Image Credit: Canva
The Center Square [By Kim Jarrett] –
A board that oversees Tennessee’s state private probation companies needs more transparent reporting based on verified information, according to an audit released Tuesday by Comptroller Jason Mumpower.
The audit also shows that expenses exceeded revenues for three of the five-year audits by a total of $97,910. The council was most in the red in 2021, when it took in $56,215 but spent $131,456. The deficit was due in part to a $46,211 payment to upgrade the council’s computer system, according to the audit.
The Private Probation Services Council was established in 1998 to oversee the 26 companies that provide private probation services in 35 of Tennessee’s 95 counties, according to the report.
The probation companies pay $200 for their initial licensing and $100 annually subsequently. The council collects a fee of 75 cents per probationer from the companies, but that data is self-reported and not verified, according to the audit.
Companies should be required to report probationers’ information to the courts and the council, auditors recommended.
“The department acknowledges that we do not verify fees based on the number of probationers reported to the court each quarter,” the council said in its response to the finding. “The department believes that the most efficient and time effective solution would be to revise the affidavit section on the quarterly report to state that the total assigned to the case load agrees with the corresponding report to the local jurisdiction.”
Auditors recommended the General Assembly consider adding a requirement for the council to publish information from the private companies annually, including the number of probationers.
The seven-member board meets quarterly and held nine virtual meetings between July 1, 2021, and Feb. 2. 2024. The meeting activity was limited to complaints and disciplinary action, according to the audit. The General Assembly could clarify the council’s responsibilities, auditors said.
“The department maintains the perspective that a complaint-based regulatory scheme is a positive means of effectively regulating the industry without overburdening the licensees,” the council said in its response. “Until the department is given direction from the legislature, the council will continue to use a complaint-based regulatory scheme to regulate compliance with statutory requirements.”
