Standards in the Privatization of Probation Services

Abstract

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.

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

“…In the future, it may be useful to compare the outcomes of probation cases that had a courtroom representative to those where a representative was not present. The results also point to actions that may be considered to improve policies on offender treatment services (Meyer & Grant, 1996;Schloss & Alarid, 2007). Attorneys favor treatment specialization by PSPs.…”

“…Providing policies and defined standards for the use of PSPs is essential to the future of private probation (Meyer & Grant, 1996;Schloss & Alarid, 2007). This research was conducted in a jurisdiction that uses PSPs but has few guidelines on awarding contracts and providing treatment services.…”

“…Ironically, nationwide there are more clients served by private, locally operating, community correctional agencies than there are prisoners in private jails and prisons. An estimated 100,000 prisoners are incarcerated in 200 private prisons nationwide (Alarid & Reichel, 2008), compared to a conservative estimate of 300,000 misdemeanor probationers being supervised in 10 states by private agencies (Schloss & Alarid, 2007). This number does not include the probationers who are court ordered to attend some form of outpatient private treatment center and the thousands of offenders in residential community correction facilities in all states (Alarid, Cromwell, & del Carmen, 2008).…”

Privatization of community corrections

“…Up to this point, services rendered by probation agencies have been explored, but what about probation itself? Schloss and Alarid () identified statutes allowing for private probation in seven states; they estimated, however, that at least 10 states used private probation services. Like with prison privatization, lower risk individuals tend to be the target for private providers.…”

“…Despite the benefits (and, some would argue, necessity) of using private providers in community corrections, there are some downfalls. Regulations and standards for private probation vendors are deficient (Schloss & Alarid, ), which created a lack of guidance and oversight regarding the quality of services and credentials of staff. As noted, some states have minimum requirements for specialized interventions; for example, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has minimum standards for residential facilities, outpatient substance abuse providers, and batterer intervention programs.…”