Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson and Justice Nathan Hecht made the plea in a letter sent yesterday. Funding for legal aid programs has become dicey in recent years as low interest rates have sapped one important source of funding – interest generated from lawyers’ trust accounts.

In addition, the justices note the Legal Services Corporation, another major source of funding, has had its funding cut by 4 percent.

Senator José Rodriguez (D-El Paso) had tried to raise money for legal aid programs through some increases in court fees but that provision was stripped in conference committee on the session’s main fiscal matters bill.

The funding crisis at legal aid is not new. The Legislature in 2009 found $20 million for the programs. But that was a different time then with federal stimulus money available to cure a myriad of budget ills.

The justices today admit up front “we know of no way to replace the $20 million that the Legislature appropriated in 2009.” And with interest rates remaining low, the interest bearing accounts won’t be of much help. Jefferson and Hecht say the money from those accounts has fallen from $20 million in 2007 to a projected $4.4 million this year.

They also note that the lawyers who help provide representation to the needy either volunteer their time or earn far less than what they could command in private practice. They estimate that cutting legal aid funding by $20 million would deny 25,000 Texans access to basic legal services, or 75,000 if you add in the immediate family of those individuals affected.

Those services include things like women seeking escape from domestic violence, ensuring that a veteran gets the benefits to which he’s entitled or fighting a wrongful eviction from a home.

The justices close by saying support for legal aid programs is in keeping with the court’s conservative stance.

“Conservative principles do not call for the rule of law to be denied the most vulnerable members of our community,” Jefferson and Hecht wrote. “The civil justice system is where people can claim for themselves the benefits of the rule of law. It is where the promises of the rule of law become real. A society that denies access to the courts for the least among us denigrates the law for us all. For these reasons, securing funding for basic civil legal services has been a priority for the Supreme Court, one to which its members are unanimously committed.”

“During the past ten years, our state has had minority population growth of nearly 90%, yet this map reduces the number of minority-majority districts from fifteen to twelve.

“Today I reluctantly cast my vote in support of the Texas Senate redistricting map, as it is my belief that Tarrant County’s Senate District 10 under this plan clearly violates the Voting Rights Act and will harm minorities in both North Texas and across our state.

“Many of my colleagues were shut out of the process, having no say in how their districts were drawn. As a result, the voice of minorities will be muted in many districts across this state.

“I am greatly concerned about the dismantling of Senate District 10, which will result in the reduction of minority voting strength. The changes to Senate District 10 are not only retrogressive, but will likely put the entire map at risk due to requirements outlined by the Voting Rights Act.

“I cast my vote in support of the map, because if not passed by the legislative body, the district lines will be drawn by the Legislative Redistricting Board, with minimal input from legislators, making the process even more exclusive. Additionally, I am pleased that the map unifies El Paso County into a single district.”

In response to the passage of today’s map and the concerns regarding Senate District 10, Senate Democrats signed onto a letter outlining their concerns with the process and the disenfranchisement of minorities.

If the legislation that established the WHP is not renewed by December, the five-year-old program — which provides approximately 90,000 uninsured women who earn under $1,679 a month with family planning education; contraceptive care; and screenings for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), cancer, anemia and hypertension and often serves as their only source of primary health care — will expire.

A program that has previously been considered uncontroversial across the ideological spectrum is now mired in anti-abortion politics as the result of new provisions in its renewal bill. Passed in a 5-1 committee vote, the provisions of the pending bill would bar affiliates of abortion providers, namely Planned Parenthood, from continuing to receive funding for the program. State Sen. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville) also added what women’s-health advocates are calling a “poison pill” that will automatically defund the entire program if Planned Parenthood successfully sues to rejoin.

When the WHP was created in 2005, Deuell attached an amendment that banned abortion providers and their affiliates from participating, even when the affiliates themselves did not provide abortions. None of the Texas Planned Parenthood facilities that were to be excluded actually provide abortions. Lawyers at Health and Human Services (HHS) however, asserted that this ban could be ruled unconstitutional, and consequently Planned Parenthood was allowed to participate after all. (Attorney General Greg Abbott has disagreed with the HHS’ public statements, saying that the ban is constitutional.) But the effort to exclude Planned Parenthood has not died, and this explains the new poison-pill provision, which some have called the “self destruct button.”

“I am dumbfounded that a program that actually saves state money and brings health care to women has become a political thing,” said Kelly Hart, director of Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood of North Texas.

Hart explained that, unlike most nonprofit-organization policy proposals that project only long-term monetary benefits, WHP provides almost immediate savings. Costing less than $3 million to administer, the WHP saved Texas over $20 million in 2009 and the Legislative Budget Board estimates $83 million in savings over the next two years. Every dollar Texas spends for the WHP is matched with $9 of federal cash, providing contraceptives for women who would qualify for Medicaid once pregnant. The Health and Human Services Commission predicted 9,101 pregnancies for 2008, while only 3,375 pregnancies actually occurred.

