Trends, Profile and Policy Issues Related to Felony Probation Revocations in Texas

Trends, Profile and Policy Issues Related to Felony Probation Revocations in Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council May 2002 Tony Fabelo, Ph.D. Executive Director

Trends, Profile and Policy Issues Related to Felony Probation Revocations in Texas To view or download this report, visit our web site at www.cjpc.state.tx.us Criminal Justice Policy Council P.O. Box 13332 Austin, Texas 78711-3332 (512) 463-1810

Researched by: Andy Barbee Mike Eisenberg Angie Gunter Pablo Martinez, Ph.D. Michelle Munson Lane Raffray Technical Writer: Regina E. Ygnacio

Note from the Director This report presents an analysis of the trends in felony probation revocations in Texas, profiles the revocation population and examines issues relevant to designing policies in this area. The analysis is partly based on an in-depth study of the case records of all 2,193 offenders revoked from felony probation supervision in Texas during October 2001. Working with the Criminal Justice Policy Council, local Community Supervision and Corrections Departments (CSCDs) collected demographic, offense, criminal history, history of administrative violations and program referral information from these records. The analysis of these cases was used to estimate statewide patterns regarding the characteristics of the population revoked as this is the only information available to do this statewide. Texas has the largest felony population under probation supervision in the country with 240,306 felons in 2001. Approximately 9% of the population under supervision was revoked last year, representing 21,765 revocations. This number was down from the peak of 23,347 in 1998. A majority of offenders were revoked to state prison (11,594) or state jail (9,115) with the rest being revoked to county jails. From the perspective of each local court, the number of revocations is not large as the yearly number in 2001 translated into roughly 4.3 revocations per month per court for the year. However, from the perspective of officials administering the state correctional system, the number of revocations has a significant impact on the administration of the system. The 11,594 revocations to prison in 2001 represented 33% of all prison admissions and this group will cost the state approximately $470 million in housing costs for their projected prison length-of-stay. The 9,115 revocations to state jails represented 42% of state jail admissions and this group will cost the state approximately $77 million in housing costs for their projected state jail length-of-stay. Given this impact, the study examined the appropriateness of the response by local officials to probation violations and the use of alternatives to revocations to determine strategies to reduce state incarceration costs. An examination of the main reasons for which offenders are being revoked indicate that local officials seem to appropriately respond to probation violations by mainly revoking offenders that have been convicted of new crimes or have persistently failed to follow their rules of supervision. Less than one-half of motions to revoke filed by local officials lead to a revocation but when offenders are revoked, more than half (59%) are revoked for an allegation or conviction for a new offense. Almost half (47%) of the offenders revoked for a new offense had more than one law violation. Revocations for technical reasons represented 41% of all revocations and most of those revoked for administrative violations violated more than one of their rules of supervision (51% violated two to five rules, and 41% six or more). Most offenders revoked participated in treatment programs sometime during their probation period (over 70%) indicating that some attempt was made to assist them while under supervision. Almost all the offenders revoked were delinquent in the payment of their fees but almost none were revoked for only not paying fees (less than 1%). The number of rules and accountability expectations that are presently enacted into law are many. Offenders who persist in violating their rules of supervision affront the authority of the system and revoking their probation may be the most appropriate response to these violations. However, there seems to be room to expand the utilization and capacity of community or state residential treatment facilities in lieu of revocation, as i

Note from the Director close to 60% of those offenders revoked never participated in a residential treatment program before revocation. Community residential treatment programs and state institutional facilities provide alternatives to sanction probation violators short of a prison revocation. Over 10,000 offenders were served in community residential treatment facilities and 7,000 in state facilities in 2001. Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facilities (SAFPs), for example, are state operated facilities that are used by local officials to divert over 4,000 probationers from prison while providing intensive treatment to this population. Any expansion of community residential treatment programs has to be well targeted to the most effective programs and to the highest risk population. The long-term impact of community residential treatment programs in diverting offenders from prison is reduced by the number of placements in the programs of offenders who would not have been revoked to prison (net widening) and the recidivism rates of the offenders participating. However, it is estimated that the Intermediate Sanction Facilities (ISFs) can produce 179 prison diversions for every 100 beds funded and the Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities (SATFs) can produce 113 prison diversions for every 100 beds funded. On the other hand, Restitution Centers (RC) and Court Residential Treatment Centers (CRTC) are not effective in producing prison diversions due to either their low turnover rate or the high-recidivism of program participants. Any immediate new expansion of community residential treatment program capacity, therefore, should primarily occur for ISFs and SATFs. The long-term cost-effectiveness of these programs is yet to be studied with the appropriate use of comparison groups. An expansion in community residential treatment capacity and specialized caseloads may occur due to savings generated by reduced temporary contracted capacity in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). If this is the case, the TDCJ should target the new programs to the highest risk population under supervision and examine if the expansion of diversion capacity is particularly needed in the counties of Dallas, Harris and Tarrant. These counties have a higher proportion of revocations in relation to their population under supervision and this may merit further diversion strategies in these localities. Finally, reducing probation terms, time served in prison upon revocation, and the number of rules of supervision may be the most effective way to reduce state costs but these options conflict with sentencing discretion, punishment and accountability goals. The average probation sentence is 5.6 years and approximately 85% of those not revoked served their sentences without an early discharge for good behavior and perhaps an early discharge should be considered as a policy option. However, offenders complying with their probation term generate significant revenues by paying probation fees that supplement probation department budgets. Another option is to consider limiting the length-of-stay in prison for non-violent non-sex offenders revoked from probation for technical reasons as these offenders will serve on average two and half years in prison upon revocation but this option may conflict with discretionary sentencing and parole policies. Tony Fabelo, Ph.D. Executive Director ii

Acknowledgements The Criminal Justice Policy Council would like to acknowledge the outstanding cooperation we received for this study from the Community Supervision and Corrections Departments across the state. The directors, probation officers, and staff completed over 2,200 surveys for the October 2001 felony probation revocation study and provided us with much of the data for this report. In addition, we would like to thank TDCJ, the Community Justice Assistance Division Director, Bonita White, her staff and Jeff Baldwin, Executive Assistant to the TDCJ Director, for their assistance in communicating with local probation departments and in gathering additional data where needed. Finally, we would like to thank the Judicial Advisory Council to the TDCJ and participating judges and prosecutors for their support in helping us to complete this study.

Overview of the Report This report presents an overview of recent felony probation population and revocation trends and profiles the characteristics of probationers revoked in Texas to identify issues for the Senate Criminal Justice and House Corrections Interim Committees to consider in their study of this area. The Senate Criminal Justice Interim Committee was directed by the Lt. Governor to study the impact that the revocation of technical violators of community supervision has upon the state s prison population, and make recommendations for reducing the revocation rate among such offenders without unduly interfering with local judges discretion. The House Corrections Interim Committee was directed by the Speaker of the House to review three items related to this issue. These items included the impact of community supervision caseloads, the quality and availability of residential facilities, and review of fees assessed on adult offenders. The report incorporates results from an in-depth analysis of the case records of all offenders revoked from felony probation during October 2001(from here on referred to as In-Depth Study). Demographic, offense, criminal history, history of administrative violations and program referral information were collected from the records of 2,193 offenders revoked in October 2001. The information was collected by the local Community Supervision and Corrections Departments (CSCDs, probation departments) in cooperation with the Criminal Justice Policy Council (CJPC). The In-Depth Study was used to estimate statewide patterns regarding the characteristics of the probation revocation population. The results of the In-Depth Study by county is presented in the Appendices.

I. Perspectives Related to Magnitude of Revocation Issue

The Felony Probation Population Under Supervision Increased Throughout the 1990 s But Has Recently Declined 300,000 Total Felony Probation Population under Supervision, 1991-2001 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 FY 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Pop 169,248 181,042 199,896 219,386 229,997 238,031 244,825 247,767 246,254 241,620 240,306 Probationers can be on direct or indirect supervision. Offenders on direct supervision work or reside in the jurisdiction where they were convicted and are in contact with their probation officer at least once every three months or more based on risk. In 2001, there were 159,372 felony offenders on direct supervision. Offenders on indirect supervision have transferred from the jurisdiction they were convicted and report by mail, have absconded or are in custody. In 2001, there were 80,934 felony offenders on indirect supervision. Offenders on direct or indirect supervision can have their probation revoked and sent to prison if they commit a new offense or violate their conditions of supervision. Texas has the largest probation population (felony and misdemeanor) under supervision in raw numbers (442,251) andper capita (2,955 per 100,000 population). California has the second largest with 343,145 (felony and misdemeanor) offenders on probation supervision or 1,394 per 100,000 population. 3

The Number of Felony Probation Revocations Also Increased Throughout the 1990 s But Has Declined Since 1999 25,000 Felony Probation Revocations to Prison, State Jail and County Jails, 1991-2001 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 FY 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Revs 15,804 15,197 16,788 16,557 18,763 19,781 21,449 23,347 23,582 22,655 21,765 Most felony probationers are revoked to prison or state jails (93.8%) with a small percentage revoked to county jails (6.2%) (estimated from In-Depth Study). In 2001, offenders released from prison with a similar profile as those revoked from probation served an average of 2.73 years before release and those revoked to state jails serve an average of 265 days before release. Original offense The probated offense for those revoked are mainly a property (37%) or a drug offense (36%) with a minority of offenders having violent (12%) or sex offenses (5%) (estimated from In-Depth Study). Motions to revoke There were 52,716 felony motions to revoke filed in FY 2001 according to the Office of Court Administration. 4

The Most Populous Counties Accounted for Almost Half of the Population Under Supervision and Revocations in 2001 County Probation Population* % of Statewide Population Total Revocations % of Statewide Revocations Dallas 30,106 12.5% 3,534 16.2% Harris 27,638 11.5% 3,665 16.8% Bexar 14,089 5.9% 647 3.0% El Paso 12,408 5.2% 428 2.0% Tarrant 11,558 4.8% 1,625 7.5% Hidalgo 11,021 4.6% 305 1.4% Travis 9,925 4.1% 545 2.5% Subtotal 116,745 48.6% 10,749 49.4% Other Counties 123,561 51.4% 11,016 50.6% Statewide 240,306 100.0% 21,765 100.0% * Includes Direct and Indirect Felony Supervision Harris, Dallas, and Tarrant counties have the largest proportion of revocations (40.5% of all revocations) compared to their proportion of the population under supervision (28.8% of the population under supervision). See Appendix 1 listing all counties. 5

Probation Revocations Are a Small Percentage of the Population Under Supervision But a Large Percentage of the Intakes to Prison or State Jails Felony Probationers Under Supervision End of 2001 240,306 Admissions to Prison FY 2001 34,732 Admissions to State Jails FY 2001 21,639 Felony Probationers Revoked FY 2001 21,765* Estimated Admissions for Probation Revocations 11,594 Estimated Admissions for Probation Revocations 9,115 9.1% 33.4% 42.1% *This number includes 1,056 revocations to county jail. Ratio of revocations to population under supervision The percentage of offenders revoked from supervision has fluctuated from a low of 7.5% in 1994 to a high of 9.6% in 1999. Ratio of revocations to prison admissions The percentage of prison admissions for probation revocations has fluctuated from a low of 27.1% in 1991 to a high of 48.4% in 1996. This is based on estimates by CJPC as TDCJ does not track in their computerized records an indicator to identify the offenders that are admitted to prison for a probation revocation. 6

II. Appropriateness of Response to Probation Violators

Offenders on Felony Probation Can Be Revoked for New Criminal Violations or for Violating Their Rules of Supervision Probationer Commits New Offense Probationer Violates Rules of Supervision Revocation for a New Offense Revocation for Technical Violations New Crime Affront to the Authority of the System 9

Judges May Impose Many Rules of Supervision on Offenders Placed on Probation Example of Rules of Supervision Required by Law Do not break the law. Avoid injurious and vicious habits. Avoid persons and places of disreputable or harmful character. Report as directed. Permit the supervising officer to visit at home or elsewhere. Work at suitable employment. Stay within a particular place (county). Pay fine and fees. Support all dependents. Participate in any community based program. Reimburse the county for appointed attorney. Submit to alcohol and drug testing. In misdemeanor theft cases, participate in victim/offender mediation. Reimburse the general revenue fund for amounts paid to victim; if no funds paid to victim, pay one-time fee of $50 for misdemeanor and $100 for felony. Reimburse law enforcement for costs associated with storage, analysis and disposal of materials or substances seized in connection to offense. Pay all or part of costs for victim counseling necessitated by offense. Make one payment to Crimestoppers not to exceed $50. Example of Specialized Conditions of Community Supervision Stay in community based facility. Pay a percentage of income to dependents while in a community facility. Attend counseling in a program or facility approved and licensed by the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse. Submit to Electronic Monitoring. Submit blood sample for DNA testing. Provide public notice of the offense. Require Sex Offender Registration. Require certain level of educational achievement. Require payment of child advocacy center. Impose time to be served in a county jail. Installation of Ignition Interlock Device (DWI). Suspension of drivers license. Establishment of Child-Safety Zones to be avoided. 10

Felony Probationers Are Also Assessed Many Types of Fees While Under Supervision Supervision Fees Administrative and processing fees related to the basic supervision of the probationer range from a minimum of $25 per month to a maximum of $60 per month. Court Costs and Fines Attorney fees Bond fees Booking fees Clerk fees Jury fees Pretrial/trial fees Confinement fees Release fees Warrant fees Summons fees Extradition fees Special court services such as Judicial Education fees DNA testing Offense fees as prescribed by Ch. 12 of Texas Penal Code Restitution and Other Fees Payments made to Statewide Crime Crimestoppers Victims Compensation Fund Local crime lab costs Children s Advocacy Center Polygraph tests Victim counseling Urinalysis fees Ignition Interlock devices Family violence shelters Electronic Monitoring equipment Sex offender evaluation and notification fees Costs associated with treatment programs such as screening and aftercare Supervision fees as revenue for system In FY 2001, the probation system generated close to $110 million in probation fees and $12 million in program fees that were used to fund the operations of local probation departments. The state funds approximately two-thirds of the cost of supervision and offender fees fund one-third. Probation officials also are projected to collect close to $114 million in fees and fines for other agencies according to a recent report by TDCJ-CJAD (April 2, 2002, Report to House Corrections Committee). 11

