Office of the Governor Criminal Justice Division. Resources for Local Criminal Justice Grant Planning: Capital Area Council of Governments Region

Transcription

1 Office of the Governor Criminal Justice Division Resources for Local Criminal Justice Grant Planning: Capital Area Council of Governments Region March 2016

2 Purpose This document contains information relevant to the grant programs of the Criminal Justice Division (CJD) of the Office of the Governor, including: Prior grants by CJD; Regional crime and demographical information; and Resources on evidence-based practices; The materials in this document are for informational purposes only, and do not necessarily indicate endorsements or preferences by CJD. They are intended to assist the local Criminal Justice Advisory Council (CJAC) in their funding recommendations. 1

3 Table of Contents Purpose... 1 General Crime Information for Region... 4 Reported Crimes and Rates (2014)... 4 Changes in Violent Crime Rate over Time... 6 Changes in Property Crime Rate over Time... 8 Changes in Family Violence Crime Rate over Time: Violent Crime Rate Intensity (2014) Property Crime Rate Intensity (2014) Family Violence Crime Rate Intensity (2014) Recent Criminal Justice Funding Criminal Justice Funds Administered by CJD Grant Awards in COG Region, by Grant Program Grant Awards in COG Region, by County Grant Awards in COG Region, by Grantee Age of COG-Reviewed Grants for Region Share of Violent Crime and Population vs. COG-Reviewed Grant Funding, by County Recent US Department of Justice Grants Asset Forfeiture Account Balances and Expenditures Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program Funding Decision Considerations Evidence-Based Practices Criminal Justice Programs in Governor Abbott s Blueprint for Texas JAG-Relevant Crimes Recent JAG Grants Activities Funded by JAG Grants Reviewed by COG Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention-Local Services Funding Decision Considerations

4 Evidence-Based Practices JJDP-Local Relevant Crimes Recent JJDP-Local Grants Reviewed by COG Activities Funded by JJDP-Local Grants Reviewed by COG General Victim Assistance Direct Services Program (Victims of Crime Act VOCA) Funding Decision Considerations Evidence-Based Practices VOCA-Local Relevant Crimes Recent VOCA Grants Reviewed by COG Activities Funded by VOCA-Local Grants Reviewed by COG Violence Against Women Justice and Training Program (Violence Against Women Act VAWA) Funding Decision Considerations Evidence-Based Practices VAWA-Relevant Crimes Recent COG-Reviewed VAWA Grants Activities Funded by COG-Reviewed VAWA Grants VAWA Purpose Areas and Federal Requirements

5 Local Criminal Justice Grant Planning Resources General Crime Information for Region County Population Murder (reported) Murder (rate) Reported Crimes and Rates (2014) Violent Violent Property Property Crime Crime Crime Crime (reported) (rate) (reported) (rate) Family Violence (reported) Family Violence (rate) Juvenile Crime (arrests) Juvenile Crime (rate) 498, ,138 1,232 1, ,790 Statewide 27,153,409 1, , ,854 2, , ,537 2,149 CAPCOG 2,054, , ,498 2,799 11, ,207 2,884 Travis 1,119, , ,773 3,909 7, ,333 3,524 Williamson Hays 188, ,429 1, ,513 Bastrop 83, ,611 1, ,044 Burnet 46, , ,104 Caldwell 42, , ,139 Fayette 25, , Llano 20, , Lee 17, , ,483 Blanco 11, ,532 See table notes next page. 4

6 Table notes: All crime rates are calculated using total population, per 100,000 people. Juvenile arrest rate is calculated using population of youth aged 10-16, per 100,000 people. All crime statistics come from DPS Uniform Crime Reporting and annual Crime in Texas Report. ( ) All population numbers used to calculate rates come from the Office of the State Demographer's Texas Population Estimates and Projections Program. ( ). "Murder" refers to the official Uniform Crime Reporting murder rate. "Violent Crime" in the overview table refers to Uniform Crime Reporting-defined rape, assault, and robbery aggregated together with Crime in Texas-defined sexual assault (all mutually exclusive categories). In the trend graphs, violent crime also includes murder. "Property Crime" refers to Uniform Crime Reporting-defined burglary, larceny, and auto theft aggregated together. "Family Violence" refers to Crime in Texas-defined family violence. This designation overlaps with Uniform Crime Reporting categories, i.e. if a family violence incident involves an assault, it will be counted as both a family violence incident and an assault. Therefore it is reported separately throughout this binder. "Juvenile Arrests" refers to all DPS-recorded arrests for all crimes for youths under the age of 17. This is not a direct measure of crime. More detail on these individual crimes can be found elsewhere in the binder or at 5

7 Changes in Violent Crime Rate over Time (Counties sorted by population, part 1) Note: Rate is crimes per 100,000 residents. See Crime Incidents and Rates (2014) table for data. 6

8 Changes in Violent Crime Rate over Time (Counties sorted by population, part 2) Note: Rate is crimes per 100,000 residents. See Crime Incidents and Rates (2014) table for data. 7

9 Changes in Property Crime Rate over Time (Counties sorted by population, part 1) Note: Rate is crimes per 100,000 residents. See Crime Incidents and Rates (2014) table for data. 8

10 Changes in Property Crime Rate over Time: (Counties sorted by population, part 2) Note: Rate is crimes per 100,000 residents. See Crime Incidents and Rates (2014) table for data. 9