“I realize they are calling this the nuclear option,” Deuell told The Huffington Post. “I’m torn, I want the program to continue … but given the environment in the House in Texas, the pro-life people said it would never pass and be renewed unless a clause guaranteed [that affiliates of abortion providers couldn’t get funding.]”

Senator Jose Rodriguez (D-El Paso), the lone dissenting vote in committee, “doesn’t buy” Deuell’s explanation for the provision and believes this to be a political attack on Planned Parenthood.

“It seems like bad policy, the argument was that this is the only way we can pass this program,” Rodriguez said. “If everybody acknowledges and … agrees that this program has been successful and that the need is there, why would we pass a bill that calls for its destruction?”

“Taxpayers will be protected from indirectly funding Planned Parenthood’s abortions,” said Joe Pojman, executive director of the Texas Alliance for Life, which influences state legislators.

The poison pill essentially forces Planned Parenthood into a game of chicken; according to Ken Lambrecht, CEO of Planned Parenthood North Texas, the organization has no choice but to sue.

“At Planned Parenthood, one of our core values is that we stand up for those who are disenfranchised, those who are underserved … the 42,000 women who rely on us [for the Women’s Health Program,]” Lambrecht said. “It is unfortunate that the legislature is playing politics with women’s health care.”

Pojman believes that even if Planned Parenthood were to sue, they would not win and thus the Women’s Health Program would not be in jeopardy.

The question remains as to whether the WHP will be able to operate at capacity without Planned Parenthood, which services 40 percent of the program’s participants.

Deuell, a physician, said “I started looking at other programs in the state and we have found other providers. I think that the access is covered so that the women who will be going to these clinics will have access to a different provider.”

“There are numerous alternate providers,” Pojman said. Noting that most Planned Parenthoods are unable to treat illnesses for which they screen, he added, “Women in Texas deserve much better care than Planned Parenthood is willing or able to provide them.”

Those familiar with the mechanics of the WHP, however, question the feasibility of other health centers picking up the 42,000 women who would no longer be treated by Planned Parenthood.

“The coverage will continue, but that may not mean much if you look at the overall picture,” said Jose E. Camacho, Executive Director of the Texas Association of Community Health Centers. “Health centers’ funding is being leveled, so we can’t say in good conscience that [Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs)] have the capacity to take these women in.”

FQHCs are serving one million people, 230,000 of childbearing age. The future of health care for close to a quarter million clients is also hazy, Camacho says, considering the House’s recent cuts to Title XX, V, and X programs. To add 40,000-plus former Planned Parenthood patients would be a 20 percent increase and “just can’t be done over a night or two without funding.”

In 2005, Deuell implemented budget Rider 56, which cut $10 million in state family-planning money, allocating it to FQHCs.

According to Fran Hagerty, CEO of the Women’s Health and Family Planning Association of Texas, clients provided with health care services dropped by 41,561 the first year following implementation of Deuell’s budget Rider 56. Furthermore, due to their limited family planning services, FQHCs were unable to spend all the money allocated to them. Between 2006 and 2010, $18,179,314 of the funds went unspent.

“The diverted funds in 2005 was devastating,” Lambrecht said, noting that many of the women who ceased to seek and receive healthcare have not been reintegrated into the system years later.

Pojman and Deuell, however, point to private medical practitioners and family planning centers they believe can pick up the slack. Deuell, himself, is training to become a women’s health provider.


Hagerty, however, is suspicious; 78 percent of women in the Medicaid Program use family planning clinics similar to Planned Parenthood, while only 14 percent use private physicians and 7 percent FQHCs.

“Physicians and hospitals don’t know it [the WHP] exists,” Hagerty said, also noting that while family planning clinics are mandated to participate in the programming in order to maintain state funding, hospitals and doctors do not have that incentive.

“It is a very onerous program to administer, the reporting requirements are huge the billing is complex, you don’t get paid for a long time and when you do it isn’t enough to cover the cost,” Hagerty said.

“I would like to see them make up a list of every health care provider and have them write out how many of these [42,000] women they would take individually,” Lambrecht said.

Half of the patients at Women’s Center at the University Medical Center of El Paso qualify for the WHP. Those working there have witnessed how state budgeting policies impact the ebb and flow of patients receiving basic health care.

“Oh my God, yes, our number of patients dropped [after the implementation of Deuell’s Rider in 2006],” said Carmen Diaz De Leon, director of the center, which also lost employees through defunding. “Patients would call, and they were used to having their annual exam and we would let them know that there would be a charge now since we had half of our funding. A lot of the women stopped coming.”
 De Leon noted that patients did not know to come back after the implementation of the Women’s Health Program years later.

