Privatization of probation services has increased nationwide in at least 10 states. When private probation initially began in the 1970s, there were few regulatory requirements for the supervision of misdemeanor offenders. The authors present the history of private probation and a review of statutory requirements for private probation companies providing supervision in several states. Missouri statutory requirements are compared with those of other states providing such services. The authors examine contractual agreements between the government and private entities, private probation officer training, education, salaries, private probationer supervision costs, and standards for private agencies providing ancillary treatment services. Analysis found statutes to lack standardization both between and within some states. Although some state statutes address private probation operations and contracts adequately, the authors question whether existing statutory guidelines in other jurisdictions are sufficient for operation of private probation supervision agencies and recommend more specific standards governing the use of private probation.

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.