11 Changes in Family Violence Crime Rate over Time: (Counties sorted by population, part 1) Note: Rate is crimes per 100,000 residents. See Crime Incidents and Rates (2014) table for data. 10

12 Changes in Family Violence Crime Rate over Time: (Counties sorted by population, part 2) Note: Rate is crimes per 100,000 residents. See Crime Incidents and Rates (2014) table for data. 11

13 Violent Crime Rate Intensity (2014) Note: Rate is crimes per 100,000 residents. See Crime Incidents and Rates (2014) table for data. 12

14 Property Crime Rate Intensity (2014) Note: Rate is crimes per 100,000 residents. See Crime Incidents and Rates (2014) table for data. 13

15 Family Violence Crime Rate Intensity (2014) Note: Rate is crimes per 100,000 residents. See Crime Incidents and Rates (2014) table for data. 14

16 Recent Criminal Justice Funding Criminal Justice Funds Administered by CJD * indicates grants processed and reviewed in part by local Councils of Government. See program-specific sections for more information. Some grants in * programs are awarded by CJD in response to direct applications. Non- * programs are not reviewed by COGs and are entirely awarded by CJD in response to direct applications. For information on funding opportunities, see: State Funding Sources State Criminal Justice Planning (421 fund) Misc. grants to supplement other programs, address statewide priorities. Specialty Courts Supports programs including drug, commercially sexually exploited persons, mental health, and veterans courts. County Essentials Assistance to counties for the investigation and prosecution of capital or bias/prejudice crimes. Crime Stoppers Support for certified Crime Stoppers programs. Internet Crimes Against Children Grants to enhance investigation and prosecution of technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation. Federal Funding Sources * Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) U.S. Department of Justice (US DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) program. Grants to governmental bodies to promote public safety, reduce crime, and improve the criminal justice system. * Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) US DOJ Office for Victims of Crime program. Grants to victims services providers. * Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) US DOJ Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) program. Sexual Assault Services US DOJ OVW program. Provides supplemental funding to sexual assault victims services providers. * Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Local Services US DOJ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) program. Supports programs that help prevent delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Statewide Priorities US DOJ OJJDP program. Supports statewide priorities in preventing school violence, improving juvenile justice systems and programs. Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act US DOJ National Institute of Justice (NIJ) program. Grants to reduce backlogs in forensic evidence analysis by training or hiring lab personnel. Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners (RSAT) Supports treatment programs in state and local jails. 15

17 Grant Awards in COG Region, by Grant Program Funding Source COG- Reviewed CJD Awards COG- Reviewed CJD Awards COG- Reviewed CJD Awards Total 2017 RBE for COG-Reviewed *Victims of Crime $1,490,929 $62,746 $1,022,899 $4,060,303 $6,636,876 $5,735,836 State CJ Planning $896,239 $1,122,946 $1,174,816 $3,194,000 *JAG Justice Assistance $475,536 $512,005 $404,800 $219,513 $400,479 $2,012,332 $447,643 * Violence Against Wmn $259,077 $284,790 $259,353 $803,220 $308,058 Specialty Courts $580,256 $628,488 $800,105 $2,008,849 RSAT $138,412 $183,735 $174,730 $496,877 *Juvenile - Local $495,823 $182,797 $412,686 $99,286 $414,242 $175,578 $1,780,411 $433,608 Coverdell Forensic $47,498 $91,454 $98,718 $237,670 Juvenile - State $247,660 $207,519 $455,179 County Essentials $53,248 $53,248 Crime Stoppers $10,000 $21,795 $39,824 $71,619 Total $2,721,365 $2,730,859 $2,125,175 $2,622,346 $5,134,377 $2,463,771 $17,797,892 Notes: 2017 Reasonable Expected Budgets (RBEs) are for COG-reviewed local applications only. * indicates grant programs including COG reviews of local applications. CJD Awards indicate direct grants from CJD. 16

18 Grant Awards in COG Region, by County County 2014 COG CJD COG CJD 2016 COG CJD Reviewed Awards Reviewed Awards Reviewed Awards Total COG-wide $633,844 $649,844 $1,283,688 Bastrop $351,965 $3,217 $188,206 $438,889 $982,276 Burnet $111,921 $258,162 $84,232 $278,515 $90,683 $362,053 $1,185,566 Caldwell $43,719 $32,385 $46,984 $34,335 $55,273 $40,124 $252,820 Hays $10,000 $487,172 $69,285 $269,236 $113,625 $1,004,757 $1,954,076 Llano $19,495 $19,495 Travis $1,776,976 $1,102,610 $2,242,035 $1,012,409 $1,340,036 $2,721,305 $10,195,371 Williamson $134,903 $489,071 $176,593 $342,474 $214,309 $567,249 $1,924,599 Total $2,730,859 $2,721,365 $2,622,346 $2,125,175 $2,463,771 $5,134,377 $17,797,892 17

