Prisoners' Debt: An Underappreciated Problem
The New York Times recently editorialized about a little-understood obstacle to prisoner re-entry: the crushing debt burden that many ex-offenders face upon release, which interferes with restitution and child support payments and hinders parole and re-integration. The editorial was based on a new report from the Council of State Governments Justice Center, Repaying Debts, which contains data from studies in several states. Below the break are just a few of the fascinating findings.
- Fifty-eight percent of recently released inmates in Ohio owed supervision fees to the court or government.
- In Ohio, 32% of recently released inmates had minor children and owed child support. In Illinois the figure was 17%, and in Texas, 16%.
- A Colorado study found that parolees owed an average of $16,600 in child support.
The study explains that because ex-offenders’ incomes are typically very low, courts, crime victims, child support recipients and others are left to compete for the already-meager earnings and often receive far less than they are owed. Multiple garnishments drive ex-offenders out of formal employment and into the underground economy, which contributes to parole violations and recidivism. Little oversight is given to the total amount of debt or the likelihood that it will be repaid, and court fines and charges can interfere with payments to victims and child-support recipients, which are legally required to take priority over debts to the government. Ex-offenders are often unaware of their total debt, and victims and families are unsure of what payments they may reasonably expect. In short, the system is in disarray, and can deter rather than promote legitimate employment.
The study recommends that states coordinate collections efforts so that different types of debt can be effectively prioritized and garnishment can be set at a level that encourages legitimate employment. It also suggests that the public and, most importantly, recipients of funds be educated about the coordinated collections system and how best to obtain the payments they are owed.
The study also offers a creative suggestion. One is that, at the time of sentencing, a judge determine an appropriate penalty amount based on the conviction and the inmate’s earning ability, assets, and obligations. The sum would then be divided among potential recipients, typically victims and criminal justice agencies, and payment would be overseen by the court. The similarity to bankruptcy is striking: in both bankruptcy and the suggested sentencing procedure, the court makes a realistic assessment of what funds are available and allocates them to recipients according to pre-existing rules, structuring and supervising the payment process. The sentencing procedure offers many of the same benefits of bankruptcy: predictability for all parties, an orderly and efficient process and a timely conclusion to the debtor-creditor relationship. This would especially benefit victims of crime, who would then be able to cease contact with the offender and put the incident behind them.
Other recommendations include a careful analysis of any new fines and fees to ensure that they will not interfere with restitution and child support payments, community service as a means of payment especially for ex-offenders with very low earning capacity, and a more carefully designed incentive system to encourage legitimate employment and reward timely payment. Overall, the report is an innovative look at an underappreciated problem, and its recommendations could prove critical to improving repayment rates for crime victims and child support recipients.
Interesting, but you're kind of missing the obvious solution: prisoners shouldn't be made to pay the state to keep them in prison in the first place. If we're going to punish people by locking them up, we shouldn't charge them for it. Restitution to victim is financial penalty enough.
We also need to reform our laws. The whole reason prisoners are paying for their own incarceration is that most states can't really afford the expense. The reason that's happening is that there are too many laws that can land a person in prison for minor and victimless offenses.
So step one is to eliminate the laws that lead to excessive incarceration rates in the first place. Step two, make it illegal for a state to force a prisoner to pay their way in prison.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 22, 2007 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that every institution we have is in failure mode.
There are those who benefited from this crisis and they
feed the continuance of the failure. They do not care
that it does not achieve any "positive results"
for us the Citizens.
Maybe we should declare the US a failed state!
Ask other countries for a proffer
of detailed plans for helping us
the citizens fix our institutions
and then leave.
No, this sounds too much like one
of our failed intuition’s lines.
Maybe declare war, lose and get help?
No, we are America and America is not
America anymore.
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
October 22, 2007 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about other states, but in Ohio, the prisoner doesn't pay for incarceration - the prisoner pays an average of $20.00 per month for supervision outside of prison. This method is used to keep the offender in the community where he has ties, family support and (we hope) work.
This is actually a far better method than sending first time or non-felony offenders to prison or jail and the philosophy behind it is a sound one - if the offender is obligated as part of his community release, to pay for that supervision, he is less likely to quit work or not seek work and his community has a vested interest in making sure that he works. If the offender cannot afford to pay for the supervision, then the offender has the option of community service as payment for the fee. More intense supervision such as ankle bracelets, weekly/monthly visits to and from parole/probation officers and drug tests are costly to communities, and by sharing the cost, it makes the offender share in the responsibility of the cost to the community for his behavior.
A pre-sentencing report for this kind of discretionary sentencing by a judge, will tell the judge if the offender is destitute or unable to pay restitution for various reasons and the fines and restitution are adjusted accordingly with different payment structures and methods of payment.
