Standards in the Privatization of Probation Services

• Author: Leanne F. Alarid,Christine S. Schloss
• Published date: 01 September 2007
• Date: 01 September 2007
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734016807304949
• Subject Matter: Articles

Standards in the Privatization

of Probation Services

A Statutory Analysis

Christine S. Schloss

Northland Dependency Services, Liberty, Missouri

Leanne F. Alarid

University of Texas-San Antonio

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 super-

vision of misdemeanor offenders. The authors present the history of private probation and

a review of statutory requirements for private probation companies providing supervision in sev-

eral states. Missouri statutory requirements are compared with those of other states providing

such services. The authors examine contractual agreements between the government and pri-

vate entities, private probation officer training, education, salaries, private probationer super-

vision 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.

Keywords: private probation standards; private probation statutes; probation privatization

More than 4 million people are on probation supervision in the United States. Of that

number, 40% have committed a misdemeanor or other petty offense, and 60% are on

probation for a felony crime. Many states have turned to or are currently considering private

agencies to supervise low-risk offenders. Approximately 10 states use private agencies to

assist with probation supervision. In at least 10 states, private agencies have the primary

responsibility to supervise misdemeanor and low-risk clients on court-ordered probation

(Reynolds, 2000; Sparrow, 2001).

Although there has been resistance by state probation personnel to this shift, state budgets

have not been able to keep pace with the burgeoning probation populations and clients

currently on community supervision. The increase in probationers has caused an overall

increase in caseload size, with each officer responsible for supervising more offenders. This

has caused officers to devote less time to each client, reducing the quality of supervision.

Private agencies attempt to reduce the overall number of clients by specializing in the

233

Criminal Justice Review

Volume 32 Number 3

September 2007 233-245

© 2007 Georgia State University

Research Foundation, Inc.

10.1177/0734016807304949

http://cjr.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: Please address correspondence to Christine S. Schloss, Northland Dependency Services, 26

South Gallatin Street, Liberty, MO 64068; e-mail: cschloss@ndsncs.com.