New Offense Violations Comprised More than Half of All Revocations in 2001 Felony Probation Revocations 2001 21,765 To Prison 11,594 (53%) To State Jails 9,115 (42%) New Offense Revocations* 12,841 59% Technical Revocations* 8,924 41% 54.8% Felony* 60.5% Revocations for New Conviction* *Estimated from In-Depth Study Technical revoked to prison and state jails Of offenders revoked to prison, 35% (4,058) were revoked for technical violations and of those revoked to state jails, 47% (4,284) were revoked for technical violations (estimated from In-Depth Study). New offenses Almost half (46.6%) of the offenders revoked with a new offense in their records have more than one law violation (estimated from In-Depth Study). Monthly Community Supervision and Corrections Report (MCSCR) of TDCJ The MCSCR reports that approximately 45% of revocations are for a new offense as only offenses alleged in the revocation motion are counted. This study counts any offense that occurred during the probation period if the offense was reported in the record of the offender. See Appendices 2-8 for county revocation results from the In-Depth Study. 12

Those Revoked for Technical Reasons Committed Multiple Violations During Their Term of Supervision Technical Revocations FY 2001 8,924* One Technical Violation* 705 7.9% Two to Five Violations* 4,551 51% Six or More Violations* 3,668 41.1% *Estimated from In-Depth Study Severity and risk The majority of the violations committed by those revoked were for rules ranked as being highestseverity (26.9%) or as high severity (63.1%) based on a ranking by judges, district attorneys and probation directors (estimated from In-Depth Study). Almost half of the offenders revoked for technical violations were classified as high risk (44.5%) in the probation department risk score with only 11.6% classified as minimum risk (estimated from In-Depth Study). See Appendices 2-8 for county revocation results from the In-Depth Study. 13

Most Offenders Revoked from Probation Participated in Treatment Programs While Under Supervision Felony Probation Revocations FY 2001 21,765 New Offense* 12,841 59% Technical* 8,924 41% No Program* 3,005 23.4% One Program* 2,863 22.3% Two or More* 6,973 54.3% No Program* 2,311 25.9% One Program* 2,044 22.9% Two or More* 4,569 51.2% *Estimated from In-Depth Study Type of program The most frequently used program was substance abuse (54.6%) followed by confinement (like boot camps) (11.4%) and vocational/educational programs (11.2%). Local officials used their own definition of programs in responding to this study. Standards for state funded programs A variety of standards (e.g., CJAD Standards addressing residential programming and substance abuse, Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Standards) as well as grant conditions from funding sources, regulate the intensity and content of state-funded programs. CJAD, with the assistance of the National Institute of Corrections, has provided residential programs with training, technical assistance, and a recognized process evaluation (Correctional Program Assessment Inventory) to enhance and assess the use of practices that are most effective in reducing recidivism although these practices have not been evaluated yet. See Appendix 9 for treatment programs by county. 14

Most Revocations Occurred During the First Two Years of Supervision Felony Probation Revocations FY 2001 21,765 Average Probation Time Before Revocation 2.6 Years New Offense* 12,841 59% Technical* 8,924 41% Revocations within: 1 year: 27.4% 2 years: 24.9% 3 years: 14.7% 4 years: 10.8% 5 years or more: 22.2% Revocations within: 1 year: 32.4% 2 years: 23.3% 3 years: 14.2% 4 years: 10.7% 5 years or more: 19.4% Average probation sentence The average probation sentence is 5.6 years and approximately 85% of those not revoked served their full sentence. Time under supervision Half of the offenders (53.7%) revoked were revoked within two years of placement on probation and there was little difference in timing between those revoked for new offenses and those revoked for technical violations (estimated from In-Depth Study). Supervision length and revocations Of the offenders who were revoked after five or more years under supervision, 38% were revoked for technical violations, had an average of 6.5 violations and most were under supervision for property (38.5%) and drug offenses (36.3%) (estimated from In-Depth Study). Offenders who were revoked with less than five years under supervision had similar characteristics as those revoked after five or more years under supervision. 15

Most Technical Violators Who Are Revoked to Prison Are Given a Reduced Sentence Average Probation Sentence for Offenders Revoked to Prison for a Technical Violation 7 years Average Revocation Sentence for Same Group 4.3 years Percent Reduction in Sentence 38.5% Revocation with new offenses The average probation sentence for offenders revoked to prison with a new offense was 7.1 years and their average revocation sentence was 5.0 years, an average reduction of 29.6%. See Appendices 10-11 listing all counties but note that for certain counties the numbers of cases is too small to make generalizations. 16

Almost All Probationers Revoked Were Delinquent in Payment of Fees but Almost None Were Revoked Only for Failure to Pay Fees Felony Offenders Revoked Average Total Fees Assessed $4,803 96% of Offenders Revoked Were Delinquent in Payment of Fees at Time of Revocation The average amount of delinquent fees at the time of revocation was $1,923. Less than 1% of Offenders Revoked for a Technical Violation Were Revoked for Non-payment of Fees Only Delinquent in fees The average total fee amount assessed per offender revoked approached $5,000 over an average supervision term of 5.6 years of which they paid an average of $754 (or 16%) of the assessed fees before revocation. Average total fees assessed reflects the total amount that would have been paid by the probationer if they had completed the full term of supervision originally ordered. Average amount of delinquent fees at time of revocation reflects only the amount of fees that should have been paid up to the time of revocation. Fees, in relation to revocation, could not be examined by this study. No data were available to compare the fee payment burden of the offenders revoked with a comparable number of offenders not revoked who were under supervision for an equivalent time period. In a TDCJ-CJAD survey, 77% of district judges, 77% of district attorneys and 24% of defense attorneys stated that failure to pay fees was rarely a major consideration when an offender is revoked (April 2, 2002, Report to House Corrections Committee). 17

III. Issues Related to Alternatives to Revocation

Community Residential and State Institutional Facilities Provide Alternatives to Sanction Probationers Short of a Prison Revocation Total Probation Population Served in FY 2001 in Community Residential Alternatives Facility Type Felons Misd. Total Served ISF - Intermediate Sanction Facilities 1,291 423 1,714 CRTC - Court Residential Treatment Centers 1,308 221 1,529 SATF - Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities 2,797 225 3,022 RC - Restitution Centers 2,157 81 2,238 LBC - Local Boot Camps 1,483 193 1,676 Total served 9,036 1,143 10,179 Total Probation Population Served in FY 2001 in State Institutional Facilities State Facility Type Total Served SAFP - Substance Abuse Felony Punishment 4,894 SJ - State Jail Upfront/Modification 486 SIP - Shock Incarceration Probation 811 SBC - State Boot Camp 407 SISJ - Shock Incarceration State Jail 402 Total served 7,000 Facility operations Community residential facilities are operated by local probation departments or contracted out to private operators. State institutional facilities are operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). Short-term sentences to county jails are also used as an alternative sanction to prison revocation but no statewide data are available to estimate number served. Capacity, in relation to parole and juvenile probation Residential and state institutional diversion alternatives are used for 10% of the felony probation population on direct supervision compared to 26% for the parole population and 13% for the juvenile probation population. 21

More Than Half of Those Revoked Were Not Placed in a Community or State Residential Program when Under Supervision Felony Probation Revocations FY 2001 21,765 New Offense* 12,841 59% Technical* 8,924 41% No Prior Residential* 7,396 57.6% Prior Residential* 5,445 42.4% No Prior Residential* 5,292 59.3% Prior Residential* 3,632 40.7% *Estimated from In-Depth Study Non-participants in residential programs 61.4% of offenders not placed in a residential program were revoked in the first two years of supervision compared to 43.1% for participants. A lower percentage of non-participants were classified as maximum risk (44.9% compared to 55.8% of participants). See Appendix 12 for residential programs by county. 22

The Effectiveness of Residential Community Facilities Is Impacted by the Long-Term Recidivism Rates of Participants Facility Type Probation Intermediate Sanction Facilities (ISF) Court Residential Treatment Centers (CRTC) Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities (SATF) Restitution Centers (RC) Local Boot Camps (LBC) Percent of Offenders Incarcerated After: One Year Two Years Three Years Four Years 11.8% 25.5% 32.7% 40.5% 5.1% 17.2% 27.2% 32.5% 10.0% 24.0% 33.9% 39.8% 16.8% 30.5% 39.9% 44.6% 15.6% 31.1% 41.0% 46.1% Recidivism tracking Groups of offenders released in 1994, 1995 and 1996 from the types of facilities above were tracked over a four-year period to determine the percentage that were incarcerated after that time. Subsequent to this evaluation, the National Institute of Corrections provided CJAD with training and technical assistance to facilitate the 36 community residential facilities in redesigning programs to use practices that research indicates are most promising in reducing recidivism. In 1999, CJAD implemented a statewide project that included mandatory training, technical assistance, and utilization of a research-based process evaluation (Correction Program Assessment Inventory) to improve recidivism outcomes. A future study will determine the results of this initiative. Boot camps Evaluations of boot camps completed nationally have shown that boot camps vary in quality of treatment and that in general, recidivism rates of participants are not better than comparable groups. Boot camps can still save incarceration costs if boot camps are used in lieu of a longer prison revocation term. 23

Some Types of Residential Facilities Can Produce Diversions from Prison Revocations Based on Certain Assumptions about Turn-Over Rate and Expansion of Net Assuming 25% Expansion of Net Assuming Four-Year Recidivism Rates Assuming Appropriate Turn-Over Rate per Bed for Year Net Diversions from Prison per 100 Residential Beds ISF 179 CRTC 101 SATF 113 RC 62 LBC 122 Prison diversions Intermediate Sanction Facilities (ISF), Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities (SATF), and Local Boot Camps (LBC) produced a better ratio of diversions from prison per 100 beds than Court Residential Treatment Centers (CRTC) and Restitution Centers (RC). Assumptions Diversion calculation assumes that 75% of those placed in residential facilities would have been revoked to prison even if the facilities were not available. Diversion calculation assumes appropriate turn-over rate for each facility type, for example, an ISF bed will turn-over four times per year meaning that 100 beds can serve 400 offenders during the year. Long-term evaluation Evaluations using comparison groups of offenders not participating in residential programs have to be conducted to determine relative effectiveness of programs. See Appendix 13 for formula to calculate net diversions. 24

In General Counties with a Higher Proportion of Residential Capacity Have a Lower Proportion of Revocations in Relation to Their Population Under Supervision Most Populous Counties Probation Population % of Statewide Number of Residential Beds % of Statewide Total Revocations % of Statewide Revocations Dallas 30,140 12.5% 356 11.7% 3,534 16.2% Harris 27,634 11.5% 484 15.9% 3,665 16.8% Bexar 14,030 5.8% 210 6.9% 647 3.0% El Paso 12,267 5.1% 266 8.7% 428 2.0% Tarrant 11,583 4.8% 0 0.0% 1,625 7.5% Hidalgo 11,063 4.6% 160 5.3% 305 1.4% Travis 9,908 4.1% 76 2.5% 545 2.5% Subtotal 116,625 48.5% 1,552 51.0% 10,749 49.4% Other Counties 123,561 51.4% 1,494 49.0% 11,016 50.6% Total 240,186 100% 3,046 100% 21,765 100% Exception to relationship Harris has a higher proportion of residential beds (15.9%) in relation to their state proportion of population under supervision (11.5%) but their revocation rate (16.8%) is higher than their proportion of population under supervision. The majority of Harris county residential beds are boot camp beds (384 beds available since May 1999). There have been 100 SATF beds available in Harris county since May 1999. 25

Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facilities (SAFP) Have Also Provided Diversionary Capacity for the Probation System Total Probationers Served in FY 2001 4,894 11 SAFP Units Operated by TDCJ Most admissions are probationers in lieu of a revocation SAFP program is nine-months of intensive substance abuse treatment with community aftercare There were no SAFP programs prior to 1992 Recidivism and diversion impact Offenders completing all institutional and program components have very low two-year recidivism rates (7%) but only 44% of those placed on the program complete all components. Offenders who do not complete all components of treatment programs have a two-year recidivism rate that is the same as the comparison group not participating in the program (approximately 30% for each group). The recidivism rate of SAFP participants has been negatively impacted by a large number of offenders revoked for technical violations and lack of treatment responses to relapse in some localities. The shorter length-of-stay in SAFPs for those offenders who would have otherwise been revoked to prison for a longer term reduces incarceration costs. 26

IV. Summary and Options to Consider

Perspective on the Revocation Issue Local Perspective: Number of Revocations Is Not a Large Proportion of Population Under Supervision Prison Perspective: Number of Revocations and Length-of-Stay Produces Major Financial Impact to State State Jail Perspective: Revocations Short-Term Sentence Reduces Impact to State Felony Probationers Revoked in 2001 21,765 Admissions to Prison for Probation Revocation in 2001 11,594 Admissions to State Jails for Probation Revocation in 2001 9,115 4.3 Revocations per month per court (average) 966 Admissions per month (average) 760 Admissions per month (average) Represent 9.1% of those under supervision Represent 33% of those admitted to prison Represent 42% of those admitted to state jails 11,594 revocations serving an average of 2.73 years in prison will cost the state approximately $470 million in housing costs (at $40.65 operational cost-per-day) 9,115 revocations in 2001 serving an average of 265 days in state jails will cost the state approximately $77 million in housing costs (at $32.08 operational cost-per-day) 29

