Deal Concerned About Lack Of Transparency In Private Probation Bill

House Bill 837 impacts the 300,000 or so Georgians currently on probation for misdemeanor offenses – offenses like petty theft or driving with a busted tail light. These people are usually put on probation because they aren’t able to pay their initial fine amount.

Over the last decade, many local jurisdictions in Georgia have contracted private companies to supervise misdemeanor probationers.

Part of HB 837 would shield from public view information related to these probation companies, like the number of offenders they’re supervising and how much they’re charging in extra fees.

That’s what Deal singled out.

“Part of the bill that concerns me is the clause that was added in, sorta late in the session, about the secrecy of the records…of not making those available for inspection,” said Deal. “I have asked some people to look at the language to see exactly what it does but we have not made a final call on that yet.”

Deal has until April 29^th to veto the bill, or it becomes law.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mark Hamilton, R-Cumming, didn’t respond to requests for comment. Neither did the lobbying group which supported the bill and represents the state’s private probation companies.

Deal’s transparency concerns echo those raised by state and national advocacy groups.

“I can’t think of any rational reason to hide that basic information from members of the public whose tax dollars fund the courts of the state,” said Sarah Geraghty, a staff attorney for the Southern Center for Human Rights, which lobbied against the bill during legislative session.

Beyond the secrecy issue, Geraghty said the bill would empower probation companies to charge excessive fees by making it easier to extend probation sentences.

“Private probation companies often keep poor people on probation by paying themselves their supervision fees first before applying the probationer’s payment toward the criminal fine and that extends the length of the criminal sentence,” said Geraghty.   

The bill is a reaction to a recent lawsuit and a subsequent court ruling which said probation companies can’t seek extensions of probation sentences beyond their original expiration date.