself conveys no substantive right to defendants, TCJC sees no justification for limiting its applicability in one area versus another.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Elizabeth’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Criminal Jurisprudence” in the Committee Broadcast Archives for 10/07/14. Elizabeth’s testimony begins at 00:57:30.

Personal Data Collection & Sharing [Criminal Records]

On September 16, 2014, the Senate Committee on State Affairs held an interim hearing on four charges, one of which was to “Examine possible reforms designed to increase citizens’ ability to know what data is being collected about them by governmental and commercial entities and with whom that data is being shared, including an analysis of consumer informed consent. Examine related measures proposed or passed in other states.”

The Committee invited testimony from Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, the University of Texas Law School’s William Wayne Justice Center for Public Interest Law, the Law Office of Paul Quinzi, Data Foundry, and McCollough Henry P.C.

TCJC’s Sarah Pahl informed the Committee of the vast number of individuals who are affected by the current system of storing and selling criminal records, described the irregular and erratic policies currently governing the sale and distribution of criminal records, and provided practical recommendations for easing the unfair burden placed on many with criminal records. Some of the presented recommendations include: restrict the sale of criminal history record information to private entities until a final case disposition is entered; prohibit the bulk sale of criminal history record information and mug shots or, alternatively, allow the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) to be the only clearinghouse for the sale of criminal records; and reform the qualifications and procedures related to orders of nondisclosure and expunction.

Similarly, Helen Gaebler from the University of Texas School of Law shared findings from her report, Criminal Records in the Digital Age: A Review of Current Practices and Recommendations for Reform in Texas, suggesting that Texas ban, or, alternatively, closely regulate, the bulk dissemination of criminal records. Paul Quinzi, an Austin-based criminal defense attorney who specializes in nondisclosure and expunction petitions, also provided a practical perspective of the consequences that arise from Texas’ system when the sale and dissemination of criminal records are not effectively regulated, even when they are subject to orders of nondisclosure or expunction.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Sarah’s testimony, and click here for a guide to the differences between nondisclosures and expunctions in Texas.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on the play button for “Senate Committee on State Affairs” in the Senate Video/Video Archive for 09/16/14. Sarah’s testimony begins at 00:13:05.

Grits for Breakfast Recap: Click here to check out the Grits for Breakfast review of Sarah’s testimony and recommendations.

Programs to Improve Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services

On August 15, 2014, the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services held an interim hearing on three charges, one of which was to “monitor the implementation of programs that were created or expanded by the 83rd Legislature to improve mental health and substance abuse services” and to “identify and address gaps in the current mental health and substance abuse system and make recommendations to better coordinate services across agencies and programs.”

The Committee invited testimony from the Department of State Health Services (DSHS), the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), the Sunset Advisory Commission, and the Meadows Mental Health Institute for Texas.

TCJC’s Sarah Pahl provided public testimony, along with representatives from other nonprofit advocacy organizations and service providers, including the Center for Public Policy Priorities, the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, Easter Seals of Central Texas, Charlie’s Place Recovery Center, Texans Care for Children, Texas Council of Community Centers, and Mental Health America of Texas.

DSHS Assistant Commissioner Lauren Lancefield Lewis stated that over 2% of the adult population in Texas has severe and persistent mental illness and 31% have received services through DSHS. Similarly, almost 5% of Texas children have severe emotional disturbance and 27% have received services through DSHS. Further, DSHS estimates that over 9% of adults and 8% of children in Texas have chemical dependency issues, while only 3% of adults and 4% of children with chemical dependency issues have received services from DSHS. (See DSHS’s full presentation here.)

Sonja Gaines, HHSC Associate Commissioner for Mental Health Coordination, identified some of the challenges in Texas’ behavioral health system. She stated that the current system lacks a unified vision and system oversight across state agencies: there is a lack of long-range sustainability planning; there are an absence of consistent, formalized, cross-agency approaches and processes; there are cumbersome performance and outcome measures; and the network service is inadequate to meet present demands. Additionally, accurate data is not maintained across state agencies; current systems and funding methods poorly address co-occurring issues for complex and at-risk populations; and there is no single information source to access mental health services. (See HHSC’s full presentation here.)

