In what ways, if any, should private probation supervision and treatment be expanded? In what ways, if any, should they be limited? Fully explain your position.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Critics of privatization say that the need to provide effective correctional services seems to be at odds with the prerequisite of making a profit for the business. Private-sector probation is seen as intruding on and competing with the government's traditional and ultimate responsibility to carry out punishment in a fair manner (Bosco, 1998). Furthermore, the private sector is usually not equipped to be a full-service organization, and thus it might only be able to take low-risk offenders who require little if any monitoring. Private-sector services have no uniform method of monitoring probation conditions or ensuring that victim restitution is collected. Another concern relates to the lack of standardization for agencies that wish to become program providers for probation agencies. Some states have no requirement that providers demonstrate qualifications such as licensing and experience. Ethical questions arise if private probation agencies are also treatment providers and require their ancillary services as a part of probation supervision. Schloss and Alarid (2007) argue for more stringent and standardized requirements for the supervision of offenders by private probation agencies and believe that Georgia, Utah, Colorado, and Tennessee provide good examples in this endeavor.