19 County Grantee 2014 COG- Reviewed Grant Awards in COG Region, by Grantee 2014 CJD COG CJD Awards Reviewed Awards 2016 COG- Reviewed 2016 CJD Awards Total COGwide of Governments Capital Area Council $633,844 $649,844 $1,283,688 Bastrop Bastrop County Women's Shelter $188,307 $188,206 $426,250 $802,763 Bluebonnet Area Crime Stoppers, Inc. $3,217 $3,217 Children's Advocacy Center Bastrop, Lee, $138,823 $138,823 Fayette Smithville, City of $24,834 $12,639 $37,473 Burnet Burnet County $29,914 $111,921 $133,923 $75,593 $56,963 $80,683 $488,997 Highland Lakes Family Crisis Center, Inc. Hill Country Area Crime Stoppers, Inc. Hill Country Children's Advocacy Center $73,011 $74,592 $230,090 $377,693 $8,640 $10,000 $18,640 $134,737 $134,737 Marble Falls, City of $20,500 $70,000 $75,000 $165,500 Caldwell Caldwell County $32,385 $43,719 $34,335 $46,984 $55,273 $212,696 Martindale, City of $40,124 $40,124 Hays Hays County $28,780 $55,814 $59,347 $57,761 $98,625 $300,327 Hays County Crime $10,000 $9,938 $15,000 $34,938 Stoppers Hays County Women's Center $280,000 $140,000 $842,083 $1,262,083 Kyle, City of $103,392 $73,422 $104,913 $281,728 San Marcos, City of $75,000 $75,000 Llano Llano County $19,495 $19,495 18

20 County Grantee 2014 COG CJD COG CJD 2016 COG CJD Reviewed Awards Reviewed Awards Reviewed Awards Total Travis American Gateways $30,453 $74,144 $470,983 $575,580 Austin Child Guidance Center $39,262 $56,827 $96,127 $192,217 Austin Children's Shelter $162,500 $162,500 Austin Independent School District $39,938 $39,938 Austin ISD $62,200 $56,069 $37,468 $155,737 Austin, City of $268,386 $124,505 $242,983 $239,064 $412,108 $98,718 $1,385,764 Board of Pardons and Paroles $476,159 $476,159 Capital Area Crime Stoppers $14,824 $14,824 Center for Child Protection $75,000 $75,000 Girl Scouts of Central Texas $145,584 $99,286 $244,870 My Healing Place $0 $0 Office of Court Administration $99,960 $99,960 Office of Violent Sex Offender $177,929 $177,929 Management SAHELI $75,000 $75,000 $150,000 SAHELI dba Asian Family Support $136,735 $136,735 Services of Austin Texas Juvenile Justice Department $7,757 $7,757 The University of Texas at Austin $500,000 $500,000 Travis Co. Dom Vio/Sexual Assault Survival Center $140,000 $140,000 $833,333 $1,113,333 19

21 County Williamson Grantee 2014 COG CJD COG CJD 2016 COG CJD Reviewed Awards Reviewed Awards Reviewed Awards Total Travis County $412,310 $858,474 $367,386 $928,133 $532,111 $974,463 $4,072,878 Travis County Adult Probation $164,498 $197,662 $252,030 $614,190 Cedar Park, City of $37,249 $16,351 $32,571 $144,707 $230,878 Leander, City of $38,907 $132,238 $171,145 Taylor, City of $56,455 $56,455 Williamson County $112,770 $118,552 $130,995 $176,593 $214,309 $753,220 Williamson County Children's Advocacy $140,000 $140,000 Center Williamson County Crisis Center dba $139,794 $140,000 $233,850 $513,644 Hope Alliance Williamson County Juvenile Services $59,257 $59,257 20

22 Age of COG-Reviewed Grants for Region Awarded Funds in Fiscal Year 2016, by Count of Years Funded Number of Grants in Fiscal Year 2016, by Count of Years Funded 21

23 Share of Violent Crime and Population vs. COG-Reviewed Grant Funding, by County (Counties sorted by population, part 1) 22

24 Share of Violent Crime and Population vs. COG-Reviewed Grant Funding, by County (Counties sorted by population, part 2) 23

25 Recent US Department of Justice Grants Direct Grants from the Department of Justice in federal Fiscal year 2015/ state Fiscal Year County BASTROP HAYS TRAVIS Recipient County of Bastrop City of Austin City of Austin City of Austin Federal Funding $13,832 $196,262 $400,000 $281,625 City of San Marcos $13,533 National Domestic Violence Hotline SAHELI, Inc. dba Asian Family Support Service Travis County DV & Sexual Assault Survival Ce Southwest Key Programs, Inc. Travis County DV & Sexual Assault Survival Ce $425,000 $338,360 $800,000 $483,333 $333,913 Program Title Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program DNA Backlog Reduction Program Economic High-Tech and Cyber Crime Prevention Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program OVW Technical Assistance Initiative Transitional Housing Assistance for Victims of Domestic Violence, Stalking Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Second Chance Act Reentry Initiative Transitional Housing Assistance for Victims of Domestic Violence, Stalking Project Description FY 15 JAG Program FY 2015 DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction Program - City of Austin City of Austin Intellectual Property Crime Enforcement Program FY 15 JAG Program FY 15 JAG Program Training and Technical Assistance to prevent youth sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking and human trafficking. Purple Door Project: Transitional Housing Program for Asian and Pacific Islanders in Central Texas Enhancing the SARRT Program in Austin/Travis County Un Puente al Hogar (A Bridge Home) SafePlace Supportive Housing Program 24

