Attorney Views on the Use of Private Agencies for Probation Supervision and Treatment

Abstract

The exponential rise in probation caseloads has necessitated that some jurisdictions contract with private probation agencies and community-based private treatment providers. Regulations that monitor private providers are ill defined or absent, leaving standards open to broad interpretation. Attorneys in one jurisdiction that used private providers were surveyed to measure their beliefs about private treatment providers for people sentenced to probation. The research found that attorneys supported private provider representatives being present in court to contact defendants and to provide evidence to strengthen probation violations. Private agency reputation and standardized criteria were important to establish qualifications in offering supervision and treatment services.

Private Probation Costs, Compliance, and the Proportionality of Punishment: Evidence from Georgia and Missouri

“…Misdemeanor cases are typically not covered by Bearden v. Georgia, which prohibits probation revocation solely for failure to make payment (Williams, Schiraldi, and Bradner 2019). 3 In addition, individuals in municipal courts are rarely afforded the services of a public defender given that cases that typically do not result in incarcera-s t a t e m o n e t a r y s a n c t i o n s a n d t H e c o s t s o f t H e c r i m i n a l l e g a l s y s t e m r s f : t h e r u s s e l l s a g e f o u n d a t i o n j o u r n a l o f t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s tion, like those on private probation, are not afforded representation (Alarid and Schloss 2009). Finally, oversight of private probation companies is far less than of traditional staterun systems (Albin-Lackey 2014; Harris, Smith, and Obara 2019;Montes and Mears 2019).…”

Privatization of community corrections

“…Another benefit is that use of privatization in the community does not seem as politically controversial as prison privatization. Alarid and Schloss () found that both defense attorneys and prosecutors supported the use of private probation agencies so long as the organization was guided by standardized criteria for staff qualifications and program quality and, most importantly, that the private agency had a good reputation. These authors asserted that even the harshest critics of private probation services rarely argue for its abandonment, instead, that improvements be sought in the delivery of the services.…”