Taxpayer-Funded Jail Supervision: A Failed System

We have been educating all of you regarding defendants that are being released on tax dollars for serious offenses and the fact that they often have lengthy criminal histories, failures to appear for court and violations of probation.  In our own back yard in Orlando, Florida, Orange County Commissioners also fund a taxpayer-funded release and supervision program.

The Community Corrections unit of the jail is funded at $6.3 million dollars, $5.9 million of which is allocated to personal services (salaries, fringe benefits), while only $421,610 is allocated to operating expenses.  This unit operates both pretrial and post-supervision programs.  The Home Confinement program that was recently shut-down due to inadequate monitoring was operated under the Community Corrections Unit.  Orange County Mayor Teresa Jacobs shut-down the program saying, “Her concern is that there is potentially a development of a culture of complacency that just cannot be tolerated when we are talking about public safety.” 

The county also funds a pretrial services program to the tune of $2.8 million dollars, which again is operated under the Community Corrections unit and is supposed to supervise defendants in the community while their case goes through the court system. 

Now the county wants to hire a consultant to the tune of $100,000 to tell it what is wrong with the Community Corrections unit.  The Mayor already said what is wrong with it. A culture of complacency and a major lack of accountability. 

You have a huge bureaucracy within the county government system; it's jail department has continued to grow in scope and outside of its intended purpose, with staffing and operational costs taking a huge chuck of the funding as evidenced above.  When you continue to grow these community supervision programs with taxpayer dollars, you also grow the bureaucracy and end up with government responsible for supervising defendants in the community.  It becomes the norm rather than the exception.

Post-adjudication supervision programs such as pretrial diversion, community service, probation and work release, if run correctly, can have an impact on recidivism and help defendants get back on the right track.  The move to establish more taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs began in the 1990s to help assist the indigent first-time, non-violent offender to be released from jail.

The ongoing and very intense movement from organizations that support taxpayer-funded programs is to try and convince county governments that money bail discriminates against the poor and that all financial releases should be eliminated.  They claim they have a much better system for determining the risk level of defendants using “evidence based practices,” to enable them to supervise defendants more effectively in our communities.  Their motto: people arrested for a crime should be helped to get out of jail as easily as possible to go back to their lives and support their families and be productive members of society. 

The support or needs for victims of crimes are never even mentioned. 

As we have recently learned with the Orange County, Florida Home Confinement unit and their dismal lack of supervision, the focus must be realigned on what methods work the best for ensuring accountability in the criminal justice system.  Too many times we have heard judges say that the, “Pretrial services unit will keep tabs on you.”  I am sure they also assumed the Home Confinement unit was doing the same. 

Judges often order taxpayer-funded supervision along with a bail bond to enforce conditions of release, such as GPS monitoring or drug testing.  That is an important function if taxpayer-funded programs really kept tabs to make sure defendants are adhering to those conditions.  Home Confinement was one of the programs charged with enforcing conditions of release – but when a defendant is able to have over 100 violations and nothing is done about it – it makes you wonder how much they really have vested in community safety and doing their job successfully.

Why do you think the supervision level of the Home Confinement program was so lax? 

Could it be that the staff that operated the program simply disengaged at the end of their shift knowing it was someone else’s responsibility to take over? 

Could it be that there was no real “skin in the game” for Home Confinement staff if a defendant had a violation? 

Could it be that there was no “financial accountability” for Home Confinement staff? 

After all, they are county employees in a huge bureaucratic system that has multiple layers of tape to discipline a county employee.  Even the county employees responsible for the lack of monitoring for Bessman Okafor that led to the death of Alex Zaldivar, have not been fired – just reassigned.

Do we really need to pay a consultant more tax dollars to tell us what is wrong?

The private bail industry, which has been proven to provide the most efficient and effective means of pretrial release, doesn’t get to disengage at the end of the day.  We have so much “skin in the game” we can’t disengage.  And our financial accountability is at the maximum . . . because if we don’t do our job and a defendant fails to appear for court, we must pay the full amount of the bond to the court.  We can’t just pass the problem on to the next shift.  We have a vested interest in knowing where the defendant is at all times and with the help of the people that put up money or property for a defendant’s release, making sure the defendant doesn’t commit a new crime and adheres to all conditions of release.

