Thank you. Our main goals are to keep individuals on track for completing all court mandated obligations and to connect them to services. When we do our detailed intake with participants we evaluate their needs and work to connect them to the appropriate services. That can include drug treatment, mental health treatment, eduction, job training/placement, etc.
Many people who are in the day to day see the value. Public defenders who we have spoken with understand the chaos that is created when their clients miss court and they see the value of our product. Sheriff staff who we have spoken with would like to release more people into the community to serve their sentences but want them to have additional support and resources to feel comfortable doing so. Elected official also seem to understand that this is a problem and want solutions. So overall there has been a positive response.
This is a tough question. I have been a criminal defense attorney and was the co-founder of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights that has worked hard to bring change to the criminal justice system-initially for juveniles but now for adults as well. We understand the concerns and there is no magic answer but we come from a place of wanting to get people out of jail and keeping them out. That is our goal and that is what we will work towards. As we said, we will go for the least restrictive means possible, but if the court requires an ankle monitor for them to get out of jail, we will provide that. If we don't, companies who care nothing about the individuals being incarcerated will continue to get these contracts.
I'm curious, what prevents your company from becoming one of those companies that care nothing about the individuals being incarcerated? Like, imagine if your growth peters out, your board of directors or your investors pressure you into selling, and one of those companies ends up acquiring you. Is there something about your company structure that would prevent this?
It could be incorporated as a not-for-profit. And I have heard that there is a 3rd kind of incorporation somewhere between purely-for-greed and not-for-profit, where some profit is expected, but is not the only reason for the organization. Look for "public benefit corporation".
Thank you for opening and sharing your thoughts! We have been speaking with sheriff departments, district attorneys, public defenders, probation departments, judges and other parts of the criminal justice system. They have slightly different motivations but most agree that Promise could benefit individuals going through the system. Thank you for your idea. We will definitely look into that.
Our current plan is to do contracts with government agencies. There is no plan to charge the participants directly. Our plan was to start with pre-trial individuals but in speaking with potential clients, we do have interest in working with individuals who are on probation, parole and those who can serve their sentence in the community.
They will not be performing any service or labor for Promise. They will work with our team. Our team with get them set up on the app, do an intake to refer them to appropriate support services, work with them to make sure they know about court dates and other obligations, etc.
We really appreciate this question because we believe that the incentives in the criminal justice system are often wrong. Our goal is to get people out of jail and keep them out. Our program is set up for the purpose of getting them out of custody. We will also evaluate ourselves based on how we do at reducing recidivism.
You didn't really address the incentive, just simply stated your goals. I think clearly there is a financial incentive for a for-profit company to keep people in the system.
If you have ideological views that people > profit (which I suspect you do, and I completely agree with), then that can be an incentive. But I think it is important to recognize that people and the systems they build can be corrupted over time. What happens when people that don't have the same ideology take control? The profit incentive won't change, but the ideological one may.
I wasn't the one that asked the question initially, but it's possible that's what he/she was getting at.
We have introduced recidivism as part of our performance metrics. Currently, contractors are paid per day, per person. We believe it creates the wrong incentive. The best way to correct is to incentivize companies to have people not reenter the system.
Doesn't your board have the obligation to maximize shareholder value? Is it possible that would conflict with the metrics you mention as the driving force of your company? Is it possible that a Public Benefit Corporation might be a more suitable entity to serve this sort of need?
What is a dating websites incentive to couple people up? They have seemingly reverse incentives too. The better a dating website is the less potential users it might eventually have.
I don't think that anyone here is trying to say that this is the only industry in existence that has reverse incentives (in that their success could limit their future).
I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare online dating to an industry which, quite literally, destroys peoples lives and often unfairly targets disadvantaged groups.
This doesn't answer the question. Getting people out of jail is already rewarded as part of your business model. But you would also benefit by more people being tried and found guilty. I wonder if there is an answer. What about something like establishing a fund that is...funded based on recidivism? If recidivism is high, you cannot distribute profits, they must be channeled back into R&D to improve your services.
We will not use bounty hunters like bail bond companies. We will have a plan with the local jurisdiction that we are in. That will be county specific but will involve us trying to get them back on calendar if they miss a court date, but ultimately the Sheriff or local law enforcement picking them up if they have an outstanding warrant.
So you’ll use the local PD as bounty hunters, without the bounty. I’ve read through this whole thread, and I wonder if you’re aware of just how smarmy and evavise you’ve been throughout? As PR goes, silence would serve you better than your comments in the aggregate, and where you stop responding.
It’s a bit too clear that you’ve identified a place where yet another middleman can profit without solving a problem directly, or rendering services, as a for-profit company in a space which should not be producing profits.