“Even now we have women who call to make an appointment who haven’t had a pap smear since 2006,” De Leon said. “The role of women here, especially when they already have a family, is: your kids are first, your household is first, you come after it all. If nothing hurts then everything is ok.”

The bill has been placed on the intent calendar in the state Senate; it could be brought to vote as early as today.

Staffers at the state Capitol wonder if the bill will be brought up at all due to a lack of votes. Texas’ “2/3 rule” requires 2/3 of members to vote in favor of what is called a “blocker bill.” If all 12 Democrats (31 members of the Senate) were to stand together against the bill, it would not move forward. They did not stand in solidarity for the sonogram bill last week, although this bill is less enmeshed in abortion policy.

If the bill is not voted on by May 30 when the Senate’s session ends, however, the WHP will not be renewed. The governor would have to call a special session to discuss program renewal.

Women’s rights advocates are torn about their stance on the bill. Pro-choice state Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston), has introduced a sister bill in the House, indicating his willingness to eliminate Planned Parenthood’s participation to see the health program renewed.

“You cut off legs of the program [Planned Parenthood] or the head,” Hagerty said. “Without the head we can’t live, but without the legs we can come back… if it’s a matter of staying alive, it’s a poison pill we have to swallow.”

SB 9, by state Sen. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands, a 13-page omnibus bill passed on a 27-5 vote. A small bipartisan mix of lawmakers opposed the measure: Sens. José Rodríguez, D-El Paso; Mario Gallegos, D-Houston; Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound; Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay; and Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury.

The bill would require all law enforcement agencies to adopt Secure Communities, a program administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in which local law enforcement compares the fingerprints of those arrested to a DHS database to determine if the individual can be deported. The bill also would institute stronger penalties for a laundry list of felonies. It would codify proof-of-citizenship requirements for driver’s licenses and state-issued IDs. It would establish an automatic license-plate reader pilot program for vehicles used by DPS officers, and it allows DPS to commission special unit of Texas Rangers to, among other things, conduct background checks, monitor sex offenders and assist during disasters.

While they agreed the federal government has failed to secure the borders, Gallegos and Rodríguez said they were concerned that the bill could become an prime target for legislators in the House who have filed more draconian anti-immigration bills. The measure’s broad caption — “relating to homeland security, providing penalties” — could make just about any immigration-related measure eligible for attachment.

“It’s an open invitation to [conservative] lawmakers for hate mongering,” said Gallegos.

Gallegos said he was particularly concerned about so-called “sanctuary cities” legislation, which would ban local governments from adopting policies that prevent police from inquiring about immigration status. Though the issue been designated as an emergency item by Gov. Rick Perry, legislation that would abolish “sanctuary cities” in Texas has stalled. Williams’ bill, Gallegos said, could become a vehicle for the legislation.

Williams said he wouldn’t accept any such amendments from the House.

“I see it as a separate issue,” Williams said.

Rodriguez’s main objection was the mandated participation in Secure Communities. He said the program doesn’t target “serious offenders” as federal officials initially purported it would. Instead nonviolent undocumented immigrants and some who have committed no crime at all — and even some legal residents and U.S. citizens — have gotten caught up in the program.

“This is a broken system,” he said. He also raised issues with the codification of driver’s license rules that DPS has been requiring applicants for licenses and IDs to submit proof of citizenship or legal status. For some non-citizens, the ID expires when their legal status does or, if that is not evident on an immigrant’s documents, a year after the license is issued. The requirements, he said, have resulted in some lawful U.S. residents being denied licenses and ID cards.

“There’s a reason a lot of the civil liberty activists have raised concerns,” Rodriguez said.

In October, she finally worked up the courage to call police — and paid a steep price.

Officers who responded found her sobbing, with a swollen lower lip. But a red mark on her alleged abuser’s cheek prompted police to book them both into the San Francisco County Jail while investigators sorted out the details.

With that, Norma was swept into the wide net of Secure Communities, a federal program launched in 2008 with the stated goal of identifying and deporting more illegal immigrants “convicted of serious crimes.”

But Norma was never convicted of a crime. She was not charged in the abuse case, though the jail honored a request to turn her over to immigration authorities for possible deportation.

“I had called the police to help me,” said Norma, 31, who asked that her last name not be used because she fears that speaking out may jeopardize her case. “I think it’s unjust…. Even with a traffic ticket we can now be deported.”

Under the program, fingerprints of all inmates booked into local jails and cross-checked with the FBI’s criminal database are now forwarded by that agency to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be screened for immigration status. Officials said the new system would focus enforcement efforts on violent felons such as those convicted of murder, rape and kidnapping.