The private commercial bail industry will gladly assist Mayor Jacobs and the court with sharing our knowledge and centuries of experience in best practices for supervising defendants and ensuring they are accountable to the criminal justice system. 

Taxpayer dollars should be used more wisely in the criminal justice system, such as for inmate identification and providing the court with information to make informed release decisions.  

Not for displacing the most effective and efficient system of supervision and putting that burden on the taxpayers.

Public policy affects public safety.

Orange County, FL. Community Corrections Unit: taxpayers still paying for release and supervision

The Community Corrections Unit, part of the Orange County, FL. jail that has come under intense scrutiny due to the failures of the Home Confinement program, continues to supervise both pretrial and sentenced defendants released by the court.

The resulting investigation and shut-down of the Home Confinement program began when it was learned that no one at Orange County Corrections alerted any judges of Bessman Okafor’s 109 curfew violations, and who later murdered Alex Zaldivar while defying the home confinement order.  If a Judge had been notified of the curfew violations, he/she could have ordered Mr. Okafor to be put back in jail or put on more stringent monitoring.  Mr. Okafor should have been thoroughly monitored while on home confinement but he wasn’t.  He was not the only one.  Further investigations also show that an accused attempted murderer, carjacker and robber also violated their home confinement numerous times.

Supervision of defendants by any entity charged with doing so by the courts is paramount to public safety.  That responsibility must be taken seriously.  While a taxpayer-funded or private supervision system cannot one hundred percent prevent a defendant from committing a new crime while on supervision, the level of supervision and monitoring can drastically ensure more accountability.

Neither system has a crystal ball by which it can tell when someone is going to make the wrong moral decision and commit a crime.

However, the expertise and tools to supervise defendants in a successful manner – and the financial accountability on the line – can influence the end result.

The fact that the Community Corrections Unit, which also managed the Home Confinement program, is still supervising pretrial defendants pending the outcome of their case in our community begs to question if they know what their charges are up to.

The Pretrial Services program is charged with supervising and monitoring defendants released pretrial – even those who have a monetary bond, adding another taxpayer-funded layer of expense on top of supervision by the private industry.  Keep in mind that the supervision method for the vast majority of defendants simply entails them calling into an automated telephone answering system once a week or once a month.  

If you think that only defendants charged with minor offenses or who may have a minor criminal record are being released into the Pretrial Services program, think again.  Below are just two examples of defendants with lengthy criminal histories, failures to appear and violations of probation, that were released into the program February 26 and 27, 2013. 

William Robert Moore: charged with violation of probation on a charge of burglary of a conveyance (felony) and petit theft (misdemeanor); he was released on taxpayer funds on February 26, 2013

• Mr. Moore has 12 prior misdemeanor convictions and 6 prior felony convictions in Orange County alone 
• His criminal history in Orange County started in April of 1991 and continues today
• His prior felony charges include: possession of a controlled substance (3 arrests); burglary of a conveyance (3 arrests); driving with license revoked as habitual offender; attempted aggravated battery; tampering with witness to hinder communication to law enforcement; possession of cocaine.
• His prior misdemeanor charges include: resisting law enforcement without violence (2 arrests); battery; possession of drug paraphernalia (arrests); driving under the influence (2 arrests); obstruction by disguised person; possession of cannabis less than 20 grams; petit theft (3 arrests); driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (2 arrests); attaching tag not assigned; leaving scene of accidents with property damage; possession of narcotic equipment.
• He has 7 prior failures to appear for a court appearance.
• He has 8 prior violations of probation

Michael Steve Hill: charged with possession of cocaine (felony) and possession of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor) on February 7, 2013; there was motion for pretrial release or reduction of bond on February 15 and a hearing on February 26, at which time Mr. Hill was released into the Pretrial Services program.  He was also released on a contempt of court charge for a writ of bodily attachment for not paying previous court costs and fines.  His taxpayer-funded release was revoked on March 7, 2013 when he committed a new crime and was arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia and resisting law enforcement without violence.  