Appropriateness of Response to Probation Violators Less than one-half of motions to revoke lead to a revocation There were 52,716 felony motions to revoke in 2001 according to the Office of Court Administration compared to 21,765 probation revocations for the year More than half of revocations involved a new offense Probationers revoked for a new offense committed an average of two offenses The great majority of those revoked for technical violations were revoked for multiple violations Probationers revoked for technical violations committed an average of six technical violations The majority of offenders revoked participated in programs before their revocation More than half of those revoked participated in two or more programs Almost all offenders revoked were delinquent in the payment of fees at time of revocation Almost no offenders were revoked for only not paying fees 30

Issues Related to Alternatives to Revocations More than half of those revoked were not placed in a residential program when under supervision Demand for this service may exceed available capacity, explaining in part why some offenders do not participate Community residential facilities provide alternatives to a prison revocation Diversion potential is impacted by net widening and recidivism rates of each particular program ISF, SATF and LBC programs seem to provide the best ratio of program capacity to prison diversions This is based on a formula considering turn-over rates, net widening and recidivism SAFP facilities have reduced prison costs by providing diversionary capacity The shorter length-of-stay in SAFPs for offenders who would have otherwise been revoked to prison for a longer term reduces incarceration costs 31

Reality of Policy Framework Technical violations are an affront to the authority of the system Violation of any number of the rules and fees imposed, particularly multiple violations, becomes an affront to the authority of the system. Increased supervision, increased surveillance and increased time under supervision increase the chances of uncovering a rule violation. From state perspective, revoking 9 of 100 felony probationers is expensive due to time served in prison or state jail The 11,594 probation revocations to prison in 2001 serving an average term of 2.73 years will cost the state approximately $470 million in housing costs. Additionally, 9,115 state jail revocations for average length-of-stay of 265 days will cost the state another $77 million for a total cost of $547 million. Given local discretion and program effectiveness, residential programs can produce diversions from prison revocations Diversionary capacity can be expanded for the most effective programs but any expansion has to be targeted to the most at-risk population and outcomes should be monitored for cost-effectiveness. Reducing probation terms, time served in prison upon revocation, and the number of rules of supervision may be the most effective way to reduce state costs but these options conflict with sentencing discretion, punishment and accountability goals The average probation sentence is 5.6 years and approximately 85% of those not revoked served their sentences without an early discharge for good behavior. There is no incentive for an early discharge of those complying with rules of supervision as this population generates significant revenues by paying probation fees. There are no provisions limiting the length-of-stay in prison for non-violent, non-sex offenders revoked from probation for technical reasons. 32

Options to Consider Expansion of probation options If an expansion of residential beds and specialized caseloads occurred per Rider 64 savings in TDCJ contracted temporary capacity, consider requiring that CJAD specify criteria for the placement of residential facilities to maximize the impact on revocations and consider evaluating any special circumstances related to Dallas, Harris and Tarrant counties. Consider directing program and supervision resources under the new funding to the population under supervision classified as high-risk. Time served in prison Consider strategies to cut the prison length-of-stay for probationers with no prior prison incarcerations revoked for technical violations not involving a prior or present violent or sex offense. Early discharge of probation Require probation departments to identify offenders that have been successful under supervision who may be eligible for a reduction or termination of community supervision and notify them of the procedures that they need to follow to petition the court for an early termination. Sec. 20, Article 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedures allows for a reduction or termination of community supervision at any time, after the defendant has satisfactorily completed one-third of the original community supervision period or two years of community supervision, whichever is less except if the offender was convicted of a DWI, a sex offense, or a state jail felony. There is no statewide data to determine how many offenders are eligible for an early termination, how many offenders apply for an early termination and how many of those who apply are granted an early termination. 33

Options to Consider Study of funding methods Consider requiring CJAD to research funding methods to encourage early discharge from probation of non-violent, non-sex offenders and to provide incentives for the use of alternatives to revocations. Consider as part of the study, the feasibility of a reimbursement system for new residential facility funding that pays for only offenders that meet certain criteria for placements. A similar funding approach has been implemented for funding part of Level 5 Progressive Sanction placements in the juvenile justice system. Consider as part of this study, the feasibility of a funding system similar to that adopted in Ohio, in which county accounts are set up and from which, except for public safety incarcerations, counties pay for state incarceration of its offenders. Counties may support diversion and treatment programs with unused funds. The Ohio system is a local option -- judges may opt for the more traditional funding -- and the formula for projecting the non-public-safety incarcerations contains a number of safeguards so that a county never losses the capacity to send someone to prison. Data issues Consider requiring TDCJ to indicate in their computerized offender record tracking system the offenders that were admitted for a probation revocation, and whether the revocation was due to a new offense or for a technical violation. Further evaluations needed Long-term evaluation of the impact of residential facilities on the recidivism rate of program participants in relation to the recidivism rate of a comparison group to estimate costeffectiveness of policy. Evaluation of recidivism of offenders in specialized caseloads in which additional supervision and program resources are given to a high-risk or special need population in comparison with the recidivism of a high-risk or special need population under regular supervision. 34

Appendices

Appendix 1: Statewide Revocations by County for FY 2001 Probation Population % of Statewide Population Total Revocations % of Statewide Revocations ANDERSON 538 0.22% 57 0.26% ANDREWS 174 0.07% 20 0.09% ANGELINA 1,587 0.66% 170 0.78% ARANSAS 197 0.08% 10 0.05% ARCHER 61 0.03% 3 0.01% ARMSTRONG 3 0.00% 0 0.00% ATASCOSA 555 0.23% 45 0.21% AUSTIN 218 0.09% 25 0.11% BAILEY 96 0.04% 3 0.01% BANDERA 175 0.07% 7 0.03% BASTROP 734 0.31% 70 0.32% BAYLOR 60 0.02% 8 0.04% BEE 290 0.12% 10 0.05% BELL 3,889 1.62% 300 1.38% BEXAR 14,089 5.86% 647 2.97% BLANCO 59 0.02% 1 0.00% BORDEN 1 0.00% 0 0.00% BOSQUE 190 0.08% 26 0.12% BOWIE 1,320 0.55% 216 0.99% BRAZORIA 2,292 0.95% 209 0.96% BRAZOS 1,623 0.68% 228 1.05% BREWSTER 122 0.05% 2 0.01% BRISCOE 11 0.00% 1 0.00% BROOKS 1,060 0.44% 8 0.04% BROWN 637 0.27% 75 0.34% BURLESON 336 0.14% 26 0.12% BURNET 458 0.19% 29 0.13% CALDWELL 382 0.16% 50 0.23% CALHOUN 309 0.13% 15 0.07% CALLAHAN 73 0.03% 11 0.05% CAMERON 5,540 2.31% 314 1.44% CAMP 160 0.07% 8 0.04% 37

Appendix 1: Statewide Revocations by County for FY 2001 Probation Population % of Statewide Population Total Revocations % of Statewide Revocations CARSON 115 0.05% 1 0.00% CASS 549 0.23% 45 0.21% CASTRO 96 0.04% 6 0.03% CHAMBERS 806 0.34% 51 0.23% CHEROKEE 661 0.28% 52 0.24% CHILDRESS 113 0.05% 7 0.03% CLAY 95 0.04% 9 0.04% COCHRAN 63 0.03% 2 0.01% COKE 41 0.02% 2 0.01% COLEMAN 143 0.06% 11 0.05% COLLIN 2,633 1.10% 178 0.82% COLLINGSWORTH 34 0.01% 1 0.00% COLORADO 280 0.12% 32 0.15% COMAL 764 0.32% 42 0.19% COMANCHE 145 0.06% 9 0.04% CONCHO 52 0.02% 1 0.00% COOKE 350 0.15% 23 0.11% CORYELL 586 0.24% 45 0.21% COTTLE 18 0.01% 2 0.01% CRANE 54 0.02% 8 0.04% CROCKETT 113 0.05% 2 0.01% CROSBY 73 0.03% 2 0.01% CULBERSON 78 0.03% 0 0.00% DALLAM 120 0.05% 6 0.03% DALLAS 30,106 12.53% 3,534 16.24% DAWSON 226 0.09% 36 0.17% DEAF SMITH 367 0.15% 31 0.14% DELTA 48 0.02% 9 0.04% DENTON 2,145 0.89% 293 1.35% DEWITT 345 0.14% 23 0.11% DICKENS 41 0.02% 1 0.00% DIMMIT 77 0.03% 4 0.02% 38

Appendix 1: Statewide Revocations by County for FY 2001 Probation Population % of Statewide Population Total Revocations % of Statewide Revocations DONLEY 75 0.03% 3 0.01% DUVAL 235 0.10% 5 0.02% EASTLAND 198 0.08% 15 0.07% ECTOR 1,299 0.54% 164 0.75% EDWARDS 16 0.01% 0 0.00% EL PASO 12,408 5.16% 428 1.97% ELLIS 1,193 0.50% 139 0.64% ERATH 361 0.15% 46 0.21% FALLS 177 0.07% 12 0.06% FANNIN 600 0.25% 31 0.14% FAYETTE 150 0.06% 10 0.05% FISHER 36 0.01% 4 0.02% FLOYD 80 0.03% 9 0.04% FOARD 13 0.01% 1 0.00% FORT BEND 1,761 0.73% 192 0.88% FRANKLIN 110 0.05% 12 0.06% FREESTONE 318 0.13% 24 0.11% FRIO 307 0.13% 6 0.03% GAINES 153 0.06% 16 0.07% GALVESTON 2,986 1.24% 403 1.85% GARZA 97 0.04% 5 0.02% GILLESPIE 169 0.07% 20 0.09% GLASSCOCK 3 0.00% 0 0.00% GOLIAD 107 0.04% 9 0.04% GONZALES 386 0.16% 27 0.12% GRAY 164 0.07% 14 0.06% GRAYSON 1,199 0.50% 112 0.51% GREGG 1,328 0.55% 194 0.89% GRIMES 334 0.14% 19 0.09% GUADALUPE 836 0.35% 78 0.36% HALE 495 0.21% 67 0.31% HALL 42 0.02% 2 0.01% 39

Appendix 1: Statewide Revocations by County for FY 2001 Probation Population % of Statewide Population Total Revocations % of Statewide Revocations HAMILTON 82 0.03% 8 0.04% HANSFORD 44 0.02% 4 0.02% HARDEMAN 66 0.03% 10 0.05% HARDIN 450 0.19% 43 0.20% HARRIS 27,638 11.50% 3,665 16.84% HARRISON 380 0.16% 39 0.18% HARTLEY 24 0.01% 1 0.00% HASKELL 62 0.03% 7 0.03% HAYS 1,124 0.47% 105 0.48% HEMPHILL 27 0.01% 1 0.00% HENDERSON 729 0.30% 114 0.52% HIDALGO 11,021 4.59% 305 1.40% HILL 531 0.22% 72 0.33% HOCKLEY 302 0.13% 28 0.13% HOOD 477 0.20% 51 0.23% HOPKINS 549 0.23% 53 0.24% HOUSTON 311 0.13% 31 0.14% HOWARD 480 0.20% 49 0.23% HUDSPETH 262 0.11% 0 0.00% HUNT 840 0.35% 62 0.28% HUTCHINSON 211 0.09% 16 0.07% IRION 28 0.01% 5 0.02% JACK 57 0.02% 8 0.04% JACKSON 194 0.08% 28 0.13% JASPER 410 0.17% 33 0.15% JEFF DAVIS 18 0.01% 0 0.00% JEFFERSON 3,899 1.62% 419 1.93% JIM HOGG 170 0.07% 5 0.02% JIM WELLS 689 0.29% 2 0.01% JOHNSON 2,169 0.90% 132 0.61% JONES 207 0.09% 33 0.15% KARNES 190 0.08% 14 0.06% 40

Appendix 1: Statewide Revocations by County for FY 2001 Probation Population % of Statewide Population Total Revocations % of Statewide Revocations KAUFMAN 1,077 0.45% 20 0.09% KENDALL 229 0.10% 10 0.05% KENEDY 13 0.01% 0 0.00% KENT 8 0.00% 0 0.00% KERR 603 0.25% 57 0.26% KIMBLE 127 0.05% 1 0.00% KING 1 0.00% 1 0.00% KINNEY 41 0.02% 2 0.01% KLEBERG 1,222 0.51% 69 0.32% KNOX 38 0.02% 2 0.01% LAMAR 780 0.32% 77 0.35% LAMB 279 0.12% 9 0.04% LAMPASAS 144 0.06% 18 0.08% LASALLE 151 0.06% 3 0.01% LAVACA 128 0.05% 11 0.05% LEE 123 0.05% 17 0.08% LEON 254 0.11% 7 0.03% LIBERTY 956 0.40% 77 0.35% LIMESTONE 398 0.17% 22 0.10% LIPSCOMB 14 0.01% 1 0.00% LIVE OAK 131 0.05% 7 0.03% LLANO 176 0.07% 8 0.04% LOVING 0 0.00% 0 0.00% LUBBOCK 3,666 1.53% 428 1.97% LYNN 74 0.03% 15 0.07% MADISON 143 0.06% 20 0.09% MARION 292 0.12% 33 0.15% MARTIN 46 0.02% 5 0.02% MASON 31 0.01% 1 0.00% MATAGORDA 449 0.19% 42 0.19% MAVERICK 270 0.11% 5 0.02% MCCULLOCH 131 0.05% 5 0.02% 41