Sarah Pahl reminded committee members that many individuals struggling with mental illness and chemical dependency have experienced trauma and tend to self-medicate by abusing drugs, and she provided feedback on several bills passed by the 83rd Legislature related to mental health and substance abuse in criminal justice settings. She also made several recommendations to the Committee regarding effective and safe solutions to serving individuals in the criminal justice system, including investing in diversion programs, such as pretrial and pre-booking programs, specially trained law enforcement officers and Crisis Intervention Response Teams, and sobering programs; expanding judge’s ability to sentence individuals to tailored supervision and treatment; fully implementing a standardized assessment instrument to inform case management and treatment plans; providing adequate training and support to staff throughout the criminal justice system; and equipping the community to respond to the needs of those with co-occurring disorders.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Sarah’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on the play button for “Senate Committee on Health and Human Services” in the Senate Video/Video Archive for 08/15/14. Sarah’s testimony begins at 03:40:45.

Draft Legislation to Address Texas’ Driver Responsibility Program (DRP)

On August 5, 2014, the House Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety met to hear testimony on various topics, including “draft legislation regarding the Driver Responsibility Program.”

TCJC Policy Consultant Scott Henson provided oral testimony on our behalf, arguing that the draft bill language does not go far enough to address the failed DRP.

Grits for Breakfast Recap: Click here to read Scott’s own write-up of the hearing on his blog, Grits for Breakfast.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Homeland Security & Public Safety” in the Archived Videos section for 08/05/14. Skip ahead to the 01:17:55 mark for the section of the hearing on the DRP. Scott’s testimony begins at 02:31:40.

Media Coverage: Click here to read the Dallas Morning News’ coverage of the hearing, and here for Texas Public Radio coverage.

To learn more about Texas’ failed Driver Responsibility Program, click here to visit our site solely dedicated to the DRP.

Reporting by State Agencies

On June 18, 2014, the Senate Committee on Government Organization held an interim hearing on two charges, one of which was to “examine state agencies’ mandated reporting practices, the necessity and utility of these reports, and reporting processes to the legislature and to the public.” In addition, witnesses were asked to make recommendations that would improve transparency and reduce state costs through the use of technology.

The Committee invited TCJC and other panelists to testify on agencies’ mandated reporting practices and offer suggestions to improve transparency. Our co-panelists included Talmadge Heflin, Director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation; Bob Kafka with ADAPT; Rene Lara, Legislative and Political Director of the AFL-CIO; and Kelly Shannon, Executive Director of the Freedom of Information Foundation.

Talmadge Heflin spoke to the necessity of allowing citizens more transparency when it comes to the budget. He focused on the fact that most state agency budgets are not itemized to the point where citizens and legislators can quickly and with a certainty determine how much a given program may cost, thus leaving it impossible to properly evaluate a program. Heflin also said the budget needed to be online and updated in real-time.

Bob Kafka discussed the problems that people with certain disabilities have in accessing reports that might be vital to them, especially if these people live in rural areas of Texas with limited access to the Internet. He said the Department of Health and Human Services did not adequately provide information to people with disabilities as quickly as it should, and that other reporting formats must be explored.

Rene Lara explored the specter of privatization; he asked the Committee to ensure that companies that contract with state agencies are held to the same standards as state agencies in terms of providing information to the public. Kelley Shannon said that, by and large, Texas is one of the country’s leaders when it comes to allowing the public to access information, and that it is uncertain what could be done to strengthen existing standards.

TCJC’s Jorge Renaud focused on state criminal justice agencies, asserting that any report from the major criminal justice agencies must have data that is accurate, timely, complete, and easily accessible. TCJC also addressed two other areas: (1) freedom of information requests, which often reveal information that is NOT available; and (2) information made available to the general public via websites and information packets, much of which is outdated, inaccessible, or simply wrong.

Jorge made 4 specific recommendations to the Committee: that agencies provide an explanation in the event they are unable to produce a mandated report; that the Board of Pardons and Paroles provide more detailed data about revocations; that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice appoint staff to continually test and update the information it provides to the families of incarcerated individuals; and that juvenile agency reporting requirements are streamlined to ensure the provision of critical county-level data.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Jorge’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Senate Committee on Government Organization” in the Senate Video/Video Archive for 06/18/14. Jorge’s testimony begins at 00:29:10.