But Secure Communities is now mired in controversy. Recently released ICE data show that nearly half of those ensnared by the program have been noncriminals, like Norma, or those who committed misdemeanors.

In addition, hundreds of ICE emails released in response to litigation by immigrant and civil rights groups show the agency knowingly misled local and state officials to believe that participation in the program was voluntary while internally acknowledging that this was not the case.

U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) on Friday accused ICE officials of lying to local governments and to Congress and called for a probe into whether ICE Director John Morton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who oversees the agency, were aware of the deception.

San Francisco and Santa Clara counties are among those jurisdictions that sought to prevent fingerprint data from being automatically routed to ICE. Although that data will still be forwarded to immigration authorities, both counties are now crafting policies that would deny ICE hold requests for inmates booked on minor infractions.

There is still much confusion over what legal authority states have to change their participation agreements with ICE, which now says they are unnecessary.

A bill sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) to be heard in committee Tuesday would require California to modify its agreement with ICE so that only fingerprints of convicted felons are run through the immigration database. The bill also contains protections for domestic violence victims and juveniles and would make the program optional for counties.

“With punitive methods that sweep them all up, there’s no trust,” said Ammiano, adding that with 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, the policy should be specifically tailored to dangerous criminals. “We have had children come home from school and their parents are not there. That is not an enlightened policy.”

A similar bill is pending in Illinois, while Colorado managed to negotiate a modified agreement that includes some protections for domestic violence victims. Washington recently became the first state to refuse to join the federal program, and Washington, D.C., withdrew altogether.

Federal officials now contend that all states and counties must participate in Secure Communities by 2013. They said Washington, D.C., was allowed to temporarily terminate its agreement only as a courtesy.

But the program’s legality remains an open question. Homeland Security officials say they need no approval from counties or states because Secure Communities is merely “an information-sharing program between federal partners.” Lofgren and other critics, however, question the federal government’s right to impose the program on local jails. Backers of Ammiano’s bill say that ICE has exceeded its authority and plan to move forward with proposed changes to California’s agreement.

ICE spokeswoman Nicole Navas said that the Secure Communities program resulted in the deportation of 72,000 convicted criminals last year, more than at any time in agency history. Of those, 26,000 had committed major violent offenses.

“By removing criminal aliens more efficiently and effectively, ICE is reducing the possibility that these individuals will commit additional crimes in U.S. communities,” she said.

Some who appear in the data to be noncriminals or low-level offenders have gang affiliations, were arrested for drunk driving or were previously deported and returned, she said. Of California’s fingerprint matches, 22% to date are fugitives who had ignored deportation orders or were expelled and returned illegally, data shows.

Norma, for example, had left the country voluntarily after an immigration arrest in 2002 but returned the same year, ICE officials said.

In 2009, California signed one of the earliest agreements with ICE to participate in Secure Communities. The program is now in 41 states and 1,211 local jurisdictions, including all California counties.

Critics say the program discourages immigrants from reporting crimes and encourages racial profiling because officers might book individuals on minor infractions knowing that their fingerprints will be screened by ICE. They point out that the program does not screen out those arrested but never charged with a crime.

A Homeland Security official said the department has hired a criminologist to examine arrest statistics for signs of racial profiling and is looking to “enhance the decision-making process” to reduce the number of noncriminals being deported. The department also will soon unveil a policy for domestic violence victims.

Supporters applaud Secure Communities for replacing ad hoc immigration enforcement with a nationwide effort that targets criminals.

“Before what was happening was the local officers had no way of knowing or had to take special steps to find out if the people they arrested were potentially removable from the community,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for tougher immigration enforcement. Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca also supports the program.

But Lofgren and others are upset over what they see as the deception with which the Secure Communities program was implemented.

The congresswoman was most angered by the hundreds of ICE internal documents recently released by order of a federal judge. A review of the correspondence reveals an agency that misled local and state officials as it struggled to defuse what one email called “a domino effect” of political opposition.

As early as November 2009, Secure Communities Acting Director Marc Rapp declared in an email that “voluntary” meant “the ability to receive the immigration response” about fingerprint matches, not the ability to decline to provide the data in the first place.

But for nearly a year that was not made clear to local agencies. “They said, ‘You set up a meeting and you opt out.’ That’s why we’re pretty unhappy,” said Santa Clara County Counsel Miguel Marquez.

San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey also unsuccessfully sought to opt out of the program last summer. Hennessey is developing a policy that would honor ICE detainer requests only for felons and misdemeanants whose crimes involve “violence, guns, and certain sex offenses.” Santa Clara County is exploring a similar policy.