Appendix 1: Statewide Revocations by County for FY 2001 Probation Population % of Statewide Population Total Revocations % of Statewide Revocations MCLENNAN 1,856 0.77% 225 1.03% MCMULLEN 2 0.00% 0 0.00% MEDINA 447 0.19% 24 0.11% MENARD 42 0.02% 3 0.01% MIDLAND 1,616 0.67% 222 1.02% MILAM 292 0.12% 45 0.21% MILLS 57 0.02% 3 0.01% MITCHELL 110 0.05% 17 0.08% MONTAGUE 290 0.12% 6 0.03% MONTGOMERY 2,227 0.93% 230 1.06% MOORE 176 0.07% 15 0.07% MORRIS 236 0.10% 22 0.10% MOTLEY 14 0.01% 0 0.00% NACOGDOCHES 736 0.31% 76 0.35% NAVARRO 791 0.33% 78 0.36% NEWTON 225 0.09% 2 0.01% NOLAN 286 0.12% 36 0.17% NUECES 4,241 1.76% 332 1.53% OCHILTREE 111 0.05% 9 0.04% OLDHAM 136 0.06% 8 0.04% ORANGE 1,281 0.53% 72 0.33% PALO PINTO 346 0.14% 44 0.20% PANOLA 458 0.19% 38 0.17% PARKER 637 0.27% 79 0.36% PARMER 129 0.05% 6 0.03% PECOS 238 0.10% 11 0.05% POLK 635 0.26% 58 0.27% POTTER 3,064 1.28% 250 1.15% PRESIDIO 112 0.05% 0 0.00% RAINS 97 0.04% 15 0.07% RANDALL 159 0.07% 87 0.40% REAGAN 44 0.02% 2 0.01% 42

Appendix 1: Statewide Revocations by County for FY 2001 Probation Population % of Statewide Population Total Revocations % of Statewide Revocations REAL 51 0.02% 2 0.01% RED RIVER 181 0.08% 14 0.06% REEVES 192 0.08% 20 0.09% REFUGIO 301 0.13% 6 0.03% ROBERTS 2 0.00% 0 0.00% ROBERTSON 293 0.12% 33 0.15% ROCKWALL 590 0.25% 77 0.35% RUNNELS 144 0.06% 15 0.07% RUSK 458 0.19% 34 0.16% SABINE 132 0.05% 3 0.01% SAN AUGUSTINE 95 0.04% 1 0.00% SAN JACINTO 293 0.12% 34 0.16% SAN PATRICIO 838 0.35% 33 0.15% SAN SABA 61 0.03% 5 0.02% SCHLEICHER 57 0.02% 3 0.01% SCURRY 293 0.12% 21 0.10% SHACKELFORD 30 0.01% 9 0.04% SHELBY 330 0.14% 46 0.21% SHERMAN 18 0.01% 0 0.00% SMITH 2,129 0.89% 321 1.47% SOMERVELL 144 0.06% 10 0.05% STARR 1,048 0.44% 19 0.09% STEPHENS 89 0.04% 11 0.05% STERLING 14 0.01% 0 0.00% STONEWALL 17 0.01% 1 0.00% SUTTON 90 0.04% 0 0.00% SWISHER 138 0.06% 7 0.03% TARRANT 11,558 4.81% 1,625 7.47% TAYLOR 1,856 0.77% 219 1.01% TERRELL 10 0.00% 0 0.00% TERRY 215 0.09% 17 0.08% THROCKMORTON 7 0.00% 0 0.00% 43

Appendix 1: Statewide Revocations by County for FY 2001 Probation Population % of Statewide Population Total Revocations % of Statewide Revocations TITUS 327 0.14% 20 0.09% TOM GREEN 1,694 0.70% 166 0.76% TRAVIS 9,925 4.13% 545 2.50% TRINITY 208 0.09% 17 0.08% TYLER 299 0.12% 26 0.12% UPSHUR 409 0.17% 49 0.23% UPTON 44 0.02% 1 0.00% UVALDE 398 0.17% 24 0.11% VAL VERDE 363 0.15% 15 0.07% VAN ZANDT 495 0.21% 38 0.17% VICTORIA 964 0.40% 87 0.40% WALKER 557 0.23% 69 0.32% WALLER 401 0.17% 50 0.23% WARD 174 0.07% 17 0.08% WASHINGTON 471 0.20% 42 0.19% WEBB 2,758 1.15% 77 0.35% WHARTON 670 0.28% 55 0.25% WHEELER 69 0.03% 0 0.00% WICHITA 1,500 0.62% 119 0.55% WILBARGER 151 0.06% 6 0.03% WILLACY 303 0.13% 9 0.04% WILLIAMSON 1,651 0.69% 151 0.69% WILSON 304 0.13% 25 0.11% WINKLER 107 0.04% 14 0.06% WISE 323 0.13% 19 0.09% WOOD 521 0.22% 42 0.19% YOAKUM 82 0.03% 7 0.03% YOUNG 221 0.09% 23 0.11% ZAPATA 221 0.09% 0 0.00% ZAVALA 83 0.03% 6 0.03% Statewide 240,306 21,765 44

Appendix 2: Number of Revocations by County October 2001 In-Depth Study Total Revocations Technical Violations New Offense Violations ANDERSON 11 6 54.55% 5 45.45% ANDREWS 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% ANGELINA 14 4 28.57% 10 71.43% ARANSAS 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% ATASCOSA 6 4 66.67% 2 33.33% AUSTIN 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% BANDERA 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% BASTROP 7 0 0.00% 7 100.00% BEE 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% BELL 30 17 56.67% 13 43.33% BEXAR 120 49 40.83% 71 59.17% BOSQUE 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% BOWIE 17 12 70.59% 5 29.41% BRAZORIA 21 3 14.29% 18 85.71% BRAZOS 9 2 22.22% 7 77.78% BROWN 7 1 14.29% 6 85.71% BURLESON 6 4 66.67% 2 33.33% BURNET 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% CALDWELL 5 1 20.00% 4 80.00% CAMERON 21 4 19.05% 17 80.95% CAMP 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% CASS 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% CASTRO 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% CHAMBERS 6 0 0.00% 6 100.00% CHEROKEE 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% COLLIN 23 11 47.83% 12 52.17% COLORADO 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% COMAL 8 3 37.50% 5 62.50% COMANCHE 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% COOKE 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% CORYELL 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% 45

Appendix 2: Number of Revocations by County Total Revocations Technical Violations New Offense Violations DALLAM 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% DALLAS 359 160 44.57% 199 55.43% DEAF SMITH 7 3 42.86% 4 57.14% DENTON 21 9 42.86% 12 57.14% DONLEY 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% ECTOR 21 11 52.38% 10 47.62% EL PASO 42 11 26.19% 31 73.81% ELLIS 25 14 56.00% 11 44.00% ERATH 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% FALLS 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% FANNIN 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% FLOYD 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% FORT BEND 22 4 18.18% 18 81.82% FRANKLIN 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% FREESTONE 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% FRIO 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% GALVESTON 28 8 28.57% 20 71.43% GARZA 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% GILLESPIE 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% GONZALES 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% GRAY 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% GRAYSON 10 5 50.00% 5 50.00% GREGG 21 9 42.86% 12 57.14% GRIMES 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% GUADALUPE 9 3 33.33% 6 66.67% HALE 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% HARDIN 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% HARRIS 398 206 51.76% 192 48.24% HAYS 5 1 20.00% 4 80.00% HENDERSON 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% HIDALGO 28 2 7.14% 26 92.86% 46

Appendix 2: Number of Revocations by County Total Revocations Technical Violations New Offense Violations HILL 9 5 55.56% 4 44.44% HOCKLEY 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% HOOD 7 2 28.57% 5 71.43% HOPKINS 7 3 42.86% 4 57.14% HOUSTON 6 1 16.67% 5 83.33% HOWARD 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% HUNT 5 2 40.00% 3 60.00% HUTCHINSON 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% JASPER 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% JEFFERSON 28 9 32.14% 19 67.86% JIM WELLS 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% JOHNSON 7 3 42.86% 4 57.14% JONES 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% KARNES 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% KAUFMAN 14 4 28.57% 10 71.43% KERR 9 2 22.22% 7 77.78% KLEBERG 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% LAMAR 10 6 60.00% 4 40.00% LAMB 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% LAMPASAS 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% LAVACA 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% LEE 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% LIBERTY 5 1 20.00% 4 80.00% LIMESTONE 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% LIVE OAK 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% LLANO 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% LUBBOCK 24 8 33.33% 16 66.67% MADISON 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% MARION 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% MATAGORDA 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% MAVERICK 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 47

Appendix 2: Number of Revocations by County Total Revocations Technical Violations New Offense Violations MCCULLOCH 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% MCLENNAN 10 2 20.00% 8 80.00% MIDLAND 27 12 44.44% 15 55.56% MILAM 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% MONTAGUE 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% MONTGOMERY 24 8 33.33% 16 66.67% MOORE 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% NACOGDOCHES 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% NAVARRO 7 4 57.14% 3 42.86% NEWTON 3 3 100.00% 0 0.00% NOLAN 6 4 66.67% 2 33.33% NUECES 40 13 32.50% 27 67.50% OCHILTREE 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% ORANGE 12 8 66.67% 4 33.33% PALO PINTO 8 4 50.00% 4 50.00% PARKER 14 9 64.29% 5 35.71% PARMER 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% PECOS 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% POLK 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% POTTER 29 7 24.14% 22 75.86% RAINS 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% RANDALL 9 3 33.33% 6 66.67% REAL 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% RED RIVER 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% REEVES 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% REFUGIO 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% ROBERTSON 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% ROCKWALL 6 2 33.33% 4 66.67% RUNNELS 3 3 100.00% 0 0.00% RUSK 7 5 71.43% 2 28.57% SAN PATRICIO 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% 48

Appendix 2: Number of Revocations by County Total Revocations Technical Violations New Offense Violations SHELBY 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% SMITH 29 18 62.07% 11 37.93% STARR 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% TARRANT 152 62 40.79% 90 59.21% TAYLOR 17 2 11.76% 15 88.24% TERRY 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% TITUS 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% TOM GREEN 14 4 28.57% 10 71.43% TRAVIS 84 25 29.76% 59 70.24% TRINITY 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% TYLER 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% UPSHUR 6 2 33.33% 4 66.67% UPTON 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% UVALDE 5 1 20.00% 4 80.00% VAN ZANDT 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% VICTORIA 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% WALKER 12 6 50.00% 6 50.00% WALLER 6 3 50.00% 3 50.00% WARD 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% WASHINGTON 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% WEBB 5 4 80.00% 1 20.00% WHARTON 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% WICHITA 9 2 22.22% 7 77.78% WILLACY 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% WILLIAMSON 15 5 33.33% 10 66.67% WILSON 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% WISE 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% WOOD 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% YOAKUM 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% ZAVALA 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% Statewide 2193 900 1293 49

Appendix 3: Average Number of Violations by County October 2001 In-Depth Study Total Revocations Average Number of New Law Violations Average Number of Technical Violations ANDERSON 11 1 5 ANDREWS 4 1 3 ANGELINA 14 1 6 ARANSAS 4 2 4 ATASCOSA 6 1 7 AUSTIN 2 0 4 BANDERA 1 0 5 BASTROP 7 2 4 BEE 1 1 15 BELL 30 1 5 BEXAR 120 1 3 BOSQUE 1 1 5 BOWIE 17 1 4 BRAZORIA 21 1 3 BRAZOS 9 2 7 BROWN 7 2 6 BURLESON 6 0 3 BURNET 2 1 3 CALDWELL 5 2 7 CAMERON 21 2 5 CAMP 1 4 7 CASS 3 1 6 CASTRO 1 1 5 CHAMBERS 6 2 8 CHEROKEE 2 2 4 COLLIN 23 1 3 COLORADO 3 0 4 COMAL 8 1 5 COMANCHE 4 1 7 COOKE 4 1 7 CORYELL 4 0 2 50

Appendix 3: Average Number of Violations by County Total Revocations Average Number of New Law Violations Average Number of Technical Violations DALLAM 1 1 0 DALLAS 359 1 8 DEAF SMITH 7 1 6 DENTON 21 1 3 DONLEY 1 1 6 ECTOR 21 1 2 ELLIS 25 1 3 EL PASO 42 1 3 ERATH 3 1 2 FALLS 1 1 4 FANNIN 3 2 4 FLOYD 3 2 4 FORT BEND 22 1 11 FRANKLIN 1 0 4 FREESTONE 4 1 4 FRIO 2 5 2 GALVESTON 28 2 6 GARZA 1 0 4 GILLESPIE 1 3 7 GONZALES 4 1 4 GRAY 2 1 5 GRAYSON 10 1 5 GREGG 21 1 2 GRIMES 2 0 4 GUADALUPE 9 1 5 HALE 4 3 8 HARDIN 3 1 1 HARRIS 398 1 7 HAYS 5 2 4 HENDERSON 4 1 5 HIDALGO 28 2 3 51

Appendix 3: Average Number of Violations by County Total Revocations Average Number of New Law Violations Average Number of Technical Violations HILL 9 1 7 HOCKLEY 3 3 4 HOOD 7 1 5 HOPKINS 7 2 3 HOUSTON 6 1 5 HOWARD 2 1 6 HUNT 5 1 3 HUTCHINSON 4 2 6 JASPER 2 1 4 JEFFERSON 28 2 8 JIM WELLS 1 1 0 JOHNSON 7 1 5 JONES 4 2 10 KARNES 1 0 1 KAUFMAN 14 1 4 KERR 9 1 4 KLEBERG 2 2 4 LAMAR 10 1 3 LAMB 2 1 3 LAMPASAS 1 1 5 LAVACA 3 1 6 LEE 1 1 3 LIBERTY 5 4 7 LIMESTONE 4 1 4 LIVE OAK 1 0 2 LLANO 1 1 0 LUBBOCK 24 1 5 MCCULLOCH 1 0 7 MCLENNAN 10 1 5 MADISON 2 2 4 MARION 3 1 3 MATAGORDA 4 0 7 MAVERICK 1 0 1 52