• Mr. Hill has 18 prior misdemeanor convictions and 14 prior felony convictions in Orange County alone 
• His criminal history in Orange County started in April of 1998 and continues today
• His prior felony charges include: theft greater than $300 (4 arrests); possession of a controlled substance (5 arrests); petit theft/2 prior convictions (9 arrests); escape; sexual battery with deadly weapon and force; armed robbery with a weapon; false imprisonment; 
• His prior misdemeanor charges include: theft less than $300 (6 arrests); resisting merchandise recovery (2 arrests); resisting law enforcement without violence (2 arrests); possession of drug paraphernalia (8 arrests); driving without a valid driver’s license (2 arrests); trespass in structure or conveyance.
• He has 3 prior failures to appear for a court appearance.
• He has 3 prior violations of probation

These are just two examples but there are so many more.  Since January 1 of this year up to March 2, 2013, 244 defendants have been released into the Pretrial Services program to be supervised.  This doesn’t include the defendants ordered into the Pretrial Diversion program, Alternative Community Service program or Probation – all supervised by the Community Corrections Unit.

On the other hand, the private commercial bail industry has been proven to be the most effective and efficient system of pretrial release – and we use no taxpayer funds.  Commercial bail offers many layers of financial commitments and thus accountability in the criminal justice system: the insurance company as surety on the bond; a bail agent’s contract with the insurance company; the bail agent’s own funds with the insurance company; and third-party indemnitors on the bond.

The commercial bail industry has the lowest failure to appear and recidivism rates of any other jail release method.  And if someone does fail to appear, we cover the costs of getting that defendant back to the court’s jurisdiction and not the taxpayer.

If these releases don’t make you angry, take some time to review more of the jail’s releases on your tax dollars.  The Clerk of Court can direct you on how to obtain the registries with all of the release information.  

If these releases do anger you, speak up and let your county commissioners know how you feel about your tax dollars being spent to “supervise” defendants who were arrested for a criminal offense.  Budget work sessions are already being scheduled and your tax dollars only go so far.

Public policy affects public safety.

Orange County, Florida Jail's Community Corrections Unit

For the last several weeks, there have been many news reports and articles on the Orange County, Florida jail’s home confinement program.

Some of the most quotable quotes include the following:

“The judge may have revoked the home confinement, but we’ll never know because he was never told.”   Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., Ninth Judicial Circuit

“My concern is that there is potentially a development of a culture of complacency that just cannot be tolerated when we are talking about public safety.”  Orange County Mayor Teresa Jacobs

“Nobody has given me an explanation I’m satisfied with, which is why we are suspending the program [home confinement] and seven people have been reassigned.”  Orange County Mayor Teresa Jacobs

“Since they are not monitoring you anyway, I’m not sure what you are paying for.”  Circuit Judge Janet Thorpe, Ninth Judicial Circuit

“Home confinement is not home confinement . . . I think all the judges in the Ninth Circuit . . . [are] concerned about what the courts’ perception [is] about what home confinement was compared with what it is.”  Circuit Judge Alan Apte, Ninth Judicial Circuit

Internal notes even reflect grave concerns with the home confinement program.  And the man in charge, Corrections Chief Michael Tidwell, said he was never made aware of any problems with home confinement.  As asked by Kathi Belich with Channel 9 news, “You don’t know if there’s a culture of complacency at your own jail?  If you don’t who does?”

However, home confinement is not the jail’s only program that should have a thorough review.

The other pretrial monitoring program the Community Corrections unit is responsible for is the pretrial release program, which Accredited Surety has been monitoring routinely and which we have shared our concerns about with the Orange County Board of County Commissioners and County Administrator staff and the Chief Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit.

The pretrial release program is funded by tax dollars to the tune of approximately $2.8 million for fiscal year 2013.  The program budget is divided into two parts:

• $1.4 million for inmate identification, court information and release processing  
• $1.4 million for post-release supervision

Let us help you understand the program from a lay person’s perspective:

You are arrested for the following offense(s), you may or may not have a criminal history and you may or may not be indigent:  

• Driving under the influence
• Grand theft 3rd degree 
• Battery domestic violence
• Tampering with witness to hinder communication to law enforcement
• Child abuse and neglect
• Battery by strangulation domestic violence
• Aggravated battery with deadly weapon domestic violence
• Possession of cocaine
• Violation of probation
• Aggravated battery great bodily harm domestic violence
• And, many more

If you have not bonded out on a cash bond or through a bail agent within 24 hours, you then go before the judge for your “initial appearance” where the facts of the case will be reviewed and your release mechanism decided. 