The Implementation of New School Ticketing Bills

On June 3, 2014, the Senate Committee on Jurisprudence held an interim hearing on a charge to “monitor the implementation of Senate Bill 393 and Senate Bill 1114 and determine if any statutory changes are necessary to clarify the intent of this legislation.” In 2013, the Texas Legislature passed SB 393 and SB 1114, which prohibit the issuance of Class C misdemeanors by school law enforcement to manage student misbehavior. Instead, school law enforcement have been encouraged to utilize graduated sanctions to address misconduct that rises to the level of a Class C misdemeanor (e.g., the use of profanity or offensive gestures).

With the school year coming to a close, the Committee was interested in hearing whether school districts have begun to implement graduated sanctions and whether any changes are necessary to ensure that school districts are complying with legislative intent. Relevant agency heads, school district administrators, school law enforcement, and youth advocates were all in attendance. As David Slayton from the Office of Court administration indicated, SB 393 and SB 1114 “are working.” Education Code violations (e.g., disruption of class) fell 71% from the 2012-2013 school year; similarly, non-traffic misdemeanors (e.g., disorderly conduct) fell 14%, and all other minor offenses fell 67%.

TCJC’s Jennifer Carreon provided testimony, detailing the difficulty in determining what challenges may be facing school police departments seeking to implement the new bills, largely due to a lack of data being collected on school discipline by both school districts and school law enforcement. However, we did reveal that, based on TCJC’s preliminary survey findings of school police departments, it is likely that Texas is seeing a decrease in citations as a direct result of the legislation, with the use of a formal complaint process being used in lieu of citation. Unfortunately, it appears that few departments are implementing progressive sanctions, which can go even further towards addressing school misbehavior.

Committee Chairman Royce West indicated that a “golden standard” should be created in regard to how school law enforcement adhere to this legislation – and we concur. By opting to not use the complaint process put forth by SB 393, nor the permissible graduated sanctions, school law enforcement agencies will continue to feel as if their hands are tied. Yet these two pieces of legislation have made it clear that managing student misbehavior is a matter for the school, not criminal courts.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Jennifer’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on ” Senate Committee on Jurisprudence ” in the Senate Video/Video Archive for 06/03/14.

Processes Within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

On May 29, 2014, the House Committee on Corrections held an interim hearing on a charge to “study and review the correctional facilities and processes within Texas Department of Criminal Justice . . . with an emphasis on efficiencies, effectiveness, and recidivism.” The Committee narrowed the scope of the hearing to nine specific issues, including services for health and rehabilitation, administrative segregation, weather conditions, education and vocational training, visitation, and reentry issues. Representatives from state agencies, for-profit and nonprofit service providers, and advocacy organizations, including both Jorge Renaud, TCJC Policy Analyst, and Sarah Pahl, TCJC Policy Attorney, provided testimony.

TCJC recently completed several surveys of various populations affected by Texas Department of Criminal Justice policies, the preliminary findings of which were presented to the Committee. For instance, TCJC recently completed a survey of those affected by the Department’s visitation policies – both those incarcerated as well as family members and friends of incarcerated individuals – which found that almost 85% of those visiting loved ones at a Department facility were women, and 35% traveled more than four hours to visit. Additionally, at least 60% of visitors brought children to the visit; 30% of those children were under the age of three.

TCJC also recently completed a comprehensive survey of incarcerated women, which found that 82% received treatment from a psychiatrist or doctor before entering confinement, and 48% received substance abuse treatment prior to incarceration.

Finally, TCJC surveyed incarcerated youth and discovered that those who are kept in the juvenile justice system feel they are provided with more adequate health care than their counterparts who serve time in the adult criminal justice system.

TCJC submitted research and made recommendations regarding services for health and rehabilitation, reentry barriers, and visitation. Specifically, TCJC recommended that changes in visitation policies should be informed by family members and friends of incarcerated individuals, and that any changes made should be implemented system-wide. TCJC also recommended that women and youth should receive adequate health care services; that the current prison population should be right-sized by diverting individuals with mental health and substance abuse issues to community-based treatment; that liability for landlords who choose to rent to individuals with a criminal record should be limited; that funding for reentry programs and case managers should be strengthened; that a statewide “ban the box” policy should be implemented; and that the sale of mug shots and criminal records should be prohibited.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Sarah’s testimony and click here to read Jorge’s special report on TCJC’s visitation survey.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Corrections” in the Archived Videos section for 05/29/2014.

The Correctional Managed Health Care System

On May 29, 2014, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Article I, IV, & V and the House Committee on Corrections held a joint interim hearing on a charge to “monitor the administration of the Correctional Managed Health Care system and examine forecasts for short and long-term criminal justice populations and health care cost trends.”