Appendix 3: Average Number of Violations by County Total Revocations Average Number of New Law Violations Average Number of Technical Violations MIDLAND 27 1 4 MILAM 4 1 4 MONTAGUE 1 1 0 MONTGOMERY 24 1 5 MOORE 3 0 2 NACOGDOCHES 4 1 4 NAVARRO 7 1 3 NEWTON 3 0 2 NOLAN 6 1 6 NUECES 40 2 5 OCHILTREE 1 1 4 ORANGE 12 1 3 PALO PINTO 8 1 4 PARKER 14 1 5 PARMER 1 1 0 PECOS 2 1 12 POLK 4 1 3 POTTER 29 2 5 RAINS 1 5 2 RANDALL 9 1 5 REAL 1 2 5 RED RIVER 3 1 3 REEVES 3 0 4 REFUGIO 2 2 6 ROBERTSON 4 1 3 ROCKWALL 6 2 7 RUNNELS 3 0 4 RUSK 7 0 3 SAN PATRICIO 5 4 6 53

Appendix 3: Average Number of Violations by County Total Revocations Average Number of New Law Violations Average Number of Technical Violations SHELBY 1 0 5 SMITH 29 1 3 STARR 1 0 1 TARRANT 152 1 3 TAYLOR 17 5 11 TERRY 4 3 13 TITUS 1 1 5 TOM GREEN 14 2 6 TRAVIS 84 1 8 TRINITY 2 1 4 TYLER 1 4 6 UPSHUR 6 2 5 UPTON 1 5 1 UVALDE 5 2 9 VAN ZANDT 4 1 1 VICTORIA 4 3 5 WALKER 12 1 5 WALLER 6 1 6 WARD 1 0 3 WASHINGTON 3 0 6 WEBB 5 0 4 WHARTON 4 1 4 WICHITA 9 2 11 WILLACY 2 4 6 WILLIAMSON 15 1 7 WILSON 1 1 9 WISE 3 1 1 WOOD 2 4 7 YOAKUM 1 1 1 ZAVALA 1 4 2 Statewide 2193 1.2 5.6 54

Appendix 4: Violation Severity of Those Revoked for Technical Violations October 2001 In-Depth Study Total Revs %Highest %High %Medium %Low ANDERSON 6 83.3% 16.7% ANDREWS 1 100.0% ANGELINA 4 100.0% ATASCOSA 4 50.0% 50.0% AUSTIN 2 50.0% 50.0% BANDERA 1 100.0% BELL 17 17.7% 64.7% 17.7% BEXAR 49 14.3% 69.4% 16.3% BOWIE 12 16.7% 83.3% BRAZORIA 3 66.7% 33.3% BRAZOS 2 100.0% BROWN 1 100.0% BURLESON 4 50.0% 50.0% BURNET 1 100.0% CALDWELL 1 100.0% CAMERON 4 75.0% 25.0% CASS 1 100.0% CHEROKEE 1 100.0% COLLIN 11 36.4% 63.6% COLORADO 2 100.0% COMAL 3 33.3% 66.7% COMANCHE 1 100.0% COOKE 2 100.0% CORYELL 3 100.0% %Not Applicable 55

Appendix 4: Violation Severity of Those Revoked for Technical Violations Total Revs %Highest %High %Medium %Low %Not Applicable DALLAS 160 27.5% 71.3% 0.6% 0.6% DEAF SMITH 3 33.3% 66.7% DENTON 9 22.2% 77.8% ECTOR 11 63.6% 36.4% ELLIS 14 85.7% 7.1% 7.1% EL PASO 11 81.8% 18.2% ERATH 2 50.0% 50.0% FANNIN 1 100.0% FLOYD 1 100.0% FORT BEND 4 50.0% 50.0% FRANKLIN 1 100.0% FREESTONE 3 100.0% GALVESTON 8 12.5% 87.5% GARZA 1 100.0% GONZALES 1 100.0% GRAY 1 100.0% GRAYSON 5 60.0% 40.0% GREGG 9 44.4% 33.3% 22.2% GRIMES 2 50.0% 50.0% GUADALUPE 3 100.0% HARRIS 206 34.0% 59.2% 5.3% 1.5% HAYS 1 100.0% HENDERSON 2 100.0% HIDALGO 2 50.0% 50.0% 56

Appendix 4: Violation Severity of Those Revoked for Technical Violations Total Revs %Highest %High %Medium %Low %Not Applicable HILL 5 40.0% 60.0% HOOD 2 100.0% HOPKINS 3 66.7% 33.3% HOUSTON 1 100.0% HOWARD 1 100.0% HUNT 2 50.0% 50.0% HUTCHINSON 1 100.0% JASPER 1 100.0% JEFFERSON 9 44.4% 55.6% JOHNSON 3 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% JONES 1 100.0% KARNES 1 100.0% KAUFMAN 4 50.0% 50.0% KERR 2 50.0% 50.0% LAMAR 6 16.7% 83.3% LIBERTY 1 100.0% LIVE OAK 1 100.0% LUBBOCK 8 37.5% 50.0% 12.5% MCCULLOCH 1 100.0% MCLENNAN 2 50.0% 50.0% MARION 1 100.0% MATAGORDA 3 100.0% MAVERICK 1 100.0% 57

Appendix 4: Violation Severity of Those Revoked for Technical Violations Total Revs %Highest %High %Medium %Low %Not Applicable MIDLAND 12 50.0% 50.0% MILAM 2 50.0% 50.0% MONTGOMERY 8 37.5% 62.5% MOORE 2 50.0% 50.0% NACOGDOCHES 2 50.0% 50.0% NAVARRO 4 75.0% 25.0% NEWTON 3 100.0% NOLAN 4 75.0% 25.0% NUECES 13 15.4% 84.6% ORANGE 8 25.0% 75.0% PALO PINTO 4 25.0% 75.0% PARKER 9 33.3% 66.7% POLK 1 100.0% POTTER 7 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% RANDALL 3 66.7% 33.3% RED RIVER 1 100.0% REEVES 2 100.0% REFUGIO 1 100.0% ROBERTSON 3 33.3% 66.7% ROCKWALL 2 50.0% 50.0% RUNNELS 3 100.0% RUSK 5 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 58

Appendix 4: Violation Severity of Those Revoked for Technical Violations Total Revs %Highest %High %Medium %Low %Not Applicable SHELBY 1 100.0% SMITH 18 38.9% 33.3% 27.8% STARR 1 100.0% TARRANT 62 25.8% 66.1% 8.1% TAYLOR 2 50.0% 50.0% TERRY 1 100.0% TOM GREEN 4 25.0% 75.0% TRAVIS 25 32.0% 68.0% UPSHUR 2 100.0% UVALDE 1 100.0% VAN ZANDT 1 100.0% VICTORIA 1 100.0% WALKER 6 33.3% 66.7% WALLER 3 33.3% 66.7% WARD 1 100.0% WASHINGTON 2 100.0% WEBB 4 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% WHARTON 2 100.0% WICHITA 2 50.0% 50.0% WILLIAMSON 5 100.0% Statewide 900 29.4% 63.6% 6.2% 0.0% 0.8% 59

Appendix 5: Offense Type of Those Revoked for New Law Violations October 2001 In-Depth Study Total Revs %Violent %Sex %Property %Drug %DWI %Other %Unknown ANDERSON 5 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% ANDREWS 3 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% ANGELINA 10 30.0% 30.0% 10.0% 20.0% 10.0% ARANSAS 4 75.0% 25.0% ATASCOSA 2 50.0% 50.0% BASTROP 7 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% BEE 1 100.0% BELL 13 15.4% 23.1% 23.1% 38.5% BEXAR 71 11.3% 22.5% 15.5% 12.7% 11.3% 26.8% BOSQUE 1 100.0% BOWIE 5 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% BRAZORIA 18 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 22.2% 16.7% 5.6% 5.6% BRAZOS 7 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% BROWN 6 16.7% 33.3% 50.0% BURLESON 2 100.0% BURNET 1 100.0% CALDWELL 4 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% CAMERON 17 17.7% 29.4% 29.4% 11.8% 5.9% 5.9% CAMP 1 100.0% CASS 2 50.0% 50.0% CASTRO 1 100.0% CHAMBERS 6 16.7% 16.7% 33.3% 33.3% CHEROKEE 1 100.0% COLLIN 12 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 8.3% 8.3% 33.3% COLORADO 1 100.0% COMAL 5 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% COMANCHE 3 33.3% 66.7% COOKE 2 50.0% 50.0% CORYELL 1 100.0% 60

Appendix 5: Offense Type of Those Revoked for New Law Violations Total Revs %Violent %Sex %Property %Drug %DWI %Other %Unknown DALLAM 1 100.0% DALLAS 199 15.6% 3.5% 25.1% 27.6% 4.5% 22.1% 1.5% DEAF SMITH 4 100.0% DENTON 12 33.3% 25.0% 25.0% 8.3% 8.3% DONLEY 1 100.0% ECTOR 10 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 30.0% ELLIS 11 27.3% 9.1% 18.2% 9.1% 36.4% EL PASO 31 16.1% 6.5% 12.9% 32.3% 12.9% 9.7% 9.7% ERATH 1 100.0% FALLS 1 100.0% FANNIN 2 50.0% 50.0% FLOYD 2 50.0% 50.0% FORT BEND 18 22.2% 16.7% 44.4% 5.6% 11.1% FREESTONE 1 100.0% FRIO 2 50.0% 50.0% GALVESTON 20 15.0% 5.0% 30.0% 15.0% 5.0% 20.0% 10.0% GILLESPIE 1 100.0% GONZALES 3 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% GRAY 1 100.0% GRAYSON 5 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% GREGG 12 8.3% 8.3% 41.7% 8.3% 25.0% 8.3% GUADALUPE 6 33.3% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% HALE 4 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% HARDIN 3 66.7% 33.3% HARRIS 192 19.3% 4.2% 26.6% 27.6% 3.1% 12.0% 7.3% HAYS 4 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% HENDERSON 2 50.0% 50.0% HIDALGO 26 23.1% 19.2% 19.2% 23.1% 3.8% 11.5% 61

Appendix 5: Offense Type of Those Revoked for New Law Violations Total Revs %Violent %Sex %Property %Drug %DWI %Other %Unknown HILL 4 100.0% HOCKLEY 3 100.0% HOOD 5 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% HOPKINS 4 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% HOUSTON 5 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% HOWARD 1 100.0% HUNT 3 66.7% 33.3% HUTCHINSON 3 33.3% 66.7% JASPER 1 100.0% JEFFERSON 19 10.5% 36.8% 21.1% 26.3% 5.3% JIM WELLS 1 100.0% JOHNSON 4 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% JONES 3 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% KAUFMAN 10 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 10.0% KERR 7 28.6% 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% KLEBERG 2 100.0% LAMAR 4 25.0% 75.0% LAMB 2 50.0% 50.0% LAMPASAS 1 100.0% LAVACA 3 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% LEE 1 100.0% LIBERTY 4 75.0% 25.0% LIMESTONE 4 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% LLANO 1 100.0% LUBBOCK 16 6.3% 37.5% 12.5% 6.3% 12.5% 25.0% MCLENNAN 8 12.5% 12.5% 37.5% 25.0% 12.5% MADISON 2 50.0% 50.0% MARION 2 50.0% 50.0% MATAGORDA 1 100.0% MIDLAND 15 20.0% 13.3% 6.7% 13.3% 6.7% 26.7% 13.3% 62

Appendix 5: Offense Type of Those Revoked for New Law Violations Total Revs %Violent %Sex %Property %Drug %DWI %Other %Unknown MILAM 2 50.0% 50.0% MONTAGUE 1 100.0% MONTGOMERY 16 18.8% 12.5% 12.5% 6.3% 12.5% 37.5% MOORE 1 100.0% NACOGDOCHES 2 50.0% 50.0% NAVARRO 3 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% NOLAN 2 50.0% 50.0% NUECES 27 25.9% 3.7% 25.9% 18.5% 14.8% 11.1% OCHILTREE 1 100.0% ORANGE 4 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% PALO PINTO 4 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% PARKER 5 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% PARMER 1 100.0% PECOS 2 100.0% POLK 3 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% POTTER 22 9.1% 9.1% 27.3% 18.2% 9.1% 18.2% 9.1% RAINS 1 100.0% RANDALL 6 16.7% 50.0% 16.7% 16.7% REAL 1 100.0% RED RIVER 2 100.0% REEVES 1 100.0% REFUGIO 1 100.0% ROBERTSON 1 100.0% ROCKWALL 4 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% RUSK 2 50.0% 50.0% SAN PATRICIO 5 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 63

Appendix 5: Offense Type of Those Revoked for New Law Violations Total Revs %Violent %Sex %Property %Drug %DWI %Other %Unknown SMITH 11 45.5% 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% TARRANT 90 22.2% 5.6% 31.1% 18.9% 3.3% 14.4% 4.4% TAYLOR 15 6.7% 6.7% 53.3% 13.3% 6.7% 13.3% TERRY 3 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% TITUS 1 100.0% TOM GREEN 10 10.0% 30.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% TRAVIS 59 25.4% 5.1% 25.4% 23.7% 5.1% 15.3% TRINITY 2 100.0% TYLER 1 100.0% UPSHUR 4 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% UPTON 1 100.0% UVALDE 4 25.0% 75.0% VAN ZANDT 3 33.3% 66.7% VICTORIA 3 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% WALKER 6 33.3% 33.3% 16.7% 16.7% WALLER 3 33.3% 66.7% WASHINGTON 1 100.0% WEBB 1 100.0% WHARTON 2 100.0% WICHITA 7 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% WILLACY 2 100.0% WILLIAMSON 10 30.0% 10.0% 20.0% 10.0% 30.0% WILSON 1 100.0% WISE 3 33.3% 66.7% WOOD 2 50.0% 50.0% YOAKUM 1 100.0% ZAVALA 1 100.0% Statewide 1293 17.5% 3.9% 25.0% 22.3% 7.4% 14.5% 9.4% 64

