Poor People Catch Hell: The Injustice of Privatized Probation Services

Steve ran a stop sign. Deondre was drinking a beer on a friend’s porch. The police stopped Steve. The police stopped Deondre. The police told Steve it is illegal to run a stop sign. Steve said, “So what do we do now?” The police told Steve “now I give you a ticket.” The police told Deondre it is illegal to drink in public and they arrested him. Steve has a job and Steve paid his ticket. For 150 dollars, Steve’s story is over. Deondre was charged with public intoxication, a violation analogous to a traffic ticket. The public intoxication statute says violators are subject to a fine no greater than 200 dollars. Deondre couldn’t pay the fine. Deondre went on probation. It cost 80 dollars a month. Deondre went to drug court. It cost 1,500 dollars plus 1,200 dollars for court costs. Deondre went to substance abuse class. It cost 200 dollars.

The probation system exists to temper justice for the least among us. The intention that is society be made whole but not at the cost of a non-felony offender’s well being. Unfortunately for Deondre, privatization backed by a distorted set of financial incentives has turned probation from a just-but-fair accommodation into a rent-to-own style enticement where the unwitting trade their freedom for monthly payments.

In a series of articles, we will introduce you to citizens trapped in the system. One is a mother who now lives under the constant threat of arrest, because she must choose between her children and paying for “probation.” Through their stories you will learn about the two systems of justice in Birmingham. You will learn about the Boards that implemented these systems, the Judges that feed them, and the people that fuel them.

Judicial Correction Services (JCS) has been approved by the Jefferson County Personnel Board to contract with the City of Birmingham to provide probationary services. This approval came even though the City of Birmingham had qualified employees in the Probation Office of Municipal Court. The Personnel Board's job is to protect the jobs of merit employees. Apparently, the Personnel Board based its approval on the fact that Judicial Correction Services touts its services are "free" and cost neutral to the contracting government; no weight was given to the employees who were "encouraged" to retire while the Parole Office was eliminated and merged into the operating division of Municipal Court. While it may be true that the City of Birmingham never has to issue a check to JCS, the services do not come "free" to those unfortunate enough to find themselves subject to the Birmingham Municipal Court's tactics to assist in funding JCS.

A typical day in the halls of Municipal Court finds an overwhelming number of people jockeying for position in one of the overcrowded courtrooms. Bailiffs shout out instructions to the crowd to locate their names on the posted dockets and to take their places in the appropriate courtrooms after proceeding through the metal detector. The crowds seemed to consist of many people who had to leave their jobs to attend court as they were still in their uniforms; many mothers with small children were also in attendance.

As names were called in Traffic Court, the defendants took their places in front of the judge. Those who could pay their fines were allowed to do so and went on their way. Many of those who could not pay were ordered to JCS by the judge. An air of disrespect and indifference for the defendants permeated the courtroom as they were brought up before the judge. The defendants could not help but feel the less-than-worthy attitude exhibited toward them; despair was on many of their faces as they listened to the judge talk to them in a demeaning manner. Others feeling they may have caught a break by receiving probation with JCS would soon learn they had actually received a punishment far worse than the violation they had committed. A follow-up report on the full effect of the Court-sanctioned charges of JCS is forthcoming.

Those defendants sentenced to Judicial Correction Services were done so with little apparent regard for their possible indigent status. The contract with the City is specific that JCS's services should only be utilized for non-indigent defendants. The City of Birmingham has a contract with Legal Aid whereby there is a qualified person in the court to assist those defendants who are indigent. In addition to Legal Aid (as was reported some months ago in the Birmingham News), the City uses the Fair Trial collections to pay outside attorneys to assist indigent defendants. A review of a large number of records indicated most of those defendants were pled out by the indigent defense attorneys. The indigent defendant referred by the Court to JCS “supervision” is likely to fail as a result of the increased costs - not the intended purpose of probation at all.

In an attempt to fully understand the role of JCS at Birmingham's Municipal Court and their operations, a meeting was scheduled with Presiding Judge Andra Sparks and Corey Young, a college intern investigating the impact of privatization of probationary services. Judge Sparks granted the interview but made it abundantly clear he would not discuss privatized probation in Birmingham's courts as that was too much of a "hot topic." He also did not care to discuss the topic with someone he said could be a reporter. Judge Sparks did concede that by outsourcing the services of probation, a government could save money in a time of dwindling judicial budgets because the services were free. He did not express any concern that the fees JCS outlines in their contract could be onerous on defendants and hurt those who can least afford to be hurt. Judge Sparks would not discuss any specifics of the JCS operation in the Birmingham courts and asked this intern to leave the building.

Not able to be addressed at the meeting were questions related to the contract entered into by the City and JCS, a contract approved by the Jefferson County Personnel Board. The contract JCS has with the City requires them to submit monthly reports to the City's Finance Department; specifically, the contract named Henry Young as the person designated to receive the reports. Because Judge Sparks terminated the interview, there was no opportunity to question him about those reports. Questions which should be asked of an entity contracted to provide services - questions such as:

• How much has been collected by JCS?




• How many defendants are assigned to JCS on a monthly basis?




• How many defendants have completed their probation and at what cost to them?




• How is JCS ensuring indigents are not being assigned to them as per their contract? How do they handle the matter if they discover an indigent in their program? What about a person who becomes indigent before completing their program? What remedies does JCS have in place to protect them from the fees they can no longer afford?




• How many defendants have been jailed because they were unable to pay the probation fees?




• How much money has JCS collected from probationers for the various educational classes they are required to attend such as anger management, restorative justice program, family support/life obligations, parenting and family values, or life skills/financial management? How does JCS measure success in these programs - is it simply all the money has been paid or do they have methods to ensure the public that defendants are being rehabilitated?




• How many probationers have JCS counseled to ensure they are on the right path?




• Who actually collects the money - City cashiers at the Court or JCS employees?




• How are the collections divided between the City and JCS? If a probationer pays $50, does the City get $25 and JCS get $25? How exactly does that work?




• Does JCS have access to the City's computerized records for defendants? If so, are they entering data into the City's records? If they do, is any of the information privileged?




• Are any State fees collected by JCS? If so, who reports that information to the State and remits payment to the State?




• What benchmarks are there to measure whether the contract with JCS is beneficial to the City? How does the City know whether or not the services they are receiving from JCS are an improvement over performing the services in-house as previously done when they had a probation office? What would trigger termination of the contract with JCS?

Answers to these questions and more could have and should have been provided by Presiding Judge Andra Sparks. But he chose to shut the door on the "hot topic" leaving one to wonder whether he cares about accountability and transparency in government. Or is he just protecting that information and the officials who approved the contract?

This report and analysis is prepared by individuals concerned with equal treatment in the judicial system. Special recognition to contributors Bryant Hall, third-year law student at Cumberland Law School and Corey Young, a senior at Washington & Jefferson College in Pennsylvania. Both Hall and Young are currently law clerks for Dr. Gayle Gear, a Birmingham attorney. Special thanks to the numerous others who shared personal insights into the issues associated with the harsh impact of privatization of probation services in municipal courts.