In July, Lofgren wrote Napolitano and U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder seeking “a clear explanation of how local law enforcement agencies may opt out of Secure Communities by having the fingerprints they collect … checked against criminal, but not immigration databases.” In September, she received letters back stating that locals need only submit the request in writing to state and federal officials.

ICE officials knew the language was misleading. “I like the thought. But reading the response alone would lead one to believe that a site can elect to never participate should they wish,” an FBI staffer wrote to ICE colleagues in an August email exchange about the draft. In October, Napolitano and Morton finally held a news conference to clarify that opting out of Secure Communities is not possible.

A Homeland Security official said Friday that “Secure Communities is not voluntary and never has been. Unfortunately, this was not communicated as clearly as it should have been to state and local jurisdictions.”

Meanwhile, Norma is preparing to testify on behalf of Ammiano’s bill. She attends a domestic violence support group and cares for her 3-year-old son, Brandon, in a rented room while wearing a bulky ankle monitor.

“Now that I know my rights, I want to fight,” said Norma, who recently graduated from a leadership program to help other abuse victims.

Immigration visas are available for domestic violence victims who meet specific criteria. If she loses her case, Norma said, she will return to Mexico.

“This strength they’ve given me, this sense of security, this I will carry with me anywhere I go.”

“It’s like saying, we’re short money — and we are short money – so we’re not going to put oil in our car. Or we’re just going to put a little bit of oil in the car,” he said, sitting in his fifth-floor office on the Southwest Freeway. “But when the engine blows up and we’re spending thousands of dollars on the engine – because now the car doesn’t work – we go ‘Oh, my goodness! What happened here?’ ”

A dozen miles to the northeast, in downtown Houston, the man who runs the largest mental health facility in the state was pondering the same possibility. It’s the Harris County Jail, where, on any given day, approximately a quarter of the 10,000 or so inmates receive constitutionally required mental health services for their diagnosable psychiatric conditions. Sheriff Adrian Garcia expects the numbers to grow.

“The cuts that we’re hearing about are incredible,” he said. “It’s almost as if these people were invisible, as if there were no awareness of the problem within communities across the state of Texas, and particularly in Harris County.”

The jail already has more than 1,000 of its nearly 10,000 inmates housed in jails outside the county because of space problems. An influx of the mentally ill would exacerbate the problem.

At the moment, the jail has a special unit with 108 beds for the severely mentally ill. Nurses and doctors are on duty 24 hours a day. Taking care of the mentally ill behind bars instead of in the community, Garcia said, costs Harris County taxpayers about $27 million a year.

Harris County is not alone.

“In the 1980s, the Legislature reduced funding to MHMR – beds, jobs, contracts – and it has put a lot of people around the state in county jails that would have gotten their problems straightened out elsewhere,” said Midland County Sheriff Gary Painter, president of the Sheriff’s Association of Texas. Painter said he has three deputies who are certified as mental health deputies and handle 800 to 900 calls a year.

Bexar County model

In Bexar County, where Sheriff Amadeo Ortiz runs one of the most successful jail diversion programs in the nation, some 4,000 people with mental illnesses ended up in treatment last year instead of behind bars. Those diversions are credited with saving the county more than $15 million in 2009-10.

San Antonio is the only police department in the country where the police chief has mandated an intensive 40-hour crisis-intervention training program for all officers. Despite those efforts, “our jail is still packed with inappropriate people,” said Leon Evans, chief executive of the county’s Center for Mental Health Services.

A study last year found that Bexar County’s public and private psychiatric hospitals already are swamped by an increasing number of indigent mentally ill patients seeking emergency room or inpatient services. It’s going to get worse, Evans warned, when jails and emergency rooms are the primary alternatives.

“We’ve gone from our state hospitals being the repository of folks with serious mental illnesses to now the jails and the prisons being the repository,” Schnee said. “It’s wrong what we’re doing. We don’t do this for any other medical condition. It’s just flat wrong. And it’s not even cost-effective.”

What happened in 2004

In a state that already ranks near the bottom in per capita spending for mental health care, House members have proposed a cut of 20 percent in services provided by the Texas Department of State Health Services. Targets of the cut are caseworkers, crisis hotlines, clinics and community health centers, where severely mentally ill adults and children receive medications and outpatient treatment. The community-based centers get funding from the federal government, private foundations and individuals, although most of it comes from the state.

The Senate version of the state budget would restore funding for mental health, but there are no guarantees once the two versions are reconciled by a legislative conference committee.

“I think it’s critical that mental health programs not be cut,” said state Sen. Kevin Eltife, R-Tyler. “That’s not going to save anybody a dime.”

Eltife recalled what happened in 2004, after the Legislature cut community mental health programs in the name of reform and efficiency.