Appendix 6: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for Technical Violations October 2001 In-Depth Study Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total ANDERSON 3 0 2 5 60.0% 0.0% 40.0% ANDREWS 0 0 1 1 ANGELINA 0 3 1 4 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% ARANSAS 0 0 0 0 ATASCOSA 0 2 2 4 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% AUSTIN 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% BANDERA 0 0 1 1 BASTROP 0 0 0 0 BEE 0 0 0 0 BELL 3 4 10 17 17.6% 23.5% 58.8% BEXAR 5 21 16 42 11.9% 50.0% 38.1% BOSQUE 0 0 0 0 BOWIE 1 3 8 12 8.3% 25.0% 66.7% BRAZORIA 0 1 2 3 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% BRAZOS 0 0 1 1 BROWN 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% BURLESON 0 0 3 3 BURNET 0 0 1 1 CALDWELL 0 0 0 0 65

Appendix 6: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for Technical Violations Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total CAMERON 0 1 2 3 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% CAMP 0 0 0 0 CASS 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% CASTRO 0 0 0 0 CHAMBERS 0 0 0 0 CHEROKEE 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% COLLIN 0 2 4 6 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% COLORADO 0 0 1 1 COMAL 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% COMANCHE 0 0 1 1 COOKE 0 0 2 2 CORYELL 0 2 1 3 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% DALLAM 0 0 0 0 DALLAS 4 50 61 115 3.5% 43.5% 53.0% DEAF SMITH 0 1 2 3 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% DENTON 1 2 1 4 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% DONLEY 0 0 0 0 ECTOR 0 5 5 10 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% EL PASO 0 1 6 7 0.0% 14.3% 85.7% 66

Appendix 6: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for Technical Violations Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total ELLIS 1 6 3 10 10.0% 60.0% 30.0% ERATH 0 0 0 0 FALLS 0 0 0 0 FANNIN 0 0 0 0 FLOYD 0 0 1 1 FORT BEND 0 1 3 4 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% FRANKLIN 0 0 0 0 FREESTONE 0 0 2 2 FRIO 0 0 0 0 GALVESTON 1 3 2 6 16.7% 50.0% 33.3% GARZA 0 0 1 1 GILLESPIE 0 0 0 0 GONZALES 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% GRAY 1 0 0 1 10 GRAYSON 1 0 2 3 33.3% 0.0% 66.7% GREGG 3 3 0 6 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% GRIMES 0 0 0 0 GUADALUPE 0 0 3 3 67

Appendix 6: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for Technical Violations Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total HALE 0 0 0 0 HARDIN 0 0 0 0 HARRIS 30 111 32 173 17.3% 64.2% 18.5% HAYS 0 0 0 0 HENDERSON 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% HIDALGO 1 1 0 2 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% HILL 0 0 5 5 HOCKLEY 0 0 0 0 HOOD 0 2 0 2 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% HOPKINS 0 2 1 3 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% HOUSTON 0 0 1 1 HOWARD 0 0 1 1 HUNT 0 0 1 1 HUTCHINSON 0 0 0 0 JASPER 0 0 1 1 JEFFERSON 1 4 1 6 16.7% 66.7% 16.7% JIM WELLS 0 0 0 0 JOHNSON 1 0 0 1 10 JONES 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 68

Appendix 6: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for Technical Violations Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total KARNES 0 0 0 0 KAUFMAN 1 0 1 2 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% KERR 0 0 0 0 KLEBERG 0 0 0 0 LAMAR 1 2 1 4 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% LAMB 0 0 0 0 LAMPASAS 0 0 0 0 LAVACA 0 0 0 0 LEE 0 0 0 0 LIBERTY 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% LIMESTONE 0 0 0 0 LIVE OAK 0 0 1 1 LLANO 0 0 0 0 LUBBOCK 2 1 4 7 28.6% 14.3% 57.1% MADISON 0 0 0 0 MARION 1 0 0 1 10 MATAGORDA 0 1 2 3 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% MAVERICK 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% MCCULLOCH 0 0 1 1 69

Appendix 6: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for Technical Violations Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total MCLENNAN 0 1 1 2 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% MIDLAND 0 0 5 5 MILAM 0 0 2 2 MONTAGUE 0 0 0 0 MONTGOMERY 2 1 4 7 28.6% 14.3% 57.1% MOORE 0 0 0 0 NACOGDOCHES 0 0 0 0 NAVARRO 0 1 3 4 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% NEWTON 2 0 1 3 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% NOLAN 0 0 0 0 NUECES 0 3 7 10 0.0% 30.0% 70.0% OCHILTREE 0 0 0 0 ORANGE 1 1 2 4 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% PALO PINTO 1 1 1 3 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% PARKER 0 1 5 6 0.0% 16.7% 83.3% PARMER 0 0 0 0 PECOS 0 0 0 0 POLK 0 0 0 0 POTTER 0 1 6 7 0.0% 14.3% 85.7% 70

Appendix 6: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for Technical Violations Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total RAINS 0 0 0 0 RANDALL 0 2 0 2 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% REAL 0 0 0 0 RED RIVER 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% REEVES 0 0 2 2 REFUGIO 0 0 0 0 ROBERTSON 0 0 0 0 ROCKWALL 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% RUNNELS 0 1 1 2 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% RUSK 0 2 1 3 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% SAN PATRICIO 0 0 0 0 SHELBY 0 0 1 1 SMITH 3 3 7 13 23.1% 23.1% 53.8% STARR 0 0 0 0 TARRANT 6 18 16 40 15.0% 45.0% 40.0% TAYLOR 0 0 0 0 TERRY 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% TITUS 0 0 0 0 TOM GREEN 1 1 2 4 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 71

Appendix 6: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for Technical Violations Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total TRAVIS 0 4 13 17 0.0% 23.5% 76.5% TRINITY 0 0 0 0 TYLER 0 0 0 0 UPSHUR 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% UPTON 0 0 0 0 UVALDE 0 0 1 1 VAN ZANDT 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% VICTORIA 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% WALKER 0 0 5 5 WALLER 0 0 1 1 WARD 0 0 0 0 WASHINGTON 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% WEBB 0 1 3 4 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% WHARTON 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% WICHITA 0 0 2 2 WILLACY 0 0 0 0 WILLIAMSON 0 0 3 3 WILSON 0 0 0 0 WISE 0 0 0 0 72

Appendix 6: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for Technical Violations Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total WOOD 0 0 0 0 YOAKUM 0 0 0 0 ZAVALA 0 0 0 0 Statewide 78 295 299 672* * Risk level was not reported for 228 of the 900 technical revocations. 73

Appendix 7: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for New Law Violations by County October 2001 In-Depth Study Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total ANDERSON 0 1 2 3 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% ANDREWS 0 0 3 3 ANGELINA 0 3 7 10 0.0% 30.0% 70.0% ARANSAS 0 0 4 4 ATASCOSA 0 0 2 2 AUSTIN 0 0 0 0 BANDERA 0 0 0 0 BASTROP 0 2 1 3 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% BEE 0 0 1 1 BELL 0 4 9 13 0.0% 30.8% 69.2% BEXAR 16 25 18 59 27.1% 42.4% 30.5% BOSQUE 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% BOWIE 0 0 5 5 BRAZORIA 1 7 6 14 7.1% 50.0% 42.9% BRAZOS 0 1 4 5 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% BROWN 0 5 1 6 0.0% 83.3% 16.7% BURLESON 0 1 1 2 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% BURNET 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% CALDWELL 0 0 2 2 74

Appendix 7: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for New Law Violations by County Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total CAMERON 1 4 10 15 6.7% 26.7% 66.7% CAMP 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% CASS 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% CASTRO 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% CHAMBERS 0 1 2 3 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% CHEROKEE 0 0 1 1 COLLIN 1 4 3 8 12.5% 50.0% 37.5% COLORADO 1 0 0 1 10 COMAL 0 1 1 2 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% COMANCHE 0 1 2 3 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% COOKE 0 0 2 2 CORYELL 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% DALLAM 0 0 1 1 DALLAS 9 51 96 156 5.8% 32.7% 61.5% DEAF SMITH 0 1 3 4 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% DENTON 1 6 3 10 10.0% 60.0% 30.0% DONLEY 0 0 0 0 ECTOR 0 2 8 10 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% EL PASO 1 6 23 30 3.3% 20.0% 76.7% 75

Appendix 7: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for New Law Violations by County Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total ELLIS 1 4 2 7 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% ERATH 0 0 0 0 FALLS 0 0 0 0 FANNIN 0 1 1 2 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% FLOYD 0 0 2 2 FORT BEND 0 4 14 18 0.0% 22.2% 77.8% FRANKLIN 0 0 0 0 FREESTONE 0 0 0 0 FRIO 0 0 2 2 GALVESTON 1 6 9 16 6.3% 37.5% 56.3% GARZA 0 0 0 0 GILLESPIE 0 0 0 0 GONZALES 0 0 3 3 GRAY 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% GRAYSON 0 0 3 3 GREGG 1 7 1 9 11.1% 77.8% 11.1% GRIMES 0 0 0 0 GUADALUPE 0 0 5 5 76

Appendix 7: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for New Law Violations by County Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total HALE 0 2 1 3 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% HARDIN 0 1 2 3 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% HARRIS 36 88 38 162 22.2% 54.3% 23.5% HAYS 0 0 1 1 HENDERSON 0 0 0 0 HIDALGO 4 4 12 20 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% HILL 0 0 4 4 HOCKLEY 0 0 3 3 HOOD 0 3 1 4 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% HOPKINS 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% HOUSTON 1 0 4 5 20.0% 0.0% 80.0% HOWARD 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% HUNT 0 2 1 3 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% HUTCHINSON 0 2 0 2 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% JASPER 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% JEFFERSON 2 9 7 18 11.1% 50.0% 38.9% JIM WELLS 1 0 0 1 10 JOHNSON 0 2 2 4 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% JONES 0 0 1 1 77

Appendix 7: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for New Law Violations by County Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total KARNES 0 0 0 0 KAUFMAN 1 4 3 8 12.5% 50.0% 37.5% KERR 0 0 3 3 KLEBERG 0 0 0 0 LAMAR 1 1 0 2 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% LAMB 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% LAMPASAS 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% LAVACA 0 1 2 3 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% LEE 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% LIBERTY 0 2 1 3 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% LIMESTONE 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% LIVE OAK 0 0 0 0 LLANO 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% LUBBOCK 2 4 10 16 12.5% 25.0% 62.5% MADISON 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% MARION 0 1 1 2 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% MATAGORDA 1 0 0 1 10 MAVERICK 0 0 0 0 MCCULLOCH 0 0 0 0 78

Appendix 7: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for New Law Violations by County Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total MCLENNAN 0 1 7 8 0.0% 12.5% 87.5% MIDLAND 0 3 2 5 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% MILAM 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% MONTAGUE 0 0 1 1 MONTGOMERY 0 2 9 11 0.0% 18.2% 81.8% MOORE 0 0 1 1 NACOGDOCHES 1 1 0 2 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% NAVARRO 1 1 1 3 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% NEWTON 0 0 0 0 NOLAN 0 0 2 2 NUECES 2 6 18 26 7.7% 23.1% 69.2% OCHILTREE 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% ORANGE 1 0 1 2 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% PALO PINTO 0 0 3 3 PARKER 1 0 3 4 25.0% 0.0% 75.0% PARMER 0 0 1 1 PECOS 0 1 1 2 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% POLK 0 0 2 2 POTTER 1 4 10 15 6.7% 26.7% 66.7% 79

Appendix 7: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for New Law Violations by County Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total RAINS 0 0 0 0 RANDALL 0 3 2 5 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% REAL 0 0 1 1 RED RIVER 0 2 0 2 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% REEVES 0 0 0 0 REFUGIO 0 0 1 1 ROBERTSON 1 0 0 1 10 ROCKWALL 0 1 1 2 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% RUNNELS 0 0 0 0 RUSK 0 1 1 2 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% SAN PATRICIO 0 1 4 5 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% SHELBY 0 0 0 0 SMITH 0 6 5 11 0.0% 54.5% 45.5% STARR 0 0 0 0 TARRANT 7 24 29 60 11.7% 40.0% 48.3% TAYLOR 1 4 7 12 8.3% 33.3% 58.3% TERRY 0 0 2 2 TITUS 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% TOM GREEN 0 0 9 9 80

Appendix 7: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for New Law Violations by County Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total TRAVIS 1 10 35 46 2.2% 21.7% 76.1% TRINITY 0 1 1 2 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% TYLER 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% UPSHUR 1 0 2 3 33.3% 0.0% 66.7% UPTON 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% UVALDE 0 0 3 3 VAN ZANDT 0 0 1 1 VICTORIA 0 2 1 3 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% WALKER 0 1 4 5 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% WALLER 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% WARD 0 0 0 0 WASHINGTON 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% WEBB 0 1 0 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% WHARTON 0 1 1 2 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% WICHITA 0 1 5 6 0.0% 16.7% 83.3% WILLACY 0 0 1 1 WILLIAMSON 1 2 4 7 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% WILSON 0 0 1 1 WISE 3 0 0 3 10 81

Appendix 7: Risk Levels of Those Revoked for New Law Violations by County Minimum Risk Medium Risk Maximum Risk Total WOOD 0 0 1 1 YOAKUM 0 0 1 1 ZAVALA 0 0 1 1 Statewide 105 377 546 1028* * Risk level was not reported for 265 of the 1,293 new offense revocations. 82