In all of the examples above (and many more), the defendants arrested for these crimes were released on taxpayer dollars to be “supervised” by the Community Corrections unit.  Your tax dollars are paying for this release regardless of whether or not the defendant has been declared indigent or whether they can afford their own release.  Many of these defendants have lengthy criminal histories, failures to appear and have been able to pay for their own release in the past. 

We now know what level of “supervision” defendants on home confinement received; well the pretrial release program is even less.

When a defendant is placed on pretrial release their level of supervision is to call-in to an automated telephone answering machine once a week or month; rarely is there any one-on-one supervision. 

In monitoring releases, we noticed that almost every defendant arrested for a domestic violence related offense and who attends an initial appearance session, is released by a judge on the taxpayer’s expense into the pretrial release program.  Domestic violence offenses continue to be one of the most dangerous crimes committed and the purpose for recently reconvening the Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Commission.  Accredited was so alarmed by the number of defendants charged with domestic violence that were being released with no accountability and who could potentially return immediately to the victim, that we sent an analysis to the Chief Judge for his review.   From August 5-December 22, 2012 alone, 257 defendants arrested for domestic violence related offenses were released to the pretrial release program; 76 so far up to March 2, 2013.

Prior to 2009, jail staff was allowed to release defendants “administratively” into the pretrial release program with no judicial oversight.  Through Accredited’s analysis showing that defendants with serious charges and lengthy criminal histories were being released by lay staff, the Board of Orange County Commissioners had a detailed worksession on the program and expressed grave concern regarding defendants being released by jail staff – which the county commission would be liable for if a defendant committed a heinous crime.  The Chief Judge ultimately revoked this “administrative” process once again requiring that only a judge could make this judicial release decision.

If you are going to have a government-funded supervision program using limited and critical tax dollars, it should be run effectively and be routinely audited to make sure it is efficient and puts public safety first.  However, once these huge bureaucratic programs are in place with large staffing models, the will to disband them is hard to seek.

Mayor Jacobs is applauded for having the National Institute of Corrections conduct an overall review of the Community Corrections’ programs – this is the time to analyze what programs are effective and those that aren’t and make the necessary cuts if needed.  The taxpayers deserve such review.

Public policy affects public safety.

Taxpayer-Funded Jail Release

Defendant #2 - arrested for battery on person 65 years of age or older on December 12, 2012 and released into the Orange County, FL taxpayer-funded pretrial services program.

Defendant has a criminal history dating back to 1995:

• 11/95 - battery; 2 counts (FDMs); adjudication withheld
• 1/97 - assault (SDM); no information filed
• 12/98 - battery (FDM); resisting LEO without violence (FDM); possession of cannabis (FDM); adjudicated guilty on battery and resisting charge; adjudication withheld on cannabis charge; violation of probation; failure to appear; violation of probation
• 6/99 - DUI (FDM); adjudicated guilty; violation of probation
• 4/02 - battery (FDM); no information filed
• 10/03 - trespass in park (ordinance); adjudicated guilty
• 1/04 - battery domestic violence (FDM); no information filed
• 11/05 - violation of domestic violence injunction (FDM); no information filed
• 6/06 - possession of drug paraphernalia (FDM); no information filed
• 10/07 - shoot/throw missile into dwelling/structure/vehicle (SDF); felony battery (TDF); no information filed on missile charge; adjudication withheld on battery charge
• 7/10 - driving under the influence with property damage (FDM); adjudicated guilty
• 7/10 - driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (FDM); adjudicated guilty
• 10/10 - aggravated assault (TDF); felony battery (TDF); no information filed
• Traffic and municipal ordinance offenses

This particular defendant was able to pay for a monetary bond seven (7) separate times; other release mechanisms included release on recognizance and taxpayer-funded pretrial release.

 

As you can see, these are not non-violent offenses nor has this defendant committed only one crime.  There are literally thousands of defendants released annually in jails through taxpayer-funded programs on unsecured means.

And you the taxpayer are paying for the program/operational funding, fringe benefits of staff and costs associated with failures to appear and new crimes committed while on release.  

Public policy affects public safety!  Speak up and be heard.

 

Taxpayer-Funded Jail Release

In our previous post regarding taxpayer-funded releases from the Orange County, FL jail, we mentioned that we would be highlighting some cases in which defendants with serious charges and/or lengthy criminal histories were released from jail on unsecured means using taxpayer funds.