The problem isn't that laws lead to excessive incarceration - a lawless society is anarchy - the problem isn't supervised release with restitution, the problem is mandatory sentencing and the three strikes you're out laws, which no longer allow for discretionary sentencing by judges. Legislators are overcompensating for lenient sentencing by making sentences mandatory for offenders who might benefit by community supervision.
October 22, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Prisoner release is another area where "the market" cannot be relied upon to solve a social issue. Released prisoners too often are left to their own resources in a job market that does not want them. Whenever I ask business owners if they would hire released prisoners the answer is either an unabashed no or an slighly embarassed no, but always no. The excuses are not always unreasonable: concerns about potenial violence to other employees, concerns about trust with property, including concerns about possible lawsuits or insurance complications. It usually boils down to "why take a chance?" or "is there any upside to this"? Until and unless the individual can establish a record for reliability, they are virtually unemployable in most businesses. Combine that with crushing debt and the recidivism rate should no longer surprise. Don't expect to resolve the problem without a nonmarket (i.e. governmental) initiative. Only the government can absorb that level of risk.
On the other issue of the size of the population, by almost any comparison, the US has too many people in prison. Overzealous sentencing guidelines and irrational drug laws are mainly to blame. The political will to fix either problem does not exist.
October 22, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prison in America is a dumping ground for those
with mental health problems. They do not belong there and can be helped for less money by treating their illness and returning them to their family and society to contribute in a positive manner.
Mental Health Problems of Prison
and Jail Inmates (Pdf)
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report
September 2006
At midyear 2005 more than half of all
prison and jail inmates had a mental
health problem, including 705,600
inmates in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal
prisons, and 479,900 in local jails.
These estimates represented 56% of
State prisoners, 45% of Federal prisoners,
and 64% of jail inmates. The findings
in this report were based on data
from personal interviews with State and
Federal prisoners in 2004 and local jail
inmates in 2002.
US Number of Mentally Ill in Prisons Quadrupled
U.S. Program of Human Rights Watch
Prisons Ill Equipped to Cope
Prisons are woefully ill-equipped for their current role as the nation’s primary mental health facilities. Jamie Fellner, Director, U.S. Program of Human Rights Watch
(New York, September 6, 2006) – New federal statistics reveal that the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons and jails has quadrupled over the past six years, Human Rights Watch said today. More than half of all prison and state inmates now report mental health problems, including symptoms of major depression, mania and psychotic disorders, according to a just-released federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates.
In 1998, the BJS reported there were an estimated 283,000 prison and jail inmates who suffered from mental health problems. That number is now estimated to be 1.25 million. The rate of reported mental health disorders in the state prison population is five times greater (56.2 percent) than in the general adult population (11 percent).
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
October 22, 2007 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another factor to consider is the degree to which our prison systems typically strip resources from the family members and friends who might provide support for ex-prisoners struggling to meet their financial obligations with few employment prospects. In most states (New York, where I live, I am proud to say is no longer one of them), prison phone systems are a collect-call-only affair, charging those who want to stay in touch with prisoners rates several times those available for other collect calls. This can mean hundreds or thousands of dollars in phone bills every month, and for a great many families, there is no room in the paycheck for bills so high. To the extent that the wife or mother of a prisoner has some savings when he goes in, it is very likely that these will be depleted for the sake of providing a link and a lifeline by the time he gets out.
October 22, 2007 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that when you apply middle class methods to the poor they create more problems than they alleviate. Poverty is the primary and root cause of most crimes.
Prisoners, by and large, are poor people to start with and they typically do not have a high school diploma. It is utterly moronic for the state to impose any financial penalties on men who can't support themselves before their convictions let alone after they've been imprisoned. Child support too, while theoretically a good idea is a counterproductive concept in many, if not most cases, where poor people are involved.
I'm speaking out of years of experience with this population. I think if most Americans had any concept whatever of the situation they would support drastic reform of our criminal "justice" system. This would be especially true then they find out that it actually makes things worse. Of course, there are violent criminals that need to be put away and punished, but the vast majority of people in prison are not violent offenders. Their number one crime is being poor which means their fate is often determined as an accident of birth more than anything else.
Most poor young men with children do what they can to support their kids and do so willingly. The dynamics of parenting are not the same among the poor as with middle class people (for better or worse) and frequently the expectation for "help" with the kids is very different. The last thing most poor moms do is go to court to try and get money from the Dad primarily because they know the Dad has no money to speak of. If one wants to understand this situation, you just have to understand this very important difference in how the two classes approach these problems and how inappropriate it often is to impose a middle class solution for child support on the poor since money is the one thing poor Dad's typically do not have. We'd all be better off if we spent half as much on educating poor Dad's to be a continuing and ongoing presence in their children's lives and on always, always, always using birth control if you're going to have sex as we do on trying to squeeze money out of them.