Appendix 8: Severity Rankings for Technical Violations October 2001 In-Depth Study Highest Severity Absconder Inappropriate contact with victim Sex Offender - failure to attend/complete treatment Sex Offender - failure to remain outside child safety zones High Severity Failed drug test - 2 times Failed drug test - 3 or more times Failure to abide by conditions of electronic monitoring Failure to complete court ordered treatment/evaluation Failure to complete drug/alcohol treatment Failure to comply with specific Conditions of Community Supervision Failure to report Inappropriate contact with prohibited individuals Sex Offender - failure to refrain from use of pornography Sex Offender - Other Violation of Ignition Interlock Device (DWI) Admitted to use of drugs/alcohol Fail to provide sample for drug test Failed drug test - first time Failure to avoid injurious/vicious habits Failure to be at residence Failure to complete community service Failure to maintain employment Failure to notify of address change Failure to obtain GED Failure to pay fees Medium Severity Tardy Reporting Low Severity Judges, District Attorneys, and Probation Directors from around the state were asked to rank violations according to their perceptions of severity. A total of 168 responses were received. 83

Appendix 9: Number of Revoked Offenders Who Were Referred to Treatment Programs by County October 2001 In-Depth Study Total No Programs Programs ANDERSON 11 5 45.45% 6 54.55% ANDREWS 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% ANGELINA 14 5 35.71% 9 64.29% ARANSAS 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% ATASCOSA 6 1 16.67% 5 83.33% AUSTIN 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% BANDERA 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% BASTROP 7 5 71.43% 2 28.57% BEE 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% BELL 30 9 30.00% 21 70.00% BEXAR 120 13 10.83% 107 89.17% BOSQUE 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% BOWIE 17 3 17.65% 14 82.35% BRAZORIA 21 0 0.00% 21 100.00% BRAZOS 9 2 22.22% 7 77.78% BROWN 7 2 28.57% 5 71.43% BURLESON 6 1 16.67% 5 83.33% BURNET 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% CALDWELL 5 1 20.00% 4 80.00% CAMERON 21 5 23.81% 16 76.19% CAMP 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% CASS 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% CASTRO 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% CHAMBERS 6 0 0.00% 6 100.00% CHEROKEE 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% COLLIN 23 8 34.78% 15 65.22% COLORADO 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% COMAL 8 0 0.00% 8 100.00% COMANCHE 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% COOKE 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% CORYELL 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 84

Appendix 9: Number of Revoked Offenders Who Were Referred to Treatment Programs by County Total No Programs Programs DALLAM 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% DALLAS 359 43 11.98% 316 88.02% DEAF SMITH 7 0 0.00% 7 100.00% DENTON 21 0 0.00% 21 100.00% DONLEY 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% ECTOR 21 9 42.86% 12 57.14% ELLIS 25 21 84.00% 4 16.00% EL PASO 42 17 40.48% 25 59.52% ERATH 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% FALLS 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% FANNIN 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% FLOYD 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% FORT BEND 22 8 36.36% 14 63.64% FRANKLIN 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% FREESTONE 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% FRIO 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% GALVESTON 28 9 32.14% 19 67.86% GARZA 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% GILLESPIE 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% GONZALES 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% GRAY 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% GRAYSON 10 3 30.00% 7 70.00% GREGG 21 16 76.19% 5 23.81% GRIMES 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% GUADALUPE 9 0 0.00% 9 100.00% HALE 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% HARDIN 3 3 100.00% 0 0.00% HARRIS 398 70 17.59% 328 82.41% HAYS 5 3 60.00% 2 40.00% HENDERSON 4 4 100.00% 0 0.00% HIDALGO 28 15 53.57% 13 46.43% 85

Appendix 9: Number of Revoked Offenders Who Were Referred to Treatment Programs by County Total No Programs Programs HILL 9 0 0.00% 9 100.00% HOCKLEY 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% HOOD 7 0 0.00% 7 100.00% HOPKINS 7 4 57.14% 3 42.86% HOUSTON 6 2 33.33% 4 66.67% HOWARD 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% HUNT 5 2 40.00% 3 60.00% HUTCHINSON 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% JASPER 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% JEFFERSON 28 5 17.86% 23 82.14% JIM WELLS 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% JOHNSON 7 1 14.29% 6 85.71% JONES 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% KARNES 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% KAUFMAN 14 6 42.86% 8 57.14% KERR 9 2 22.22% 7 77.78% KLEBERG 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% LAMAR 10 4 40.00% 6 60.00% LAMB 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% LAMPASAS 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% LAVACA 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% LEE 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% LIBERTY 5 2 40.00% 3 60.00% LIMESTONE 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% LIVE OAK 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% LLANO 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% LUBBOCK 24 9 37.50% 15 62.50% MCCULLOCH 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% MCLENNAN 10 1 10.00% 9 90.00% MADISON 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% MARION 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% MATAGORDA 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% MAVERICK 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 86

Appendix 9: Number of Revoked Offenders Who Were Referred to Treatment Programs by County Total No Programs Programs MIDLAND 27 11 40.74% 16 59.26% MILAM 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% MONTAGUE 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% MONTGOMERY 24 9 37.50% 15 62.50% MOORE 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% NACOGDOCHES 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% NAVARRO 7 3 42.86% 4 57.14% NEWTON 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% NOLAN 6 5 83.33% 1 16.67% NUECES 40 9 22.50% 31 77.50% OCHILTREE 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% ORANGE 12 5 41.67% 7 58.33% PALO PINTO 8 3 37.50% 5 62.50% PARKER 14 5 35.71% 9 64.29% PARMER 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% PECOS 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% POLK 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% POTTER 29 12 41.38% 17 58.62% RAINS 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% RANDALL 9 3 33.33% 6 66.67% REAL 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% RED RIVER 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% REEVES 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% REFUGIO 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% ROBERTSON 4 4 100.00% 0 0.00% ROCKWALL 6 0 0.00% 6 100.00% RUNNELS 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% RUSK 7 5 71.43% 2 28.57% SAN PATRICIO 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% 87

Appendix 9: Number of Revoked Offenders Who Were Referred to Treatment Programs by County Total No Programs Programs SHELBY 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% SMITH 29 17 58.62% 12 41.38% STARR 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% TARRANT 152 26 17.11% 126 82.89% TAYLOR 17 6 35.29% 11 64.71% TERRY 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% TITUS 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% TOM GREEN 14 5 35.71% 9 64.29% TRAVIS 84 4 4.76% 80 95.24% TRINITY 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% TYLER 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% UPSHUR 6 4 66.67% 2 33.33% UPTON 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% UVALDE 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% VAN ZANDT 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% VICTORIA 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% WALKER 12 4 33.33% 8 66.67% WALLER 6 2 33.33% 4 66.67% WARD 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% WASHINGTON 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% WEBB 5 1 20.00% 4 80.00% WHARTON 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% WICHITA 9 6 66.67% 3 33.33% WILLACY 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% WILLIAMSON 15 1 6.67% 14 93.33% WILSON 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% WISE 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% WOOD 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% YOAKUM 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% ZAVALA 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% Statewide 2193 536 24.44% 1657 75.56% 88

Appendix 10: Sentencing Changes for Technical Violators Revoked to Prison October 2001 In-Depth Study Technical Revocations to Prison Average Probation Sentence (Years) Average Revocation Sentence (Years) Average Sentence Reduction (Years) Percent Sentence Reduction ANDERSON 3 8.7 3.3 5.3 61.54% ANGELINA 1 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.00% ATASCOSA 3 9.3 7.0 2.3 25.00% BELL 4 7.8 4.3 3.5 45.16% BEXAR 21 7.1 4.6 2.5 35.33% BOWIE 4 7.5 3.5 4.0 53.33% BRAZORIA 1 5.0 4.0 1.0 20.00% BRAZOS 1 10.0 5.0 5.0 50.00% BROWN 1 10.0 4.0 6.0 60.00% BURLESON 1 5.0 10.0-5.0-100.00% CALDWELL 1 5.0 2.0 3.0 60.00% CAMERON 4 5.8 5.5 0.3 4.35% COLLIN 3 5.0 2.7 2.3 46.67% COLORADO 1 4.0 2.0 2.0 50.00% COMAL 1 10.0 8.0 2.0 20.00% CORYELL 1 5.0 2.0 3.0 60.00% DALLAS 63 6.9 4.3 2.6 37.18% DEAF SMITH 2 7.5 4.5 3.0 40.00% DENTON 4 5.5 3.5 2.0 36.36% ECTOR 5 6.6 3.8 2.8 42.42% ELLIS 8 7.0 5.1 1.9 26.79% EL PASO 9 8.7 4.7 4.0 45.73% ERATH 2 8.5 5.5 3.0 35.29% FORT BEND 2 8.5 5.5 3.0 35.29% FREESTONE 1 5.0 2.0 3.0 60.00% GALVESTON 4 7.5 3.3 4.3 56.67% GARZA 1 10.0 8.0 2.0 20.00% GONZALES 1 5.0 3.0 2.0 40.00% GRAYSON 2 6.5 2.5 4.0 61.54% GREGG 3 7.3 4.3 3.0 40.91% GRIMES 1 10.0 4.0 6.0 60.00% HARRIS 78 6.5 3.4 3.1 48.14% HAYS 1 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.00% 89

Appendix 10: Sentencing Changes for Technical Violators Revoked to Prison Technical Revocations to Prison Average Probation Sentence (Years) Average Revocation Sentence (Years) Average Sentence Reduction (Years) Percent Sentence Reduction HENDERSON 1 7.0 4.0 3.0 42.86% HIDALGO 2 9.0 3.5 5.5 61.11% HILL 3 8.7 7.3 1.3 15.38% HOOD 1 7.0 7.0 0.0 0.00% HOPKINS 1 2.0 4.0-2.0-100.00% HOUSTON 1 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.00% HUNT 2 10.0 5.5 4.5 45.00% JEFFERSON 5 8.6 8.2 0.4 4.65% JOHNSON 2 10.0 5.0 5.0 50.00% JONES 1 10.0 9.0 1.0 10.00% KARNES 1 8.0 3.0 5.0 62.50% KAUFMAN 3 4.8 3.3 1.5 31.58% KERR 2 8.3 21.5-13.3-160.61% LAMAR 4 5.8 3.3 2.4 42.39% LUBBOCK 2 7.0 4.0 3.0 42.86% MCCULLOCH 1 10.0 5.0 5.0 50.00% MCLENNAN 1 10.0 8.0 2.0 20.00% MARION 1 10.0 5.0 5.0 50.00% MATAGORDA 1 5.0 2.0 3.0 60.00% MAVERICK 1 5.0 4.0 1.0 20.00% MIDLAND 2 4.0 2.5 1.5 37.50% MILAM 2 7.0 4.5 2.5 35.71% MONTGOMERY 8 7.0 2.6 4.4 62.50% NACOGDOCHES 2 7.5 5.5 2.0 26.67% NAVARRO 1 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.00% NEWTON 2 7.5 7.5 0.0 0.00% NOLAN 3 5.7 4.3 1.3 23.53% NUECES 5 8.0 4.4 3.6 45.00% ORANGE 5 7.0 4.2 2.8 40.00% PALO PINTO 2 10.0 5.0 5.0 50.00% PARKER 5 7.0 5.4 1.6 22.86% POTTER 3 6.7 5.3 1.3 20.00% RANDALL 1 5.0 4.0 1.0 20.00% 90

Appendix 10: Sentencing Changes for Technical Violators Revoked to Prison Technical Revocations to Prison Average Probation Sentence (Years) Average Revocation Sentence (Years) Average Sentence Reduction (Years) Percent Sentence Reduction REEVES 1 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.00% ROBERTSON 2 6.0 4.0 2.0 33.33% ROCKWALL 1 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.00% RUNNELS 1 5.0 3.0 2.0 40.00% RUSK 2 8.5 6.0 2.5 29.41% SMITH 10 7.7 6.7 1.0 12.42% STARR 1 8.0 5.0 3.0 37.50% TARRANT 24 6.3 3.2 3.2 50.00% TERRY 1 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.00% TOM GREEN 2 6.0 3.0 3.0 50.00% TRAVIS 15 5.9 3.1 2.7 46.59% UPSHUR 1 10.0 4.0 6.0 60.00% VICTORIA 1 10.0 6.0 4.0 40.00% WARD 1 5.0 4.0 1.0 20.00% WASHINGTON 2 6.5 4.5 2.0 30.77% WEBB 2 8.5 3.5 5.0 58.82% WILLIAMSON 2 4.5 4.5 0.0 0.00% Statewide 384 7.0 4.3 2.7 38.13% 91

Appendix 11: Sentencing Changes for Offenders with New Offenses Revoked to Prison October 2001 In-Depth Study New Offense Revocations to Prison Average Probation Sentence (Years) Average Revocation Sentence (Years) Average Sentence Reduction (Years) Percent Sentence Reduction ANDERSON 3 8.3 4.0 4.3 52.00% ANDREWS 1 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.00% ANGELINA 7 7.4 5.4 2.0 26.92% ARANSAS 2 7.5 6.5 1.0 13.33% ATASCOSA 2 10.0 5.0 5.0 50.00% BASTROP 2 10.0 6.5 3.5 35.00% BELL 7 8.4 6.3 2.1 25.42% BEXAR 37 6.4 4.5 2.0 30.46% BOWIE 3 9.8 4.7 5.2 52.54% BRAZORIA 9 5.9 4.2 1.7 29.25% BRAZOS 4 7.5 6.3 1.3 16.67% BROWN 4 8.3 6.5 1.8 21.21% BURLESON 2 8.5 7.5 1.0 11.76% BURNET 1 3.0 2.0 1.0 33.33% CALDWELL 3 9.0 5.7 3.3 37.04% CAMERON 11 6.9 5.7 1.2 17.11% CAMP 1 10.0 5.0 5.0 50.00% CASS 2 10.0 6.5 3.5 35.00% CASTRO 1 5.0 4.0 1.0 20.00% CHAMBERS 6 10.0 7.8 2.2 21.67% CHEROKEE 1 10.0 4.0 6.0 60.00% COLLIN 2 2.5 3.5-1.0-40.00% COLORADO 1 5.0 4.0 1.0 20.00% COMAL 5 6.6 5.7 0.9 14.14% COOKE 1 5.0 2.0 3.0 60.00% CORYELL 1 10.0 5.0 5.0 50.00% DALLAS 118 6.7 4.4 2.3 34.55% DEAF SMITH 4 7.5 4.8 2.8 36.67% DENTON 6 6.2 3.5 2.7 43.24% ECTOR 6 8.3 6.8 1.5 18.00% ELLIS 7 6.6 5.0 1.6 23.91% EL PASO 23 8.0 4.8 3.2 39.58% ERATH 1 8.0 10.0-2.0-25.00% 92