County judges from around the state flooded the Legislature with calls, complaining about overflowing hospital emergency rooms and jails. They also complained about increased pressure on law enforcement officers, who, like their counterparts around the nation, have had to become de facto social workers and psychologists.

In response, the Houston Police Department, the Harris County Sheriff’s Department and other law enforcement agencies around the state have developed crisis intervention teams and other units specially trained to deal with the mentally ill. Officers learn about schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other major mental illnesses from professionals in the field, as well as from people who suffer from the illnesses.

“State government has done a terrible job in giving the responsibility over to law enforcement of dealing with and treating its own most vulnerable citizens,” Garcia said during a recent visit to the Capitol. “It’s a shame, and it’s not the way it ought to happen because law enforcement is law enforcement. We’re not psychotherapists, psychiatrists, psychologists.”

Texas, which ranks 49th in per capita funding for mental health, has chosen not to fund community care and other measures that could help prevent men and women afflicted with an illness of the brain from ending up behind bars.

A revolving door

They are people like Tony Daugerty, 62, who was diagnosed 30 years ago with manic-depression and who has been in and out of jail at least 15 times in five years. For Daugerty and others, it’s easier to get arrested than it is to get treatment. Jail also is a more reliable provider of the treatment he needs.

Wearing a standard-issue orange jumpsuit, the balding, bespectacled man sat at a metal table in the jail’s mental health area recently and spoke about his decades-long battle with his illness. During his manic phases he stays up all night, night after night. “I design the solutions to all the world’s problems,” he said.

Daugerty was on probation last year when he boarded a Metro bus carrying a black canvas bag. When he told the driver, “Keep driving or I’m going to blow up the bus,” the driver called the police.

Daugerty is scheduled to be released next month, although the sheriff and members of his mental health unit, not to mention Daugerty himself, know they are likely to see him again.

“We do incredible work at stabilizing these folks,” Garcia said, “but it’s a shame that we do the work that we do, at the price that we do it, just to have them go back out into the community and have them deteriorate again. They’ll be back in our facility. It’s a horrible revolving door when there’s a lack of capacity out in the community.”

Community-based programs are in jeopardy even as the demand for their services is growing. State Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, estimates that the cuts proposed by the House would mean at least an additional 3,000 people going untreated.

Barbara Dawson, director of Harris County’s Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program, already is feeling the effects of mental health funding that is, at best, “a maintenance of effort,” to use Schnee’s phrase.

At the Neuropsychiatric Center at Ben Taub General Hospital, Dawson has seen a 45 percent increase in the number of patients during the past two years. “Some 16,000 people walk in our doors annually,” she said. “That coincides with outpatient clinics being filled and putting them on wait lists. We have no more staff, no more space in the facility.”

Jail becomes an ER

Neither does the jail. “We have not recuperated from those cuts from the 2003 legislative decisions that were made,” said Dr. Sylvia Muzquiz, medical director of MHMRA’s mental health division. “When the outpatient system was cut back, there was an increased influx of individuals showing up to emergency rooms and to the jails.”

Since 2003, the Harris County Jail has gone from fewer than three full-time psychiatrists dealing with the mentally ill to 11 on duty 24 hours a day.

“We function, basically, as an emergency room,” Muzquiz said. “We can’t turn people away here. The emergency rooms can close doors and say they’re at capacity. The jail can’t.”

If you weren’t counting, you’d never notice that her well-behaved class has one more student than normal.

A state mandate says that in kindergarten through fourth grade, districts can assign a maximum of 22 students to a teacher, unless they get a waiver from the Texas Education Agency.

“This is a sign of the times,” said Moore, whose class is one of seven with a waiver at Northside Independent School District’s Aue Elementary. “We’re going to work with whatever we need to work with. … I just know that it’s going to take me longer to complete things.”

Though few San Antonio classrooms now have more than 22 students, Moore’s class could be in good company next school year.

Research results mixed

State representatives will take up an education bill on Tuesday that includes, among other changes, a proposal to swap the strict 22-to-one limit for a 22-student average and prohibit districts from enrolling more than 25 students per class in the early grades.

Even if this legislation fails to pass, some district administrators say they will seek waivers for next fall.

Teachers groups say bigger classes could mean less one-on-one attention for students. But education experts have said the research is mixed as to whether a modest increase in class sizes, already in the 20s, would make a difference.

Teachers such as Moore who already are dealing with the issue say adding one or two more children to their load wouldn’t wreck havoc but more than that would pose a challenge.

Waivers typically granted

David Thompson, chairman of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Texas San Antonio, said that adding a small number of students to a class, such as switching from a 22-student limit to a similar district average, likely would have a minimal effect on student success. But he said he would not recommend that districts increase class sizes before exploring other cost-savings because of the high-stakes testing expectations teachers need to meet.