The Committees heard invited testimony only, including from TCJC’s Jennifer Carreon, as well as from representatives of the State’s Legislative Budget Board, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the University of Texas Medical Branch, the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, the Texas Civil Rights Project, and the Texas Inmate Families Association.

While committee members asked various questions of all the witnesses, the hearing came down to two questions: (1) What can be done to control the costs of healthcare? And (2) Have we reached a level of comfort with the health care services being provided to incarcerated individuals?

In response to Question 1, TCJC testified that, by “right-sizing” the system – including by diverting individuals who can be more effectively served in their community, and by transitioning out individuals who drive up health care costs but pose no threat to public safety – the Legislature can save money and ensure adequate health care for those who require secure supervision.

As for the second question, the answer was a definitive no!

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Jennifer’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Joint Hearing: Appropriations – S/C on Articles I, IV, & V and Corrections” in the Archived Videos section for 05/29/14.

County Jails & the Prison Rape Elimination Act

On May 5, 2014, the House Committee on County Affairs held an interim hearing to consider “issues jails currently face, including the mental health of those in jail, and make recommendations for refinement or improvement of processes and programs.” Elizabeth A. Henneke, TCJC Policy Attorney, was invited to provide testimony on TCJC’s behalf. She addressed implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) at the county level.

In September 2003, the U.S. Congress unanimously passed PREA, a federal statute aimed at preventing sexual assault and victimization in juvenile facilities, adult prisons, jails, lockups, and other detention facilities. In 2012, as part of the implementation of PREA, the Department of Justice adopted a series of national standards intended to prevent, detect, and respond to prison rape. Governors were asked to certify their state’s full compliance with the standards by May 15, 2014, or lose five percent of any Department of Justice grant funds that it would otherwise receive for prison purposes.

While there is no penalty to the state for facilities outside the state’s operational control, such as county controlled facilities, counties may still be vulnerable to private litigation for noncompliance.

TCJC recommended that the Committee support Texas counties’ efforts to comply with PREA by providing assistance for counties to bring physical facilities into compliance and facilitating training and technical assistance on PREA’s requirements. We also urged the Committee to support efforts to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction from 17 to 18 years old, which would reduce the burden on counties struggling to comply with PREA standards that require “sight and sound” separation between youth under 18 and adults over 18. Finally, TCJC recommended expanding the jurisdiction of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards and the Ombudsman for the Texas Juvenile Justice Department so that they may provide PREA audits at no cost to counties.

Texas Governor Rick Perry sent a letter on May 16, 2014, to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, indicating that Texas would not comply with PREA; he noted concerns with the standards on cross-gender viewing, youthful offenders, and staffing ratios. TCJC continues to support efforts to comply with PREA, recognizing that the failure to comply may still subject state and local facilities to costly litigation.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Elizabeth’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “County Affairs” in the Archived Videos section for 05/05/14. The hearing on this charge begins immediately and Elizabeth’s testimony begins at 00:44:45.

Media Coverage: Click here to read the San Angelo Standard-Times’ article about the hearing, and click here to read coverage in Grits for Breakfast.

Cite-and-Summons Policies

On May 5, 2014, the House Committee on County Affairs held an interim hearing on a charge to “determine which counties have implemented a cite-and-summons policy, whether the policy has been effective in lessening overcrowding in county jails, and whether those cited by peace officers comply with the policy.”

In 2007, faced with problems associated with prison and jail overcrowding, Texas policy-makers united under the banner of reform, passing several bills and local policies aimed at safely lowering the number of people currently incarcerated while safeguarding against overcrowding in the future. One such strategy was HB 2391. The bill, now codified into Article 14.06 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, permits law enforcement officers to give eligible county residents a ticket rather than arrest and book them for certain nonviolent offenses.

Judges, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, professors, advocates, and community members alike filled the room to provide testimony about the effectiveness of the Cite-and-Summons legislation. Elizabeth A. Henneke, TCJC Policy Attorney, was invited to provide testimony on TCJC’s behalf.

TCJC recommended expanded use of Cite-and-Summons, but recognized that this unique procedure would not alone cure jail overcrowding. TCJC recommended re-designating some Class B misdemeanors as Class C misdemeanors. Class C misdemeanors are punishable by a fine only, which people can pay by mail, and which do not necessitate costly pretrial incarceration; on the other hand, Class B misdemeanors carry a possible jail sentence, and thus typically involve formal arrest, as well as potential indigent defense costs, paid by the county.

