view full overview
In every state, people released from prisons and jails make payments to a host of agencies, including probation, courts, and child support enforcement offices. Furthermore, in many jurisdictions, courts and probation departments often contract with private companies to pursue delinquent cases. Each of these agencies typically has different priorities and collection methods, and there is rarely one agency that tracks the collection of every debt assessed to an individual. Nor does any single agency assume responsibility for providing people with a summary of the status of all of their outstanding obligations.
hide full overview
In every state, people released from prisons and jails make payments to a host of agencies, including probation, courts, and child support enforcement offices. Furthermore, in many jurisdictions, courts and probation departments often contract with private companies to pursue delinquent cases. Each of these agencies typically has different priorities and collection methods, and there is rarely one agency that tracks the collection of every debt assessed to an individual. Nor does any single agency assume responsibility for providing people with a summary of the status of all of their outstanding obligations.
For example, an individual might owe payment for court fines to several different courts; supervision fees to a probation department; child support to a child support enforcement office; and restitution to a victim services agency, probation office, or court administrator. Without any one agency keeping track of these debts collectively, many of the debts remain, not surprisingly, unpaid. Their expectations unmet, victims and families who anticipated receiving some reimbursement and expression of accountability from the person sentenced become understandably frustrated and angry.
Debts often remain unpaid at least partly because staff working for distinct agencies do not have clear guidelines as to how their collection efforts should be prioritized. With the exception of child support, which federal law prioritizes above all other obligations to victims or the state,1 states have considerable leeway when prioritizing among the collection and disbursement of restitution, fines, fees, and surcharges. Many states, for example, have enacted laws that prioritize payment of victim restitution over other non-child support debts. A number of states, however, collect fines, fees, and surcharges before restitution.2
While child support collection cannot be consolidated with other financial obligations,3 there are opportunities for simplifying their collection that are often missed. To capitalize on these opportunities, policymakers should decide how to coordinate the collection of financial obligations from people released from prisons and jails to ensure that returning prisoners can first meet their obligations to victims and families. Even in cases where individuals do not owe child support or restitution, policies should encourage long-term repayment by providing realistic financial conditions of their sentence.
Policymakers can pursue a number of strategies for improving and coordinating collections practices, including determining financial sanctions in one lump sum and setting priorities for disbursement, consolidating collection efforts, providing sufficient resources to agencies responsible for collections to pursue unmet obligations, keeping individuals apprised as to the status of their payment efforts, capping collections at a set rate, and calculating realistic payment plans.
1 42 U.S.C. § 666.
2 States that prioritize restitution include Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin. States that prioritize other fines, fees, or surcharges include Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, and Georgia.
3 Personal communication, Vicki Turetsky, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Law and Social Policy, October 4, 2006.