Districts preparing to ask for a waiver next year, under the assumption that the Legislature won’t raise the cap, may take comfort in knowing that the Texas Education Agency has historically granted the majority of waiver requests.

Despite these concerns, the kids don’t seem to mind the extra company.

Making friends

Luciano Isaiah Saenz, 7, became the 23rd student in Moore’s class after his family moved into the district from McAllen. When asked how many friends he had in his new class, the boy, who goes by the name Isaiah, quickly answered: “22.”

If more students are added to his class, Isaiah already has an action plan.

“I would make more friends,” he said with a smile.

The legislation expands application of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Secure Communities program to city detention facilities, preventing undocumented immigrants charged with serious crimes from being released back into the community. But its approval put Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, D-McAllen, one of three Democrats who supported the legislation in the Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, in opposition to a Rio Grande Valley alliance fighting dozens of anti-immigration bills filed this session.

La Union del Pueblo Entero, part of a consortium of local groups opposing similar legislation, asked its members last week to lobby Hinojosa to oppose the bill that passed by a 6-0 vote. LUPE communications director John Michael Torres said the federal immigration program, implemented at the Hidalgo County Jail in 2009, has resulted in the deportation of undocumented immigrants charged with low-level crimes who have no criminal record whatsoever.

“Our stance is that good law-abiding citizens are being caught up in this dragnet and separated from their families,” Torres said. “The program is supposed to catch the bad guys, the hardened criminals, but people charged with a low-level offense are being flagged by ICE and transferred to deportation proceedings.”

Hidalgo County was among the first jurisdictions to implement Secure Communities, the controversial screening program that electronically compares the fingerprints of every new inmate against federal criminal background databases and immigration records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. Although Hidalgo County Sheriff Lupe Trevino launched the program here in 2009 that has since been implemented at every county jail in Texas, Secure Communities doesn’t yet extend to city jails operated by police departments like McAllen’s.

People arrested on minor misdemeanor offenses such as petty theft, public intoxication or traffic violations rarely are booked into the county jail, allowing illegal immigrants actually wanted on more serious offenses to get through the system by using aliases. Senate Bill 9 closes that loophole by requiring all Texas jurisdictions incorporate the screening process in their jails. Under the federal legislation that created Secure Communities, every jurisdiction in the United States will be required to activate the program by 2013.

Hinojosa said the state legislation accelerates that timeline to verify that undocumented immigrants who are dangerous criminals are prosecuted and removed from the country.

“We’re not going to bother every undocumented immigrant, but we do want to focus on those who commit crimes,” Hinojosa said, distinguishing it from harsher anti-immigration proposals similar to those approved in Arizona. “In no way does (SB 9) authorize law enforcement people to check or ask people on their legal residency.”

But immigration advocates say Secure Communities goes beyond catching serious criminals to deporting immigrants who aren’t found guilty or may actually be brought in as a witness or victim. A report by the National Immigration Forum found nearly 90 percent of people screened under Secure Communities were in custody on low-level charges while one-third of people detained by ICE under the program had no history of criminal conviction.

The state’s legislation also prohibits local jurisdictions from making decisions on its implementation, including carving minor offenses from the reporting requirements, said Jose Manuel Escobedo, the policy director for the Border Network for Human Rights. He said the senate’s Secure Communities legislation could become the precursor to harsher immigration measures.

“We’ll be the first to say that Senate Bill 9 is no Arizona bill, but we’re concerned that this bill is the vehicle for the premise that the state can do policy around immigration,” he said. “It’s that mentality that created Arizona’s policy and has now led, for example, Georgia to pass some of their own Arizona-modeled legislation.”

But few immigration bills have escaped the Texas legislature’s committees to date. Out of more than 75 immigration bills tracked by the Reform Immigration for Texas Alliance, only a handful are ready for a floor vote with just more than a month left in the session. Gov. Rick Perry’s emergency legislation to abolish sanctuary cities — which essentially prevents jurisdictions from prohibiting law enforcement to ask about a person’s immigration status — passed out of the State Affairs Committee in mid-March but has yet to be scheduled for a House floor debate.

Hinojosa drew a distinction on the state’s Secure Communities legislation by saying it is a public safety bill, not an anti-immigration one. But he said harsh immigration measures, such as sanctuary cities, that may pass the Republican supermajority in the House aren’t likely to get far in the Senate, where Democrats can use the two-thirds rule to block debate.

“On the senate side, those bills are dead on arrival,” Hinojosa said. “The Democrats alone can block it, and even many of the Republicans are opposed.”