Finally, TCJC urged the Committee to consider creating a civil citation option, such as that utilized in Florida. Several years ago, Florida implemented this option for juveniles and it has recently been expanded to adults. It has the same merits of a Class C misdemeanor in that it holds individuals accountable, but they are not left with the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction.

Ultimately, TCJC agreed with multiple witnesses and statements by several legislators that the best way to reduce incarceration is to lower the penalties—and associated collateral consequences—for some nonviolent offenses.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “County Affairs” in the Archived Videos section for 05/05/14. The hearing on this charge begins at 04:57:00 and Elizabeth’s testimony begins at 05:21:10.

Expanding Limitation of Liability to Landlords

On April 28, 2014, the House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence held an interim hearing on a charge to “study the potential issues involving civil liability for interacting with ex-offenders,” and to “examine the implications of H.B. 1188 (83R) and the potential expansion of similar protections to landlords.” The Committee invited testimony from the Texas Apartment Association, the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and TCJC. Sarah Pahl, Policy Attorney, provided testimony on TCJC’s behalf.

While Beth Van Winkle, the representative from the Texas Apartment Association, stressed the Association’s past actions to help individuals with a criminal record access housing, she indicated that it is “absolutely essential” that rental property owners have “no duty” to lease to an individual who has been “arrested, convicted, or otherwise adjudicated for a crime.” Mark Kincaid of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association stated that this language “seems to go counter to the purpose of [the] bill.” TCJC agrees with Mr. Kincaid and opposes any language that could be used to insulate landlords who deny housing to those with arrests, criminal convictions, or deferred adjudications merely as a guise for denying housing based on a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act.

TCJC recommended that the limitation on liability provided to employers should be extended to landlords who choose to lease or rent to individuals with a criminal record in order to help such individuals stabilize their living situation, better support their families, and live law-abiding lives in our communities.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Sarah’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence” in the Archived Videos section for 04/28/14. The hearing begins at 04:50:00 and Sarah’s testimony begins at 00:24:30.

Media Coverage: Click here to watch KVUE Austin’s coverage of the hearing, with an interview with TCJC’s own Sarah Pahl.

Co-Occurring Mental Health & Substance Abuse Disorders

On April 22, 2014, the House Committee on Corrections and the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence held a joint interim hearing on a charge to “examine the association between co-occurring serious mental illness and substance abuse disorders and parole revocation among inmates from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.” Representatives from state agencies, local jurisdictions, medical and mental health organizations, substance abuse service providers, and advocacy organizations, including Sarah Pahl, TCJC’s Policy Attorney, provided testimony on the issue.

The feedback from all witnesses was overwhelming: There is an obvious link between mental illness and substance abuse, and the state needs to strengthen the services provided by the criminal justice system, especially in the assessment stage of the process. Brad Livingston, Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, testified that 62% of all Texas inmates have some level of chemical dependency, while 67% of those who have been diagnosed with a mental illness have chemical dependency issues. Further, he stated that “some of the bigger challenges . . . are probably more significant upstream in the jail setting and pretrial,” indicating that there should be a more-concentrated effort to identify and assess co-occurring disorders upon entrance to the criminal justice system well-before individuals enter incarceration.

TCJC recommended that the state implement a criminal justice system-wide risk assessment; establish safe, effective, cost-efficient alternatives to incarceration; encourage pretrial diversion programs; provide adequate training and support to criminal justice system staff; and better-equip the community to respond to the needs of those with co-occurring disorders.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Sarah’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Joint Hearing: Corrections and Criminal Jurisprudence” in the Archived Videos section for 04/22/14. Sarah’s testimony begins at 02:10:15.

Media Coverage: Click here to read the Texas Tribune’s article about the hearing, and click here to watch KTBC Fox Austin’s coverage of the hearing.

Mental Health Services for Juveniles

On April 22, 2014, the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence held an interim hearing on a charge to “consider mental health services for juveniles in the justice system, and examine the assessment process of mental health needs of youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system.” Advocates, juvenile probation officers, juvenile judges, and juvenile attorneys filled the room to speak on the issue. Given that Texas ranks third to last in dedicated mental health funding and second in geographical mass, the overall theme of the hearing came as no surprise: RESOURCES, RESOURCES, RESOURCES!!!

