Pros and Cons of Utilizing Private Probation in Idaho
I have been asked to research and report to the Idaho Association of Counties in the matter of private misdemeanor probation and to provide a recommendation for or against it. In doing research for this I reviewed the State of Georgia who currently provides private probation services to clients with misdemeanor charges. I also looked at the controversy that is happening right now in Idaho with the current probation services.
Georgia advisory council records show that a high percentage of probation cases are successfully closed through private probation, and that many sentencing Judges find that there is a greater level of accountability held among private firms.
Courts having local government probation were less satisfied with private services. It has been shown that policy and procedure is generally the same with each, despite this some Judges continue to perceive it unfavorably, primarily because of the associated costs (Sparrow, 2011). Sparrow continues to state that private probation has brought uniformity to state probation due to the fact that standards have been developed as guidelines that private probation companies must follow and agree to when becoming licensed. Criticism’s by Judge’s ensures that the private sector will remain vigilant in following policies and attempting to close each case successfully, therefore arousing less Judge dissatisfaction.
Georgia is one of only approximately 10-12 states that currently have private probation policies and services. This may be contributed to by the fact that Georgia, similar to Tennessee which also has private probation, has many more rural areas that are less likely to have government services nearby and more likely to be amicable and welcoming to private services that were able to be more local than government providers.
The American Probation and Parole association has allowed and endorsed “private sector services to enhance or supplement supervision and casework services” since 1987 (Privatizing
Georgia advisory council records show that a high percentage of probation cases are successfully closed through private probation, and that many sentencing Judges find that there is a greater level of accountability held among private firms.
Courts having local government probation were less satisfied with private services. It has been shown that policy and procedure is generally the same with each, despite this some Judges continue to perceive it unfavorably, primarily because of the associated costs (Sparrow, 2011). Sparrow continues to state that private probation has brought uniformity to state probation due to the fact that standards have been developed as guidelines that private probation companies must follow and agree to when becoming licensed. Criticism’s by Judge’s ensures that the private sector will remain vigilant in following policies and attempting to close each case successfully, therefore arousing less Judge dissatisfaction.
Georgia is one of only approximately 10-12 states that currently have private probation policies and services. This may be contributed to by the fact that Georgia, similar to Tennessee which also has private probation, has many more rural areas that are less likely to have government services nearby and more likely to be amicable and welcoming to private services that were able to be more local than government providers.
The American Probation and Parole association has allowed and endorsed “private sector services to enhance or supplement supervision and casework services” since 1987 (Privatizing
Cited: Sparrow, Holly. “Private Probation in Georgia” A New Direction Service and Vigilance." NCSC. 2011. Web. 12 Dec. 2011. . “Privatizing Probation and Parole” National Center for Policy Analysis, NCPA. Web. 12 Dec. 2011. . Sewell, Cynthia. “Idaho counties’ misdemeanor probation programs could violate the state constitution.” Idaho Statesman. Web. 12 Dec. 2011.