HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) — Criticism against CrimeStoppers in Houston have made it to the front page of the nation’s largest newspaper.
The New York Times and the Houston Chronicle are both reporting on significant criticisms about the organization.
Their reporting includes claims the organization’s mission has changed to a focus on cases of people out on bond because of a drop in funding from judge-ordered financial probation requirements.
CEO at CrimeStoppers to interview on Friday about the matter.
We were told the organization was drafting a statement response and would do interviews when that came out.
As of Friday evening, no response has been released.
There are two separate articles from different organizations on CrimeStoppers detailing data, financial records, and criticisms.
“One of the things in the course of my reporting and looking at this was this allegation that some have raised that it was financially driven,” said Houston Chronicle Public Safety Reporter, St. John Barned-Smith.
Barned-Smith details in his months-long research report that funding to CrimeStoppers from a routine $50 judge-ordered probation condition decreased dramatically.
The Chronicle found in 2017, crime stoppers received $630,000 from the initiative. In 2020, they received $85,000 in funding.
“Some of the judges I talked to said that they made the decision to direct that money to smaller organizations…to women’s shelters. Places that they felt were not as well-known as crime stoppers,” said Barned-Smith.
As bond conversations have been a hot button issue in our area… many judges, particularly Democratic, have been criticized.
The Chronicles findings point to a drop in funding for CrimeStoppers as new Democratic judges across Harris County took on their roles.
The Chronicle’s article points out that the director for victim services at the Houston chapter of CrimeStoppers is a part of a show on another network that talks about the bond issues in our area, judges, and the upcoming election.
“They disputed any contention that this had any sort of partisan motive. Their argument was we…there are people getting out on bond who are then going on to commit additional crimes and this a five-alarm fire and that what we’re focusing on, that was their argument,” said Barned-Smith.
As we await a response from CrimeStoppers, both the articles and reporters have garnered criticism with claims they conspired to do these pieces together. Some are calling them slam pieces.
Barned-Smith tells us they’re competing publications both digging around on the same story.
“When we saw that they had published we decided to as well because we weren’t going to let interlopers from New York scoop the hometown paper, absolutely not,” said Barned-Smith.
Barned-Smith said the first portion of their piece was set to publish this weekend but they moved it up when they saw the Times publish their article.
