NCJ Number
227105
Journal
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology Volume: 53 Issue: 3 Dated: June 2009 Pages: 278-291
Date Published
June 2009
Length
14 pages
Annotation
This article examines the concerns attorneys may have in the use of private probation providers for probation supervision and treatment.
Abstract
The results of the study suggest that although some variation exists between prosecutors and defense attorneys, the two groups do not significantly differ overall in their beliefs about the use of private service providers (PSPs). As a group, PSP agency reputation was the strongest factor that explained attorney concerns about qualification, accountability, and consistency. Attorneys valued having a contract in place between PSPs and the government for between 2 and 3 years at a time. When making decisions about the recipients of these PSP contracts, the three most important criteria for attorneys was the number and type of certified programs offered for offenders, the education level of employees teaching and supervising offenders, and the accessibility of the program. Attorneys recognized the importance of PSPs to lessen the burden on local and State government, but policies needed to be in place to legitimize PSPs and lessen concerns. The exponential rise in probation caseloads has necessitated that some jurisdictions contract with private probation agencies and community-based private treatment providers. Private-sector involvement in the correctional system has increased at a significant rate over the past 25 years. However, with the majority of attention paid to private prisons and jails, the issue of private correctional agencies in the community has been minimally researched. In an attempt to fill the gap in the literature and uncover concerns that attorneys may have about private treatment providers for individuals sentenced to probation, this study addressed the following research questions: (1) do prosecutors and defense attorneys differ in their beliefs about the use of PSPs; (2) what is the effect of having standardized criteria for PSPs in order to alleviate attorney concerns; and (3) what other variables might explain concerns about using PSPs? Tables and references