Justice “cost points”

Abstract

Research Summary: In addition to outsourcing the management of correctional facilities, many local and state authorities contract with private companies to provide a variety of services and processes within U.S. courthouses, jails, and prisons. In this article, we explore the various "cost points" at which individuals who make contact with public systems of justice are charged by private entities. We provide two case studies with an in-depth look at how private companies make money within U.S. justice facilitiescourt-ordered programs and prison services. Policy Implications:Through our examples, we show the extent to which private companies generate profits within U.S. systems of justice and the potential impacts of justice "cost points" on those involved in these systems. We end by suggesting policy makers more thoroughly explore the reasons for the privatization of justice system practices and services and develop transparent oversight to ensure private arrangements do not impose undue burdens on justice-involved individuals and their families.

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

“…Given the potential personal and financial costs of a violation report, individuals being sanctioned for misdemeanors or ordinance violations potentially face an increased likelihood of failure simply because of the nature of the supervision regime. The findings comport with others of this type that warn against the use of private correctional systems that introduce financial incentives that may undermine the primary goals of correctional and increase the potential negative outcomes for individuals under supervision (Harris, Smith, and Obara 2019;Montes and Morgan 2020).…”

“…Several policy implications follow from this research, including the elimination of the use of private agencies for surveillance altogether. As stated, the current funding models provide incentives to extend probation and increase costs to the detriment of the individual (Harris, Smith, and Obara 2019). In the case of private probation, the costs are often disproportionate to the nature of the offense and exploitative.…”

“…Unlike traditional probation, which was designed to provide community supervision in lieu of incarceration and based on a peer support model, many argue that private probation has become instead another way in which criminal legal institutions make money (Harris, Smith, and Obara 2019), as the burden to fund the system falls on system users (Rosenthal and Weissman 2007;Appleman 2016). Although state probation systems certainly charge people on probation for supervision and additional costs of compliance, these entities are typically funded more substantially by state tax revenues.…”

“…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). Even in states with a formal state oversight system in place, such as Georgia and Tennessee, evidence suggests that further structure is needed and that the current private probation system puts individuals on probation at risk (Wilson 2018).…”

An Assessment of Prisoner Reentry, Legal Financial Obligations and Family Financial Support: A Focus on Fathers

“…Rather than acting as a replacement for other punitive sanctions, LFOs are often imposed as an additional punishment and can be inflicted at each stage of the criminal justice process [19]. LFOs can include fines, fees, restitution, or a combination of the three.…”