Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pretrial Risk Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District court judge urges probation officers in jail to cut overcrowding and costs
Summary
District Court Judge Watts presented a non-interview pretrial risk assessment pilot, saying the approach helped lower the jail population and asking the commissioners to reimburse two probation officers (estimated $121,000—$125,000) to perform immediate assessments and reduce days in custody.
Judge Watts, speaking to the Nueces County Commissioners Court during a budget workshop, urged the court to fund two probation officers to perform a non-interview pretrial risk assessment in the county jail, saying the pilot reduced the jail population and could save the county money.
The judge told commissioners that justice functions now account for roughly 51.03 percent of operating appropriations and that chronic overcrowding has driven up costs and threatened defendants' due-process rights. "The law enforcement corrections and the administration of judge justice eats up 51.03%," the judge said, and described a two-month tracking effort that, he said, brought the jail population down from above 100 percent to the low 90s.
Watts described a 7-week pilot in several district courts that used an objective, two-page risk assessment scored on flight risk, the potential for a new offense, and the risk of a violent offense. He said officers used NCIC and other databases rather than interviews to classify defendants and that roughly 50 percent of assessed defendants in the pilot were given PR (personal recognizance) releases. "So the proposal that I'm making to you today is this, to put 2 probation officers in the Nueces County Veil that immediately upon arrest, they begin the assessment process without interviewing the defendants," the judge said.
Watts estimated two certified probation officers would require desks, computers and NCIC access and said the county would reimburse the state pay for those positions; he gave an approximate annual cost near $121,000—$125,000. He said the pilot showed per-case savings and cited examples in court where early PR releases could have saved tens of thousands of dollars in jail costs alone.
Commissioners asked about legal authority, who would employ the officers and the risk of releasing defendants. County staff confirmed a recent legal opinion allowing contractual arrangements and explained the two officers would remain state probation employees while the county reimburses the salary and provides equipment. Watts emphasized that the magistrate or judge would retain oversight for cases that score moderate or high on risk.
The judge and several commissioners also raised implementation questions the county must resolve, including IT integration so the district clerk, jail and courts share accurate data, how to handle county-court-of-law cases and how the county would stop a contract if the program produced unacceptable results. Watts said the validation data is limited to months but pledged to track rearrests and other outcomes and return to the court with follow-up results.
The commissioners took no vote; the presentation was entered into the budget record and the court said it would consider the request during the formal budget deliberations.
