It is conceivable, and even probable, that collectors representing multiple agencies could demand that 100 percent of an individual’s income be applied toward the payment of court-ordered financial obligations, leaving him or her with no living expenses. As previously discussed, by law a child support enforcement officer could garnish up to 65 percent of an individual’s income for child support. At the same time, a separate court or probation officer could require that an individual dedicate 35 percent of his or her income toward the combined payment of fines, fees, surcharges, and restitution.

Such a situation could inadvertently encourage a person to return to the behavior and illegal activities that resulted in the person’s incarceration in the first place. In other words, aggressive collectors representing distinct agencies could end up contributing to a person’s failure to meet his or her financial obligations and, by extension, their revocation of probation or parole.

To avoid these situations, policymakers should cap the portion of an individual’s income that can be collected in a given period toward the payment of fines, fees, surcharges, and restitution at less than or equal to 20 percent. At the same time, policies should provide for the possibility that the offender has sufficient resources to pay more than 20 percent of their income toward fines, fees, surcharges, and restitution and enable judges and staff from agencies responsible for collections to waive the cap.

¹ Personal communication, Harvey Goldstein, Chief, Intensive Supervision Program, Adult Probation Department, New Jersey, May 11, 2006.