While we applaud the Committee for dedicating time to such an important issue, we believe that this hearing should have been held in conjunction with the House Committee on State Affairs and the House Committee on Human Services. To quote Travis County Juvenile Judge Jeanne Muerer, “There IS a lack of resources, for all of us [juvenile departments] and we need to not only say that we don’t have resources but encourage the establishment of more resources.”

During the 2013 session, the Legislature allocated $25.6 million (for the 2014-2015 biennium) to assist local juvenile justice departments in the area of mental health. Some of the larger counties have used these funds to hire mental health professionals, which is a step in the right direction.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Criminal Jurisprudence” in the Archived Videos section for 04/22/14.

Public/Private Partnerships to Divert Youth from the System

On April 22, 2014, the House Committee on Corrections held an interim hearing on a charge to “analyze and make recommendations on outcome-based financing models that would allow the state to partner with private investors and innovative service providers to divert youth into cost-effective programs and interventions.”

This type of financing model is more commonly known as a Pay for Success Initiative. On its face, this hearing may have appeared as yet another attempt to privatize the correctional sector of juvenile justice. However, as Chairman Parker indicated at the start of the hearing, a pay for performance model would allow private investors “to provide operating funds for initiatives that have the potential to prevent or mitigate serious social problems.” This means that if, and only if, the agreed-upon outcomes are reached (e.g., 10% increase in employment among youth reentering society), the investor would stand to gain a profit from their initial investment. The idea of no longer having to wait for youth to get the services they need is definitely an intriguing one. The devil, however, would be in the details.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Corrections” in the Archived Videos section for 04/22/14.

Driver Responsibility Program (DRP)

On April 14, 2014, the House Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety held an interim hearing on a charge to “review the Driver Responsibility Program and consider methods for overall improvement of the program.” Judges and attorneys alike spoke of the failures of the program, pointing to the heavy toll on courts and attorneys who are left having to explain it, and emphasizing the burden on individuals who should not be criminalized for traffic-related violations.

TCJC Policy Consultant Scott Henson spoke on our behalf. While we continued to emphasize the need for full abolition of the program (a failed revenue generator), we recommended short-term alternatives that would reduce the burden on drivers and courts, including an annual amnesty period, reduced or fewer surcharges, and better clarification about surcharges, among others.

While the Committee seemed somewhat open to the notion of abolishment, they were far more comfortable with ideas on reforming the program.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Scott’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Homeland Security & Public Safety” in the Archived Videos section for 04/14/14. Skip ahead to the 02:18:25 mark for the section of the hearing on the DRP.

Media Coverage: To read some recent news about the DRP, click here (Texas Tribune’s coverage of the hearing) and here (Texas Public Radio, featuring a streaming interview with Dr. Ana Yáñez-Correa).

To learn more about Texas’ failed Driver Responsibility Program, click here to visit our site solely dedicated to the DRP.

Juvenile Age of Jurisdiction

Currently, 17-year-olds in Texas are charged as adults for criminal offenses. On March 25, 2014, the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence held an interim hearing on a charge to “study the classification of 17-year-olds as adults,” seeking input from various stakeholders on the possibility of raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction to 18.

Judges, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, professors, advocates, and community members alike filled the room to testify on the issue. Elizabeth A. Henneke, TCJC’s new Policy Attorney, was invited to provide testimony on TCJC’s behalf.

Aside from concerns around the timeframe and short-term costs associated with raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction, the hearing reflected a growing consensus around treating 17-year-olds as the children they are. With neurological, sociological, and legal research in hand, witness after witness testified to the inherent differences between juveniles and adults and the need for change. “This is a great opportunity for our State,” said Bexar County Juvenile Judge Laura Parker, “to make some meaningful differences for kids that really, at age 17, are no different than those who are 16 or even 15.” We agree.

TCJC ultimately recommended that the Committee and TCJC work with practitioners, probation departments, courts, the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, and other stakeholders to develop a workable timeframe for implementing this change.

TCJC Testimony: Click here to read Elizabeth’s testimony.

Hearing Broadcast: To watch the hearing in full, click on “Criminal Jurisprudence” in the Archived Videos section for 03/25/14.

Media Coverage: Click here to read the Austin American-Statesman’s coverage of the hearing [partially behind a paywall].