MCBOCC makes decisions on misdemeanor probation services

With time is running out for Marion County Board of County Commissioners (MCBOCC) to find a solution on how to oversee residents on probation and convicted of misdemeanor crimes, the decision seemed to come down to weighing human welfare concerns on the one hand,  budgetary feasibility on the other.

Some background: Marion County’s Salvation Army gave the board of commissioners 180-day notice of their intent to discontinue providing misdemeanor probation services. The agency will continue to provide services through Sept. 12, 2023.

The issue arose on March 16, when the Salvation Army notified Marion County that as of Sept. 12, 2023, they will no longer provide misdemeanor probation services as they have done since 1992.

Michael McCain, director of internal services for the county, discussed three alternate options for providing the services such as processing probations with an in-house department, bidding out the service to another contractor to run the program or creating a Marion County Sheriff’s Office department to provide the service.

Two unnamed companies have submitted “viable” proposals that provide a Marion County location. The commission reported them to be self-sufficient and claimed that they will be doing business with the revenue generated from the probationers at no cost to the taxpayers, and both companies have experience providing similar services in the state of Florida.

If this is the chosen option, the county’s procurement services will complete the solicitation process and bring a contract to the board for approval.

“This is the only option that is self-sustaining and will not require subsidizing from another fund,” said a county report provided to the commission.

An estimate is missing from the report, however — how much these private companies would charge probationers and the potential setbacks that could occur if they miss any payments.

“This is not viable,” criminal court Judge Tony Thompson said of going with the private provider for the service. Thompson told the commissioners that the Salvation Army had done an outstanding job, he said, but profit-driven companies have historically hit up governments for subsidies and problems have arisen from private companies. He also expressed concern about the workload and income of privately paid probation counselors.

“It just hasn’t worked in the long term,” Thompson told the commission, adding that a county-run probation office would best serve Marion County citizens and the government, and county court judges, LeAnn Mackey-Barnes, Lori Cotton, and Robert Landt were of “like mind.”

Adding weight to Thompson’s argument against privatizing probation services, the written report failed to mention how oversight on probation payment collection, service procedures, treatment of people on probation, the handling of collections on past-due fines, and potential added fees or other repercussions of non-payment.

McCain returned to the podium to say that though he wouldn’t give specifics on the companies considered during the solicitation process, but he’s received “glowing reviews,” and got no reports of requests for subsidies.

The other two options considered by the MCBOCC included the Marion County Sheriff taking over the service or the county creating a new department with 11 employees located near the courthouse. The proposed location is a vacant County building at 18 NW 3rd Ave with 2,856 square feet of office space.

These options came with costs to the taxpayers. In the case of the county department, a one-time cost of $1,132,240, primarily to remodel the offices used for probation services, and yearly expenditures would total $943,789. Net subsidy required from another fund would be $345,989.

And if the Marion County Sheriff’s Office In-House Department were to process the probations, a one-time cost, once again, is estimated at $1,132,240, but annual expenditures would be slightly more at $1,430,233. The net subsidy required from another fund would be a markedly higher amount at $832,433.

An estimated 700 probationers each pay $60 per month with a collection rate of about 70 percent resulting in annual revenue of around $352,800. Additional revenue may also be collected by the probation department through other services such as supervision services, electronic monitoring services, drug screens and educational courses, bringing the total annual revenue to $597,800.

In the end, the county commissioners unanimously chose the option of the private company for fiscal reasons, with MCBOCC chair, Craig Curry, adding that it was not a vote he particularly liked.

The decision presents potential ramifications. Human Rights Watch, which investigates and reports on abuses happening around the world, has weighed in with its own cautionary report on why municipalities should avoid outsourcing probation services.

“New systems are emerging in the changing landscape of criminal justice, but they often lack transparency, regulation, and oversight, particularly for the individuals most vulnerable to abuses,” warned the Human Rights Watch report, “Set Up to Fail.”

The 2018 report focused on the impact of private probation on people living in poverty in four states, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. told the story of Cindy Rodriguez, a 53-year-old woman living in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, who had never been in trouble – “never had a parking ticket” – until 2014.

When she was charged with shoplifting, Rodriguez, who survives on disability payments due to injuries to her neck and back and lives in constant pain. was represented by a public defender. She said her public defender advised her to plead guilty and accept probation, saying it was the best deal she would receive from the state.

Rodriguez was placed on probation for 11 months and 29 days under the supervision of Providence Community Corrections, Inc. (PCC), a private company that had contracted with the Rutherford County government to supervise misdemeanor probationers.

Rodriguez’s lawyer told her probation was nothing to worry about, that she would just have to visit her probation officer once a week and pay her fees and fines.

When she informed the judge about her stark financial situation and disability payments, he told her to do the best that she could.

She owed the court $578 for the fine and associated fees, and she would have to pay PCC a $35-45 monthly supervision fee. PCC also conducted random drug tests, though she was not charged with a drug-related offense, for which she would pay approximately $20 a test.

“The costs of probation ruined her life,” the report said. “On one visit when she did not have the money to make a payment, her probation officer told her that she would ‘violate’ her and that she would go to jail, which is what happened.”