26 Asset Forfeiture Account Balances and Expenditures As of Beginning of Fiscal Year 2015 (Fiscal Year 2015) Asset forfeiture funds are sometimes used by agencies to meet matching fund requirements or make other expenditures similar to those funded by CJD grants. Agencies not included below had no reported asset forfeiture fund balance. County Entity Seized Funds Forfeited Total Forfeited Balance Funds Balance Funds Expenditures Bastrop Bastrop County Sheriff $0 $40,078 $14,171 Bastrop District Attorney Bastrop PD $1,170 $11,295 $0 Elgin PD $3,112 $0 $0 Smithville PD $3,423 $0 $0 Blanco 33RD District Attorney $103,260 $32,457 $3,501 Blanco County Sheriff $0 $3,975 $9,341 Burnet 33RD District Attorney $103,260 $32,457 $3,501 Burnet County Sheriff $0 $102,982 $4,234 Burnet PD $2,235 $0 $0 Granite Shoals PD $0 $2,623 $1,150 Marble Falls Police Dept. $700 $83,230 $5,692 Caldwell Caldwell County Sheriff $0 $38,623 $0 Caldwell District Attorney $10,535 $113,126 $7,835 Lockhart PD $537 $1,195 $0 Luling PD $0 $6,940 $5,721 Fayette Fayette County Narcotics Unit $9,251 $14,998 $1,468 Fayette County Sheriff $0 $86,832 $74,244 Fayette District Attorney $2,364 $113,359 $3,998 Schulenburg PD $0 $7,052 $0 Hays Buda PD $798 $9,762 $14,703 Hays County Sheriff $0 $131,780 $40,469 Hays District Attorney $88,349 $9,359 $101,106 Kyle PD $0 $6,748 $0 San Marcos PD $0 $50,849 $32,516 Texas State University PD $1,070 $0 $139 25

27 County Entity Seized Funds Forfeited Total Forfeited Balance Funds Balance Funds Expenditures Lee Giddings PD $0 $36,609 $557 Lee County Sheriff $0 $1,731 $0 Lee District Attorney $24,344 $15,013 $21,737 Llano 33RD District Attorney $103,260 $32,457 $3,501 Llano County Sheriff $0 $1,114 $0 Llano PD $175 $0 $0 Travis 53RD District Attorney $2,089,701 $828,205 $515,940 Austin PD $0 $1,068,074 $199,856 Lago Vista PD $0 $120 $0 Lakeway PD $0 $1,312 $0 Manor PD $1,158 $0 $0 Office of the Attorney General $4,063,370 $1,348,070 $652,963 Pflugerville PD $0 $56,240 $1,500 Sunset Valley Pd $44 $0 $44 TABC $5,843 $59 $0 Texas Comptroller - Criminal Investigations $0 $2,246,163 $205,631 Texas Dept. of Public Safety $16,435 $1,103,147 $4,490,581 Texas Parks & Wildlife $0 $750 $0 Travis County Constable Pct 2 $0 $2,411 $7,630 Travis Coutny sheriff $0 $22,119 $0 Williamson 26th District Attorney $211,143 $223,848 $53,526 Cedar Park PD $0 $12,298 $43,674 Georgetown PD $1,387 $21,204 $0 Hutto PD $0 $1,851 $1,326 Leander PD $0 $74 $2,900 Round Rock PD $0 $31,235 $9,950 Taylor PD $0 $2,002 $0 Williamson County Sheriff $15,846 $636,920 $40,089 26

28 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program Funding Decision Considerations Below is information relevant to decisions regarding eligibility for JAG grants. For more information, including required components of approved applications, see the JAG Funding Announcement, available at Program Areas JAG funds may be used for state and local initiatives, technical assistance, strategic planning, research and evaluation (including forensics), data collection, training, personnel, equipment, forensic laboratories, supplies, contractual support, and criminal justice information systems that will improve or enhance such areas as: Law enforcement programs. Prosecution and court programs. Prevention and education programs. Corrections and community corrections programs. Drug enforcement programs. Planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs. Organizational Eligibility Applications may be submitted by state agencies, units of local government, independent school districts, senior universities, judicial districts, Native American tribes, and community supervision and corrections departments. Eligible Costs and Activities JAG funds may be used for state and local initiatives, technical assistance, strategic planning, research and evaluation (including forensics), data collection, training, personnel, equipment, forensic laboratories, supplies, contractual support, and criminal justice information systems. Ineligible Costs and Activities Grant funds may not be used to support the following services, activities, and costs: 1. supplanting or use of grant funds to replace any other existing federal, state or local funds 27

29 2. inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization 3. lobbying 4. fundraising; 5. membership dues for individuals; 6. promotional gifts; 7. construction, renovation, or remodeling; 8. medical services; 9. any other prohibition imposed by federal, state or local law or regulation; 10. Entertainment, including amusement, diversion, social activities, and any associated costs (i.e. tickets to shows or sports events, meals, lodging, rentals, transportation, and gratuities) unless there is a clear programmatic purpose and the costs are approved in advance by CJD; 11. Body-Worn Cameras 12. any portion of the salary of, or any other compensation for an elected or appointed government official 13. non-law enforcement vehicles or equipment for government agencies that are for general agency use 14. transportation, lodging, per diem or any related costs for participants, when grant funds are used to develop and conduct training 15. equipment, supplies, and processing DNA evidence 16. research or statistical projects or activities 17. security enhancements or equipment for nongovernmental entities not engaged in criminal justice or public safety 18. law enforcement equipment that is standard department issue including uniforms, safety vest, shields, weapons, tracked armored vehicles, grenade launchers, bayonets, camouflage uniforms and ammunition; and 19. purchase of any controlled item listed at: Funding and Project Period Limits Funding Limits. The minimum award under this program is $10,