 

Again, the commercial bail industry understands the need to control jail populations and thus a taxpayer-funded pretrial release program can play a critical role in this regard.  However, those programs should focus on the first-time, non-violent offender who is indigent and cannot afford a monetary bond.  Indigency and non-violent crimes should be the key considerations for release using taxpayer funds.

 

Although public record, we will not be identifying the names of the defendants we will highlight to protect their privacy.  If members of the public wish to research these releases themselves they can readily do so by asking the Clerk of Court's office for the jail's pretrial release registries for a nominal fee.

 

Defendant #1 - arrested for possession of cocaine (TDF) and possession of drug paraphernalia (FDM) on October 29, 2012; released into the taxpayer-funded pretrial services program on November 29, 2012.  Defendant violated their pretrial release on January 7, 2013 and has a warrant for their arrest. 

Defendant has a criminal history dating back to 1989:

• 10/1989 - inmate of house of ill fame; direct/transport for purpose of prostitution; offer prostitution, lewdness, assignation (SDMs); adjudication withheld
• 5/1990 - controlled substance offense (TDF); disposition unknown
• 6/1990 - offer prostitution, lewdness, assignation (SDM); adjudicated guilty
• 10/1993 - offer prostitution, lewdness, assignation (SDM); adjudicated guilty
• 6/1994 - prostitution (3 counts) (SDMs); failed to appear; adjudicated guilty
• 8/1995 - prostitution or lewdness; prostitution (4 counts) (FDMs); adjudicated guilty
• 4/1997 - possession of drug paraphernalia (FDM); adjudicated guilty
• 1/1998 - battery (FDM); 2 failure to appears; violation of probation; adjudicated guilty
• 3/1998 - possession of controlled substance (TDF); adjudicated guilty
•  7/1998 - possession of controlled substance (TDF); possession of drug paraphernalia (FDM); adjudicated guilty
• 1/01 - controlled substance offense (TDF); possession of drug paraphernalia (FDM); adjudicated guilty
• 10/03 - resisting law enforcement without violence (FDM); adjudicated guilty
• 4/04 - driving with no valid driver's license (SDM); 2 failures to appear; adjudicated guilty
• 3/05 - possession of cocaine (TDF); possession of drug paraphernalia; failure to appear; adjudicated guilty
• 7/05 - driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (FDM); adjudicated guilty
• 8/05 - possession of controlled substance (TDF); driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (FDM); failure to appear; violation of probation; adjudicated guilty
• 1/07 - possession of cocaine (TDF); possession of drug paraphernalia (FDM); no information filed
• 8/07 - possession of controlled substance (TDF); possession of drug paraphernalia (FDM); violation of probation; adjudicated guilty
• 10/09 - battery (2 counts) (FDM); taxpayer-funded pretrial release; adjudicated guilty

This particular defendant was able to pay for a monetary bond nine (9) separate times; other release mechanisms included population control release; summons; taxpayer-funded release and via pleas with fines and court costs.

 

Given this defendant's criminal history, failures to appear and violation of probation, the public should question why they would be released on taxpayer funds.  Unfortunately, there are many other individuals who commit crimes that have no criminal history and justifiably could be considered for release on less stringent means.

 

Proponents of taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs repeatedly claim that only non-violent offenders with little criminal histories are released into their programs, which we are proving every day is not the case across the country.  Most defendants can only be released into these programs through a judicial order but some programs are still allowing jail staff to release defendants directly.

 

The commercial bail industry believes there needs to be a balance between an individual's criminal charge, their criminal history and their ability to pay for their own release before releasing someone on taxpayer funds.  

2013 Tax Dollars at Work

If you are one of those people who believe that when an alleged crime is committed, and law enforcement has probable cause to arrest someone for allegedly committing the crime and takes them to jail, that person will have to find family and/or friends to bail them out of jail.

In many cases that is exactly what happens.  But increasingly, people arrested on probable cause grounds for committing a crime and are taken to jail, are simply let out of jail a few hours later and the taxpayers are the ones who are footing the bill!  And not for just minor offenses or for defendants who have stellar backgrounds.

