This article explores some of the implications of the use of private organizations to deliver supervised pretrial release services in England and the United States. The impact of the use of private organizations depends both on the division of responsibility between the state agencies and the nonprofit organizations and on the policies of the particular nonprofit involved in a specific case. The most potentially problematic alliances occur when the private organization has responsibility for both provision and production of services, but some programs that utilize this division of labor are among the most innovative, helping to maintain a system that returns as many pretrial defendants to the community as can be accomplished without compromising safety. Case studies of programs developed by the Vera Institute in the United States and the Rainer Foundation in England are examined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baldwin, J. , & Bottomley, A. (1978). Introduction. In J. Baldwin & A. Bottomley (Eds.), Criminaljustice. Selected readings (pp. 73-75). London, England: Martin Robertson.
2.
Chayet, E. , Coyle, E., & Shapiro, C. (1988). A descriptive evaluation of supervised pre-trial release programs in New Jersey: Middlesex and Essex counties. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice.
3.
Cromwell, P. , & Rios, O. (1974, December). Bail supervision: Implementing the Federal Bail Reform Act. Federal Probation, pp. 30-34.
4.
Donahue, J. (1989). The privatization decision. New York, NY: Basic Books.
5.
Fiddes, C. , & Lloyd, C. (1991). Assessing the impact of bail information schemes. Home Office Research and Planning Unit Bulletin, 5, 23-27.
6.
Floud, J. , & Young, W. (1981). Dangerousness and criminaljustice. London, England: Heinemann.
7.
Freed, D. , & Wald, P. (1964). Bail in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
8.
Goldkamp, J. , & Gottfredson, M. (1985). Policy guidelines for bail: An experiment in court reform. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
9.
Hanley, R. (1989, November21). U.S. fines Essex $3.4 million for not easing jail crowding. New York Times, section 11, p. 3-3.
10.
Hickey, C. , & Douglas, C. (1988). Bail Out Support Scheme Southend, January to December 1988. London, England: Rainer.
Jones, P. (1985). Remand decisions at magistrates courts. In D. Moxon (Ed.), Managing criminaljustice (pp. 106-117). London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
13.
Kettl, D. (1993). Sharing power. Washington, DC: Brookings.
14.
Kolderie, T. (1986). Two different concepts of privatization. Public Administration Review, 46, 285-291.
15.
Malone, J. , & Kemp, L. (1993). The Drewery Project: Bail support and supported lodgings, quarterly report. Wolverhampton, England: Drewery Project.
16.
Mani, B. (1995). Old wine in new bottles tastes better. Public Administration Review, 55, 147-158.
17.
Milward, H. B. (1994). Nonprofit contracting and the hollow state. Public Administration Review, 54, 73-77.
18.
Moe, R. (1987). Exploring the limits of privatization. Public Administration Review, 47, 453-460.
19.
Moe, R. (1995). Rediscovering principles of public administration: The neglected foundation of public law. Public Administration Review, 55, 135-146.
20.
Osborne, D. , & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
21.
Pallesen, T. (1991, June 3). Bias accused in supervised jail release. Palm Beach Post, pp. 1A-1A, 6A-6A.
22.
Rainey, H. , Backoff, R., & Levine, C. (1976). Comparing public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 36, 233-244.
23.
Reaves, B. (1994). Pretrial release offederalfelony defendants. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
24.
Reaves, B. , & Perez, J. (1994). Pretrial release of felony defendants, 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
25.
Ryan, M. , & Ward, T. (1989). Privatization and the penal system. Criminal Justice Review, 14, 1-12.
26.
Salamon, L. (1981). Rethinking public management: Third-party government and the changing forms of government action. Public Policy, 29, 255-275.
27.
Schachter, H. (1991). Bail interviewing. International Criminal Justice Review, 1, 21-34.
28.
Schlesinger, S. (1986). Bail reform: Protecting the community and the accused. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 9, 173-202.
29.
Scott, T. (1989). Pretrial detention under the Bail Act of 1984. American Criminal Law Review, 27, 1-52.
30.
Shean, S. (1993). The bail process in the Highbury Corner Magistrates Court. London, England: Rainer Foundation.
31.
Smith, S. , & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
Stone, C. (1988). Bail information for the Crown Prosecution Service. London, England: Vera Institute of Justice.
33.
Thomas, W., Jr. (1976). Bail reform in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
34.
Vera Institute of Justice . (1986). Tventy-five year report. New York, NY: Author.
35.
Vera Institute of Justice . (1989). Preliminary report on the establishment of the Nassau Bail Bond Agency. New York, NY: Author.
36.
Vera Institute of Justice . (1990). Program plan for the establishment of a Vera Institute of Justice Bail Bond Agency in Essex County, New Jersey. New York, NY: Author.
37.
Wolch, J. (1990). The shadow state. New York, NY: Foundation Center.