30 Project Period. Grant-funded projects must begin on or after October 1, 2016 may not exceed a 12-month grant period. Grant-funded equipment-only projects are generally awarded for a six-month grant period. CJD will consider any other proposed changes to the start or end dates on a case-by-case basis. Match Requirement There is no match requirement under this program. Evidence-Based Practices The JAG Funding Announcement requires all applicants to show how their project is derived from evidence-based practices or explain why it does not: Evidence-Based Practices. Describe the research or evidence that led the applicant organization to select the methods described above. Wherever possible, provide at least one citation or link to a supportive evaluation or research study.if the project approach and activities described above are not based on existing evidence, describe why the applicant organization believes the method to be promising. One of the best resources for researching evidence-based practices is CrimeSolutions.gov ( ), a clearinghouse website maintained by the U.S. Department of Justice. Criminal Justice Advisory Committees and applicants are encouraged to review CrimeSolutions.gov and other resources to prioritize the funding of projects that have been shown to be effective. 29

31 Criminal Justice Programs in Governor Abbott s Blueprint for Texas The following criminal justice agenda items potentially eligible for funding under JAG were included in Governor Abbott s Bicentennial Blueprint for Texas. Domestic Violence High-Risk Teams Recommendation: To provide more protection for victims of domestic abuse, create Domestic Violence High Risk Teams, which unite law enforcement, medical professionals, and victim advocates at the local level to review cases of domestic violence and identify, monitor, and contain the most dangerous perpetrators before they can inflict deadly harm. In 2012, there were 198,366 family violence incidents in Texas, up 11.5 percent from In 2012 alone, domestic, or family violence, took the lives of 114 women in Texas, 12 more fatalities than occurred in In Harris County, the per capita female intimate partner murder rate in 2012 was one in 71,121. Research by the nation s leading expert on domestic violence suggests that the single biggest indicator for domestic homicide is a prior incidence of physical domestic violence. An innovative tool for fighting domestic violence has been developed by the Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center (JGCC) in Newburyport, Massachusetts. The Domestic Violence High Risk Team Network is a nationally recognized program that prevents domestic violence and domestic homicide by performing risk assessments to predict when a violent or lethal incident is likely to occur. The assessments evaluate the batterer s history and behavioral patterns, allowing law enforcement and victim services providers to view distinct acts of violence in context. Analyzing lethality factors and violent behavior patterns enables high risk teams to intervene to prevent homicides and re-assaults. The Domestic Violence High Risk Team (DVHRT) consists of multi-disciplinary teams that coordinate efforts to increase victim safety by monitoring and containing perpetrators while providing victim services. Risk assessments allow team members to put individual incidents of violence in context and form the basis for individualized intervention plans. Naturally, however, team decisions are only as good as the information on which they are based. That is why information sharing across disciplines is so important. To this end, teams unite police, prosecutors, victim-witness advocates, probation officials, batterers intervention teams, and hospital staff to create a vehicle for communication among disciplines to provide the best possible responses to victims at high risk. In the JGCC high risk team s first year, zero 30

32 percent of victims reported any re-assault. The model has been replicated in 21 communities in Massachusetts and several others across the country. In its first six years, the JGCC team has handled 106 high risk cases (Less than five percent of cases score in this bracket. For those that do, an intervention plan is immediately put into place.) and experienced zero homicides. Based on the same research underpinning the DVHRT Network, the Maryland Legislature in 2005 passed a law authorizing the establishment of local domestic violence fatality review teams (DVFRT), which review domestic violence fatalities and develop recommendations based on their findings. Proposals are published in an annual report. Teams are organized through the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, which also oversees a Lethality Assessment Program (LAP) for law enforcement. The LAP is a tool used by law enforcement to identify victims of domestic violence who are at risk of being seriously hurt or killed by their intimate partner. Between 2006 and 2011, an estimated 33 percent of victims identified by LAP as high risk went in for services. Both programs are based on the same research underlying the DVHRT model. Between 2007 and 2012, domestic violence homicides in the state fell by 40 percent. A 12-member domestic violence death review team was created in Chattanooga, Tennessee in 2007 thanks to enabling legislation. The team reviewed local domestic violence homicide cases between 1992 and 2006 as the basis for its recommendations, published in Subsequently, the Tennessee Domestic Violence Report showed that homicides determined to be the result of domestic violence decreased by 11.1 percent. Dallas police receive 13,000 domestic violence calls each year, and in 2013, the city lost 23 people to domestic violence homicide. In October 2012, Dallas police officers began utilizing the lethality assessment program, and in January 2013, the department began prioritizing serving family violence warrants to repeat offenders and those abusers considered most likely to inflict immediate harm. Maj. Rob Sherwin has announced that the Dallas Police Department is also considering a home-visit plan under which officers would personally check in on the most vulnerable victims during the time between when a case is filed and when the case is resolved a period that lasts on average between eight and 10 months. The department has already added five additional family violence detectives, bringing the unit s total up to 34. The World Health Organization lists alcohol and drug use as a factor that increases men s risks of committing sexual violence. Dallas County judges have begun prohibiting alcohol and deadly weapon possession as a condition of bond for family violence felonies. Creating a network of domestic violence high risk teams in Texas would build on these initiatives while expanding the effort to prevent domestic violence homicides in Texas on a statewide scale. The state s first local team will be established in the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex area. In 2013 alone, an estimated 7,000 women were abused in Dallas. In response to growing concerns related to domestic violence, Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings announced an initiative meant to curb what he calls the epidemic of domestic violence. Forming a domestic violence high risk team to serve Dallas and Tarrant Counties would allow the team to build on that initiative. Texas should work to create its own network of local Domestic Violence High Risk Teams throughout the state. Texas has already taken a similar public-private partnership approach in its successful efforts to improve the prosecution of cases involving children. Created in 1994, Children s 31