Around the country, there are national organizations funded in part with federal dollars, that are advocating and relentlessly promoting the abolition of all financial release from jail and pushing the taxpayer-funded release agenda to elected officials and policy makers that use taxpayer funds to operate county jails.  They claim that defendants are "languishing in jail" because they can't afford monetary release from jail.  And in essence, it is the fault of those "greedy bail bond agents" who only care about increasing their profits, don't supervise defendants or care about public safety.  These organizations have attempted to convince our judiciary and elected officials that unless they establish such programs, the jails will burst at the seams and taxpayers will be on the hook for millions of dollars.  And of course, the message being given is that taxpayer-funded programs can supervise and monitor defendants much better than their private-sector partners who have just been in the business for centuries.

Fortunately in Florida, the Citizens' Right-to-Know Act was enacted in July 2008, which requires taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs to make available to the public a weekly registry that includes information on defendants released through the program as well as an annual report.

In Florida's 28 taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs, Judges have broad discretion to place defendants, including those with serious charges and criminal histories, in such programs in lieu of financial bail.  In some cases, Judges will order both a financial bond and supervision under a taxpayer-funded pretrial services program, which more often than not, requires the defendant to be supervised via an automated telephone monitoring system.  Bail agents are financially and physically responsible for defendants released on bail; this additional layer of "supervision" is unnecessary and not a wise use of taxpayer funds.

The commercial bail bond industry acknowledges that taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs can be an instrument to reduce jail overcrowding if used for the right purposes.  Originally created to help the release of indigent, first-time, non-violent offenders, today these programs have morphed into huge bureaucratic programs that can cost millions of dollars to fund.

For example, in our own back yard, the Orange County jail's pretrial services program was funded at $2,797,196 for the 2011 calendar year (source: OPPAGA); the 2012 annual report is not due until March of this year so we have been unable to obtain the 2012 budget numbers without a public records request.

Of this $2.7 million, $1,394,627 was allocated for inmate identification, court information, and release processing of non-secured releases (without financial release); $1,402,568 was allocated for post-release supervision of non-secured releases.  So what is the return on investment?  Well, $16,371 was collected from a total of 6,758 defendants served through the program.  You do the math.

For the week of December 30, 2012 through January 5, 2013, below is a snapshot of the charges defendants were released on at First Appearance hearings into the jail's taxpayer-funded pretrial services program:

• 2 charges for failure to appear for court
• 1 charge for DUI
• 11 charges for domestic violence
• 2 charges for petit theft
• 2 charges for aggravated battery on a pregnant person
• 1 charge for hindering communication to law enforcement
• 1 charge for aggravated assault domestic violence
• 1 charge for battery on law enforcement officer
• 1 charge for attempting to resist law enforcement with violence
• 1 charge for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon
• 1 charge for battery dating violence
• 1 charge for false imprisonment domestic violence
• 1 charge for false reports of commission of a crime
• 1 charge for perjury
• 1 charge for false official statements
• 1 charge for throwing deadly missile at a person
• 1 charge for child abuse

In the coming weeks we will be highlighting some disturbing releases through Orange County's taxpayer-funded pretrial services program for defendants charged with serious offenses and who have lengthy and serious criminal histories.  Our goal is to educate Orange County citizens on how their tax dollars are being used and to make them aware of the types of crimes people are being released on from jail using such dollars.

Public policy affects public safety.

Happy New Year 2013

New Year's Eve is an ancient holiday with deep spiritual roots.  For centuries people have been observing the end of one year and the beginning of another. 

It is a time of reflection of the past and hope for the future.  The period leading up to New Year's Day is a time for setting things straight: a thorough housecleaning, paying off debts, returning borrowed objects, reflecting on one's shortcomings, mending quarrels, giving alms.

As we enter 2013, what can we do to make a difference in the coming year? 

Speak from the heart.  Let people know either by your spoken words, or through notes you send, how much you love and care about them. 

Forgive someone.  Think of one person, past or present, toward whom you have ill feelings and forgive them.

Listen with compassion.  Listening compassionately simply means that you're making an effort to understand.

Stop and notice.  Stop, notice, and take in the small moments in life.

Make a difference for someone in need.  What can you do to make a difference in someone's life?

The Accredited family looks forward to 2013 and wishes our families, friends and agents the best year ahead. 

Happy New Year!

"Peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, gradually changing opinions, slowly eroding old barriers, quietly building new structures."                                                  John F. Kennedy