Appendix 11: Sentencing Changes for Offenders with New Offenses Revoked to Prison New Offense Revocations to Prison Average Probation Sentence (Years) Average Revocation Sentence (Years) Average Sentence Reduction (Years) Percent Sentence Reduction FANNIN 2 5.0 3.5 1.5 30.00% FLOYD 2 6.0 2.1 3.9 64.58% FORT BEND 9 6.3 5.2 1.1 17.54% FREESTONE 1 10.0 5.0 5.0 50.00% FRIO 2 9.0 14.0-5.0-55.56% GALVESTON 12 7.5 3.3 4.2 55.56% GILLESPIE 1 10.0 5.0 5.0 50.00% GONZALES 3 6.3 6.3 0.0 0.00% GRAY 1 10.0 8.0 2.0 20.00% GRAYSON 1 4.0 2.0 2.0 50.00% GREGG 6 8.0 11.5-3.5-43.75% GUADALUPE 4 6.8 4.6 2.1 31.48% HALE 1 10.0 7.0 3.0 30.00% HARDIN 1 7.0 3.0 4.0 57.14% HARRIS 90 7.1 5.1 2.0 28.64% HAYS 2 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.00% HENDERSON 1 10.0 4.0 6.0 60.00% HIDALGO 18 8.7 3.8 4.9 56.05% HILL 2 2.5 5.0-2.5-100.00% HOCKLEY 2 6.0 3.0 3.0 50.00% HOOD 2 8.5 8.5 0.0 0.00% HOPKINS 3 6.7 9.0-2.3-35.00% HOUSTON 1 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.00% HUNT 2 7.5 4.0 3.5 46.67% JASPER 1 10.0 5.0 5.0 50.00% JEFFERSON 6 5.7 5.2 0.5 8.82% JOHNSON 3 10.0 3.3 6.7 66.67% JONES 2 7.5 11.0-3.5-46.67% KAUFMAN 7 6.9 5.3 1.6 22.92% KERR 6 8.2 8.2 0.0 0.00% KLEBERG 2 7.5 5.0 2.5 33.33% LAMAR 2 3.5 2.0 1.5 42.86% 93

Appendix 11: Sentencing Changes for Offenders with New Offenses Revoked to Prison New Offense Revocations to Prison Average Probation Sentence (Years) Average Revocation Sentence (Years) Average Sentence Reduction (Years) Percent Sentence Reduction LAVACA 2 7.5 4.5 3.0 40.00% LEE 1 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.00% LIBERTY 4 8.3 6.5 1.8 21.21% LLANO 1 10.0 7.0 3.0 30.00% LUBBOCK 15 5.8 4.9 0.9 15.43% MCLENNAN 6 6.0 6.3-0.3-5.56% MADISON 1 10.0 5.0 5.0 50.00% MATAGORDA 1 10.0 2.0 8.0 80.00% MIDLAND 11 5.8 5.3 0.5 9.38% MONTGOMERY 9 5.9 4.2 1.7 28.30% MOORE 1 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.00% NACOGDOCHES 2 5.0 10.0-5.0-100.00% NAVARRO 1 10.0 9.0 1.0 10.00% NOLAN 1 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.00% NUECES 18 7.7 4.4 3.3 43.17% ORANGE 2 10.0 6.0 4.0 40.00% PALO PINTO 4 8.0 5.3 2.8 34.38% PARKER 2 10.0 7.0 3.0 30.00% PARMER 1 4.0 2.0 2.0 50.00% PECOS 2 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.00% POLK 2 7.5 6.0 1.5 20.00% POTTER 11 5.2 4.3 0.9 17.11% RANDALL 2 8.5 6.5 2.0 23.53% RED RIVER 2 5.5 2.0 3.5 63.64% REFUGIO 1 10.0 7.0 3.0 30.00% ROBERTSON 1 7.0 5.0 2.0 28.57% ROCKWALL 2 7.5 7.0 0.5 6.67% SAN PATRICIO 4 6.5 5.8 0.8 11.54% SMITH 8 8.1 10.0-1.9-23.08% TARRANT 44 7.9 4.8 3.1 39.60% TAYLOR 7 7.9 6.4 1.4 18.31% TERRY 2 6.5 4.5 2.0 30.77% TOM GREEN 7 6.6 3.7 2.9 43.48% 94

Appendix 11: Sentencing Changes for Offenders with New Offenses Revoked to Prison New Offense Revocations to Prison Average Probation Sentence (Years) Average Revocation Sentence (Years) Average Sentence Reduction (Years) Percent Sentence Reduction TRAVIS 37 7.1 4.1 3.0 42.53% UPSHUR 2 10.0 5.5 4.5 45.00% UPTON 1 4.0 3.0 1.0 25.00% UVALDE 2 10.0 7.0 3.0 30.00% VAN ZANDT 2 10.0 8.5 1.5 15.00% VICTORIA 2 10.0 7.5 2.5 25.00% WALKER 5 6.6 3.0 3.6 54.55% WALLER 1 5.0 2.0 3.0 60.00% WEBB 1 10.0 3.0 7.0 70.00% WHARTON 2 7.5 4.0 3.5 46.67% WICHITA 4 6.0 2.5 3.5 58.33% WILLACY 2 6.0 2.5 3.5 58.33% WILLIAMSON 3 7.7 6.7 1.0 13.04% WILSON 1 5.0 9.0-4.0-80.00% WISE 1 7.0 6.0 1.0 14.29% WOOD 1 10.0 5.0 5.0 50.00% YOAKUM 1 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.00% Statewide 729 7.2 5.0 2.1 29.73% 95

Appendix 12: Number of Revoked Offenders Who Were Referred to Residential Treatment Programs by County October 2001 In-Depth Study Total No Residential Programs Residential Programs ANDERSON 11 7 63.64% 4 36.36% ANDREWS 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% ANGELINA 14 9 64.29% 5 35.71% ARANSAS 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% ATASCOSA 6 1 16.67% 5 83.33% AUSTIN 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% BANDERA 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% BASTROP 7 6 85.71% 1 14.29% BEE 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% BELL 30 15 50.00% 15 50.00% BEXAR 120 59 49.17% 61 50.83% BOSQUE 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% BOWIE 17 10 58.82% 7 41.18% BRAZORIA 21 17 80.95% 4 19.05% BRAZOS 9 4 44.44% 5 55.56% BROWN 7 3 42.86% 4 57.14% BURLESON 6 1 16.67% 5 83.33% BURNET 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% CALDWELL 5 1 20.00% 4 80.00% CAMERON 21 15 71.43% 6 28.57% CAMP 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% CASS 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% CASTRO 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% CHAMBERS 6 1 16.67% 5 83.33% CHEROKEE 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% COLLIN 23 14 60.87% 9 39.13% COLORADO 3 3 100.00% 0 0.00% COMAL 8 4 50.00% 4 50.00% COMANCHE 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% COOKE 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% CORYELL 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 96

Appendix 12: Number of Revoked Offenders Who Were Referred to Residential Treatment Programs by County Total No Residential Programs Residential Programs DALLAM 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% DALLAS 359 218 60.72% 141 39.28% DEAF SMITH 7 1 14.29% 6 85.71% DENTON 21 13 61.90% 8 38.10% DONLEY 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% ECTOR 21 19 90.48% 2 9.52% ELLIS 25 24 96.00% 1 4.00% EL PASO 42 24 57.14% 18 42.86% ERATH 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% FALLS 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% FANNIN 3 3 100.00% 0 0.00% FLOYD 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% FORT BEND 22 18 81.82% 4 18.18% FRANKLIN 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% FREESTONE 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% FRIO 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% GALVESTON 28 17 60.71% 11 39.29% GARZA 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% GILLESPIE 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% GONZALES 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% GRAY 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% GRAYSON 10 6 60.00% 4 40.00% GREGG 21 19 90.48% 2 9.52% GRIMES 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% GUADALUPE 9 1 11.11% 8 88.89% HALE 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% HARDIN 3 3 100.00% 0 0.00% HARRIS 398 215 54.02% 183 45.98% HAYS 5 3 60.00% 2 40.00% HENDERSON 4 4 100.00% 0 0.00% HIDALGO 28 20 71.43% 8 28.57% 97

Appendix 12: Number of Revoked Offenders Who Were Referred to Residential Treatment Programs by County Total No Residential Programs Residential Programs HILL 9 6 66.67% 3 33.33% HOCKLEY 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% HOOD 7 0 0.00% 7 100.00% HOPKINS 7 5 71.43% 2 28.57% HOUSTON 6 3 50.00% 3 50.00% HOWARD 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% HUNT 5 4 80.00% 1 20.00% HUTCHINSON 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% JASPER 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% JEFFERSON 28 16 57.14% 12 42.86% JIM WELLS 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% JOHNSON 7 3 42.86% 4 57.14% JONES 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% KARNES 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% KAUFMAN 14 11 78.57% 3 21.43% KERR 9 8 88.89% 1 11.11% KLEBERG 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% LAMAR 10 8 80.00% 2 20.00% LAMB 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% LAMPASAS 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% LAVACA 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% LEE 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% LIBERTY 5 2 40.00% 3 60.00% LIMESTONE 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% LIVE OAK 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% LLANO 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% LUBBOCK 24 16 66.67% 8 33.33% MCCULLOCH 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% MCLENNAN 10 3 30.00% 7 70.00% MADISON 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% MARION 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% MATAGORDA 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% MAVERICK 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 98

Appendix 12: Number of Revoked Offenders Who Were Referred to Residential Treatment Programs by County Total No Residential Programs Residential Programs MIDLAND 27 19 70.37% 8 29.63% MILAM 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% MONTAGUE 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% MONTGOMERY 24 18 75.00% 6 25.00% MOORE 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% NACOGDOCHES 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% NAVARRO 7 4 57.14% 3 42.86% NEWTON 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% NOLAN 6 5 83.33% 1 16.67% NUECES 40 25 62.50% 15 37.50% OCHILTREE 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% ORANGE 12 6 50.00% 6 50.00% PALO PINTO 8 3 37.50% 5 62.50% PARKER 14 8 57.14% 6 42.86% PARMER 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% PECOS 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% POLK 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% POTTER 29 21 72.41% 8 27.59% RAINS 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% RANDALL 9 8 88.89% 1 11.11% REAL 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% RED RIVER 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% REEVES 3 3 100.00% 0 0.00% REFUGIO 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% ROBERTSON 4 4 100.00% 0 0.00% ROCKWALL 6 2 33.33% 4 66.67% RUNNELS 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% RUSK 7 6 85.71% 1 14.29% SAN PATRICIO 5 1 20.00% 4 80.00% 99

Appendix 12: Number of Revoked Offenders Who Were Referred to Residential Treatment Programs by County Total No Residential Programs Residential Programs SHELBY 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% SMITH 29 26 89.66% 3 10.34% STARR 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% TARRANT 152 106 69.74% 46 30.26% TAYLOR 17 10 58.82% 7 41.18% TERRY 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% TITUS 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% TOM GREEN 14 10 71.43% 4 28.57% TRAVIS 84 20 23.81% 64 76.19% TRINITY 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% TYLER 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% UPSHUR 6 4 66.67% 2 33.33% UPTON 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% UVALDE 5 1 20.00% 4 80.00% VAN ZANDT 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% VICTORIA 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% WALKER 12 5 41.67% 7 58.33% WALLER 6 5 83.33% 1 16.67% WARD 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% WASHINGTON 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% WEBB 5 4 80.00% 1 20.00% WHARTON 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% WICHITA 9 7 77.78% 2 22.22% WILLACY 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% WILLIAMSON 15 7 46.67% 8 53.33% WILSON 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% WISE 3 3 100.00% 0 0.00% WOOD 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% YOAKUM 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% ZAVALA 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% Statewide 2193 1293 58.96% 900 41.04% 100

Appendix 13: Estimated Diversion Impact of Probation Facilities Given Certain Assumptions about Net Widening Beds x Turnover Rate - Net Widening - Recidivism = Prison Diversions Facility Type Number of Beds (For Comparison) Number of Times Bed Turn Over Per Year (Known) Number of Offenders Served Per Year (Calculated) Probation ISF 100 4 400 CRTC 100 2 200 SATF 100 2.5 250 RC 100 1.5 150 LBC 100 3 300 Minus Net Widening (% of Offenders Who Would Not Have Gone to Prison Regardless of Program) (Assumed - Unknown) 100 (25%) 50 (25%) 62 (25%) 38 (25%) 75 (25%) Net Diversions After Widening Considered 300 150 188 112 225 Minus Recidivism Rate (Four Years) (Known) 121 (40.5%*300) 49 (32.5%*150) 75 (39.8%*188) 50 (44.6%*112) 103 (46.0%*225) Net Diversions (Calculated) 179 101 113 62 122 101