33 Advocacy Centers of Texas (CACTX) came together to set standards for children s advocacy centers (CACs) in Texas, standards which the Legislature codified in the Texas Family Code. While each local CAC is unique in culture, centers utilize the same evidence-based practices and compassionate professionalism. CACs partner with law enforcement, district and county attorneys officers, and CPS workers to influence positive outcomes in investigation of crimes against children and develop best practices that are redefining the way child abuse victims are treated. Children s Advocacy Centers of Texas receives grant funding from the Office of Attorney General, including approximately $20 million for FY The organization also benefits from private donations. Domestic violence high risk teams should be established in Texas in a similar fashion. Federal grant dollars could be used for a competitive grant program focusing on creating these teams and curbing family violence in Texas without imposing any additional cost on the state. The first step to implementing a network of Domestic Violence High Risk Teams in Texas is the creation of a new $2 million grant program under the purview of the Office of the Attorney General. Implementing a DVHRT model in Texas can be achieved using existing resources of the various agencies and entities involved. Additional funding for the new program could come from federal grants solely dedicated for the prevention of family violence. For example, in the 2013 fiscal year, Congress appropriated $409 million for Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) programs. Texas is eligible for a portion of this funding, having received $14.7 million in , and $16 million in These funds were used to develop and strengthen effective criminal justice strategies and victim services programs to combat violent crimes against women. Federal law requires that certain amounts of these grants be used directly for prosecution, law enforcement, victim services, and court costs, but that the remainder of the funds may be spent at the discretion of the state...to provide personnel, training, technical assistance, data collection, and equipment for apprehension, prosecution, and adjudication of persons committing violent crimes against women. Grant resources would be awarded to law enforcement and local non-profits that will take the lead in forming domestic violence high risk teams to respond to domestic violence in their respective communities. A Texas-based High Risk Team initiative would seek to unite key community players who work at the local level. Each member of the team would bring a different perspective and intersect with domestic violence victims in a different way with law enforcement working to enforce batterer accountability while domestic violence advocates focus on creating safety strategies for survivors. Team members would share high-risk case information via secure and other technology with one another to ensure everyone on the team is aware of each case and ready to act if needed. This ability to share confidential information is a key part of the team s success. Once the model has been implemented, the basic framework could be adapted to suit other agencies, such as Child Protective Services, where the recent deaths of four young children have created concern about the agency s ability to detect deception. 32

34 GPS Monitoring for High-Risk Domestic Abuse Defendants Recommendation: Expand GPS monitoring to include domestic violence abusers who pose a severe threat to their victims, as determined by a judge at a hearing to set bail so victims do not have to hide in shelters while the defendant is out on bail, awaiting trial, or subject to a protective order. Strong containment methods are measures designed to ensure victim safety by keeping dangerous actors away from their targets. Victims of domestic violence face the greatest threat of homicide when leaving or engaging in legal separation from their batterer. The most dangerous time is within the first year of leaving, and the risk is critically high during the first three months. In the days preceding a court hearing, strong containment methods, such as Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring, can keep victims safe while the defendant is free on bond following an arrest for a domestic violence related offense. Data from the Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center s High Risk Team shows that, in the areas served by the team, virtually no offenders monitored by GPS, approximately five percent of high risk cases, have re-assaulted their victims. In 2009, Connecticut woman Tiana Notice was stabbed to death by her boyfriend James Carter. Carter has repeatedly violated the protective order Notice has against him. Carter ed Notice and told her not to tell the police. Instead, Notice went to the police for protection and was told Carter would be arrested. Instead, police called Carter and told him that, if they discovered he was the one who had sent the , he would be arrested. Having been made aware of Notice s disobedience, Carter went to Notice s apartment with a knife and killed her. In the aftermath of Notice s murder, Connecticut passed legislation that has been called the most targeted attack on these crimes in 24 years. Among other things, the new law set up a pilot GPS monitoring program for offenders in high-risk domestic violence cases. Texas passed legislation in 2007 to allow for GPS monitoring of sexually violent predators. The Parole Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) uses 3M brand GPS technology to monitor approximately 1700 offenders with Special Condition SISP (Super Intensive Supervision Program) and Special Condition EM (Electronic Monitoring). This technology has consistently proven to be the most reliable. The department uses both active and passive GPS monitoring. When an individual under active monitoring violates a condition of his release, a report is sent in real time to TDCJ. With passive technology, reports are downloaded in intervals as determined by the department. Importantly, TDCJ monitoring personnel maintain a low caseload ratio of 15:1 to ensure all the information is properly filtered. Pretrial services is the term used to describe the process which involves assessing arrestees, making recommendations regarding release in light of such assessment and supervising individuals released on bond. Pretrial services play an important role in the state s criminal justice system; pretrial services protect defendant s right against excessive bail, reduce overcrowding in jails, and save taxpayer dollars by providing arrestees an opportunity for 33