But the bipartisan support in committee for Senate Bill 9 likely will ensure cities such as McAllen, Edinburg and Pharr soon implement the Secure Communities Program.

With the bill offsetting the cost of implementing Secure Communities by tacking on additional fees for felonies and misdemeanors, McAllen Police Chief Victor Rodriguez said the legislation is a cost-effective way to address criminal immigrants without saddling local police officers with federal immigration responsibilities. Since people who will be run through the database already have been arrested for some crime, he said, the legislation eliminates the potential for abuse or racial profiling.

“The (Secure Communities) system is going to make identification on those people that shouldn’t be here easier,” Rodriguez said. “Immigration issues are so complex that it’s best left to a system that operates with definitive results.”

The Senate budget approved by the Finance Committee spends $11 billion more than the House version, and members of the upper chamber seem unwilling to leave family planning drastically underfunded. The Senate is expected to vote on a final version of the bill next week and clear up the details.

The funds the House slashed help needy women get physical exams, birth control pills and tests for sexually transmitted infections, as well as other health disorders.

Republican Sen. Bob Deuell, an open opponent of abortion and a practicing physician, sees the wisdom in finding money for low-income women who need these services.

“These programs prevent unwanted pregnancies and prevent abortions by allowing women to plan their pregnancies,” he said. “I would dare say (the Senate) is willing to put more into family planning.”

Deuell was recently appointed chair of a Health and Human Services subcommittee charged with finding a way to balance concerns about state dollars used to promote abortion and concerns about endangering women’s health.

“We’re trying to see what we can do legally and what provides the most services to the most people,” Deuell said.

But even if he and like-minded senators put money back into family planning, they will likely have a bitter fight with conservative House members.

In a show of power, the House’s Republican supermajority used a series of amendments to strip the budget of more than $60 million in family planning services and shift it to other programs for poor and disabled children. Some of the money was moved into anti-abortion programs and crisis pregnancy centers.

The conservatives were relentless in their efforts, which some see as part of a nationwide attack on Planned Parenthood, the most widely known family planning program. This larger conservative movement to de-fund Planned Parenthood, and groups like it, is intended to reduce access to abortion nationwide.

Houston Rep. Jessica Farrar, leader of the House Democrats, said the fight is about ideology, not fiscal prudence.

“It’s not about policy, it’s not about women’s health — everything is about abortion for them,” she said. “If this is a party of fiscal conservatism, preventing unwanted pregnancies is incredibly cost-saving.”

Farrar and others warn that gutting services that help women and children stay healthy and avoid unintended pregnancies will yield skyrocketing long-term Medicaid costs. Women who can’t get birth control are more likely to stay trapped in poverty at the cost of the taxpayer.

Family planning dollars were a sticking point for Congress in a standoff between conservatives and Democrats as they hammered out a federal budget. As lawmakers raced against the clock to avoid a government shutdown, the negotiations came down to a fight over federal dollars for Planned Parenthood.

“The Texas Republican supermajority, which could get anything done if they wanted, is going to be focused on family planning,” Farrar said. “They’re going to follow Washington.”

Planned Parenthood said the House cuts could deny more than 300,000 women access to basic health care. Directors of family planning clinics statewide have said losing money could force them to reduce services or even shut down.

“For some women, this is the only health care they receive,” said Sarah Wheat, interim chief executive for Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region. “Family planning centers are really the front line in terms of early detection and prevention.”

Though family planning money — including Planned Parenthood’s money — can’t be used to provide abortions, much of the rhetoric still centers on abortion.

When Rep. Bill Zedler, R-Arlington, proposed to move money to services for the deaf, blind and those with multiple disabilities, he touted that members would be “defunding the abortion industry” by voting for his amendment.

Texas Alliance for Life supported an amendment by Rep. Randy Weber, R-Pearland, to fund abortion alternatives.

Joe Pojman, executive director of the alliance, accuses Planned Parenthood of using family planning funds to promote abortion. His organization believes family planning dollars should be spent at organizations that provide primary and preventative health care.

Wheat said she thinks there is a political effort under way to provide the public with a muddled picture about what services are covered by family planning, although it is spelled out specifically in both state and federal law.

“When you’re making cuts to a program that has widespread support, I think it’s easier to not be direct about what exactly you’re cutting,” Wheat said. “You’re cutting basic health care for uninsured Texas women and their families. For most Texans … that’s not an agenda they support.”

When the Legislature diverted family planning funds in 2005 the Austin branch provided only half the cervical cancer tests the next year and dispensed 40 percent fewer birth control pills, Wheat said.

“While there’s a lot of rhetoric about these cuts, at the end of the day this is about hundreds of thousands of women not getting cervical cancer screenings, not getting birth control,” she said. “Family planning is good fiscal policy and good health policy.”