35 release. Pretrial services makes recommendations to magistrates relating to bond release and conditions. Magistrates take these recommendations into account when setting bail. Not all counties in Texas provide pretrial services, and those choosing to do so have broad discretion in the design and administration of pretrial services programs. An effective pretrial services program utilizes validated assessment instruments; considers the risks defendants pose to themselves, victims, and their communities; evaluates the need for services/treatment; and facilitates frequent and effective communication between services providers and the courts. Releasing arrestees on bond is reflective of the presumption that all individuals are innocent until proven guilty. While the Texas Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure provide exceptions for classes of defendants who may be denied bail, as a general rule, Texas upholds the restriction against excessive bail set forth in the U.S. Constitution. The amount of bail is determined by the officer taking bail, usually a magistrate. The Code of Criminal of Procedure authorizes the imposition of reasonable conditions on released defendants to ensure community safety and the safety of the alleged victim. These conditions may include no-contact with alleged victims, restrictions on communications and travel, GPS monitoring, home confinement or curfew, drug testing, counseling, motor vehicle interlock devices, and electronic monitoring. While not all Texas counties operate pretrial programs with sufficient staff that can supervise offenders who are free on bond, some such as Bexar County, use GPS technology and electronic monitoring to monitor defendants who are out awaiting trial. If a Bexar County court orders GPS monitoring as a condition of release on bond, the defendant will be placed under intensive supervision and the defendant s movements will be monitored at all times. With electronic monitoring, monitors are alerted whenever an offender enters an exclusion zone, geographic areas that are usually set up around a victim s home or workplace. Both the GPS and electronic monitoring programs at Bexar County Pretrial Services are defendant paid programs. Defendants subject to GPS monitoring are required to pay $300 each month, which covers the cost of the GPS equipment and monitoring ($5 per day) and the salaries of the case managers. The monthly fee for electronic monitoring is $270. Approximately half of all defendants who are ordered to submit to GPS monitoring fail to make their monthly payments. However, as GPS monitoring is less expensive than what it cost to jail a defendant awaiting trial, the county courts typically cover the monitoring costs for those defendants that don t pay. In counties with large, well-staffed pretrial services programs, magistrates should be encouraged to require GPS monitoring as a condition for release for certain perpetrators of family or domestic violence. This will have the effect of keeping victims safe while their abusers are out on bail awaiting trial or subject to a protective order. In determining which defendants require GPS monitoring, judges and prosecutors should evaluate cases based on risk factors such as recidivism and threats made to victims. 34

36 GPS monitoring would provide instant notification to law enforcement whenever a defendant violates the terms of release, facilitate police intervention and suspect apprehension, and allow victims to stay in their homes, instead of hiding out in a shelter. Although defendant paid programs are designed to have no negative impact on the monitoring entity s operating budget, approximately half of the defendants placed under GPS monitoring fail to make their monthly payments. Therefore, an additional $1 million in general revenue should be appropriated to the Criminal Justice Division (CJD) of the Office of the Governor grant program for dedicated purposes of compensating county courts for financial losses pretrial services programs incur as a result of utilizing GPS technology to enforce restraining orders and monitor defendants charged with family violence crimes. The CJD promotes strategies that improve and support criminal justice efforts across the state through the administration of grants. Resources are awarded to programs that protect Texans from crime, reduce the number of crimes committed, address crime victims needs, and promote accountability within the criminal justice system. Although it is generally not the policy of the Texas criminal justice system to punish individuals preemptively for crimes not committed, the objective of GPS monitoring in the domestic violence setting is to serve as a temporary precaution to last for as long as the victim remains in a heightened state of danger or risk. In 2012, 5,510 arrests were made for offenses against the family or children. Imposing GPS monitoring on domestic violence arrestees who pose the risk of reoffending is an effective means of safeguarding victims without violating defendants constitutional rights or wasting taxpayer dollars. It is important, however, to note that GPS tracking technology is not foolproof. Indeed, a Los Angeles County, California audit indicated that one in every four GPS devices used to track serious criminals released in the county was faulty. GPS monitoring is only effective when it is part of a larger coordinated system, one with enough trained officers to respond quickly when an offender violates a condition of release and courts with resources to hold offenders accountable. Texas must ensure that the GPS technology used for the program is secure and works properly. Pretrial services programs should adopt the TDCJ s system, which includes multiple layers of alert verifications and equipment status reports to verify reliability. 35

37 JAG-Relevant Crimes Crime categories recorded in Uniform Crime Reports relevant to the JAG program include murder, rape, robbery, assault, auto theft, burglary and larceny. See the below tables for the rates of crime per 100,000 residents for counties in the COG region. Crime County Murder - rate STATEWIDE CAPCOG BASTROP BLANCO BURNET CALDWELL FAYETTE HAYS LEE LLANO TRAVIS WILLIAMSON Rape - rate STATEWIDE CAPCOG BASTROP BLANCO BURNET CALDWELL FAYETTE HAYS LEE LLANO TRAVIS WILLIAMSON

38 Crime County Robbery - rate STATEWIDE CAPCOG BASTROP BLANCO BURNET CALDWELL FAYETTE HAYS LEE LLANO TRAVIS WILLIAMSON Assault - rate STATEWIDE CAPCOG BASTROP BLANCO BURNET CALDWELL FAYETTE HAYS LEE LLANO TRAVIS WILLIAMSON

39 Crime County Auto Theft - rate STATEWIDE CAPCOG BASTROP BLANCO BURNET CALDWELL FAYETTE HAYS LEE LLANO TRAVIS WILLIAMSON Burglary - rate STATEWIDE CAPCOG BASTROP BLANCO BURNET CALDWELL FAYETTE HAYS LEE LLANO TRAVIS 1, WILLIAMSON

40 Crime County Larceny - rate STATEWIDE 2,612 2,323 2,324 2,286 2,102 CAPCOG 2,822 2,555 2,559 2,426 2,158 BASTROP 1,770 1,373 1,588 1,276 1,275 BLANCO BURNET 1,504 1,313 1,328 1,523 1,319 CALDWELL 1,524 1,304 1,330 1,341 1,154 FAYETTE 1, HAYS 1,748 1,458 1,480 1,420 1,287 LEE 1,072 1,217 1,339 1,472 1,112 LLANO 1,321 1,272 1,126 1, TRAVIS 3,906 3,615 3,583 3,388 3,060 WILLIAMSON 1,324 1,125 1,178 1,

41 Recent JAG Grants Direct CJD grants not reviewed by COG are denoted with a * Note: Omitted counties received no grants for Fiscal Years 2014, 2015, or County Grantee Name Project Title Grant Number Bastrop Smithville, City of Criminal Justice Systems Assistance $12,639 SPD Equipment Grant $24,834 Total $24,834 $12,639 Burnet Burnet County 33rd/424th District Attorney Child Abuse Prosecution Unit $67, $56,963 Law Enforcement In-Car Computer Project $66,226 Sheriff's Office Warrant/Bond Division Enhancement Project $29,914 Marble Falls, City of CAD/RMS Enhancement Project $70,000 Forensic Video / Still Imagery Enhancement System $20,500 Radio Communications Upgrade Project $75,000 Total $50,414 $203,923 $131,963 Caldwell Martindale, City of MDPD Technological Improvement Project $40,124 Total $40,124 40

42 County Grantee Name Project Title Grant Number Hays Hays County Investigation Enhancement Project $28,780 Technological Improvements for Law Enforcement $55,814 Kyle, City of Mental Health Officer Position $70, $45,728 San Marcos, City of Automated Vehicle Locator Project $75,000 Total $174,242 $101,541 Travis Austin Independent Crisis Intervention Training School District Certification $39,938 Austin, City of APD Air Support Central Receiver Site Project $62,090 APD Air Support Video Communications Project $70,186 APD Drug and Human Trafficking Enforcement Project $32,734 APD Regional Training Project $75,000 APD SOAR Improvement Project $35,487 Travis County License Plate Readers $60,800 Total $207,276 $68,221 $100,738 Williamso n Cedar Park, City of Communications Equipment Project $58,560 Taylor, City of Electronic Ticket Writers $56,455 Williamson County Digital Discovery Highway $31,115 JAG Equipment Project $18,770 Total $18,770 $31,115 $115,015 Total $475,536 $404,800 $400,479 41

43 Activities Funded by JAG Grants Reviewed by COG Figures for Fiscal Year

44 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention-Local Services Funding Decision Considerations Below is information relevant to decisions regarding eligibility for JJDP-Local grants. For more information, including required components of approved applications, see the JJDP-Local Funding Announcement, available at Program Areas JJDP funds may be used to for programs that prevent juvenile delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system by: Reducing involvement in juvenile gangs. Reducing crime by providing youth with opportunity for gainful employment as an alternative to criminal enterprise. Reducing crime by addressing mental health problems among youth in the juvenile justice system. Reducing truancy, suspension, and expulsions without involving the juvenile justice system. Diverting juveniles from entering or progressing into the juvenile justice system. Increasing the availability of programs that serve female offenders in the juvenile justice system. Reducing recidivism and improve offender accountability by enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the juvenile justice system. Note: Juvenile drug court programs are not eligible under this funding announcement. Applicants must apply under the Specialty Courts funding announcement. Organizational Eligibility Applications may be submitted by state agencies, units of local government, independent school districts, Indian tribes performing law enforcement functions, universities, and colleges. Eligible Costs and Activities Eligible projects under this program are those that: Reduce involvement in juvenile gangs. Reduce crime by enhancing the employability of youth or prepare them for future employment. 43

45 Reduce crime by addressing mental health problems among youth in the juvenile justice system. Reduce truancy, suspension, and expulsions without involving the juvenile justice system. Divert juveniles from entering or progressing into the juvenile justice system. Increase the availability of programs that serve female offenders in the juvenile justice system. Reduce recidivism and improve offender accountability by enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the juvenile justice system. Ineligible Costs and Activities Further, grant funds may not be used to support the following services, activities, and costs: 1. supplanting or use of grant funds to replace any other existing federal, state or local funds; 2. inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization; 3. lobbying; 4. fundraising; 5. membership dues for individuals; 6. promotional gifts; 7. construction, renovations, or remodeling; 8. medical Services; 9. any other prohibition imposed by federal, state or local law or regulation; 10. entertainment, including amusement, diversion, social activities, and any associated costs (i.e. tickets to shows or sports events, meals, lodging, rentals, transportation, and gratuities) unless there is a clear programmatic purpose and costs are approved in advance by CJD; 11. any portion of the salary of, or any other compensation for an elected or appointed government official; 12. non-law enforcement vehicles or equipment for government agencies that are for general agency use; 13. food, meals, beverages, or other refreshments; 14. transportation, lodging, per diem or any related costs for participants, when grant funds are used to develop and conduct training; 15. law enforcement equipment that is standard department issue including uniforms, safety vest, shields, weapons, tracked armored vehicles, grenade launchers, bayonets, camouflage uniforms and ammunition; 44