What often occurs is that the mother, who is also poor, gets on some form of state aid and the state (sometimes with and sometimes without the mother's knowledge) then pursues the father legally to try and recoup it's financial "loss" incurred by assisting the mother and her baby.
Often, the father has no permanent address and notices are sent to wherever he may or may not be and frequently the Dad has no idea he is even being scrutinized by the state. Neither do many of these Dad's (especially the younger they are) understand the consequences of such state actions.
Next thing ya know they have a monthly child support obligation that could accumulate for months or years until he gets a job that does not pay cash. Poor people often work "under the table" jobs because they can't get any other work. When he finally does get a regular paying job that's aboveboard, he suddenly gets whacked with thousands in back support payments he can't repay. It is worse for the ex-offender (especially felons) because few employers want anything to do with them and they also have things like monthly fees for reimbursing the state for the cost of being on probation/parole or house arrest, restitution, mandatory drug rehab courses and so on.
What states and the federal government need to be doing in the cases of most prisoners is offering them assistance and support of various kinds (including educational assistance) so they can go on and support themselves first, and then their families. If they can become self-supporting they will probably not go back to jail. The two top factors in recidivism are lack of employment (or adequate employment) and no HS Diploma or equivalent.
Given the gigantic number of ex-offenders, including felons, whose "crime" was possession of a certain amount of illegal drugs, we need to look at getting rid of penalties that imprison people for relatively small amounts of drugs--including crack unless we are willing to match powder coke conviction times to crack sentences. What most folks don't realize is how little of any given illegal drug it takes to be convicted of a felony these days. It's insane really. Making matters even worse is the fact that any middle class kid whose parents can afford any kind of lawyer will almost always get off with a slap on the wrist in contrast to the poor kid whose parents don't even necessarily go to court with him/her who, because of the lack of a skilled legal professional, gets the full brunt of the law, marked for life as a felon and all the rest.
The entire logic of heaping fines and other financial penalties upon prisoners who are then expected to pay them upon release is foolish, shortsighted and counterproductive--not to mention amazingly expensive for society. We have to ask ourselves how much retribution is enough and what should we do, as a society, to keep offenders from repeating other than threaten even harsher prison terms? Until we do so, it's all just a very cruel joke to those convicted and a very expensive one to society.
October 23, 2007 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
All very good information!
I have often wondered how many non-mentally ill people entering the population come out with a mental illness? How many middle class people do you think would emerge from say, 2 years in in a typical state prison, without a serious case of depression at minimum?
October 23, 2007 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I recall correctly, supermaximum facility prisons are on the rise. These are prisons that virtually eliminate human contact - prisoners are fed through a slot in the door, are kept in a cell 23 hours a day, with the lights always on, and once a day, their doors open to allow them access to another empty cell for recreation.
This is a very good way to increase the incidence of mental illness among those emerging from prison. (Of course, there is some evidence that those who end up in supermax - the putative 'worst of the worst,' but very often those who can't follow the rules - tend to be the mentally ill prison population already.)
October 23, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do know that this is bullshit, don't you?
October 24, 2007 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't help but read this passage and not be vividly struck by its resonance to the use and misuse of the penal system in the American south. There the courts were used to impose punitive sentences upon negroes, using them as forced labour in the prison system. Even when they were not technically in prison, negroes under the supervision of court ordered 'probations' 'conditional sentences' etc., found themselves reduced to literal slaves, being tied to communities, forced to work for employers for free or for nominal wages.
The apparently neutral and benign words conceal an unmistakeable history of slavery, human degradation and oppression, which cannot be divorced from these concepts revived in a modern context. The principles that BevD defends have an uninterrupted history of abuse, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this abuse and corruption will not return, is not endemic and part and parcel.
This is simply false and verging on dishonest in every particular. First, it ignores the difficulties of prisoners in finding their way back into the community. They are extremely unemployable, they have a lot of difficulty finding any employment, and what employment is found is often menial, casual, part time and minimum wage. Engaged in menial, casual, part time and minimum wage employment, released prisoners are reduced to subsistence or sub-subsistence existence. Modest expenses like busfair, food, clothing and shelter can become horrendous burdens, sometimes unsustainable burdens. The released prisoner is further handicapped from seeking employment by not being able to travel or travel easily within the community, not being able to dress well for interviews, etc. Even with employment, the costs of something as otherwise trivial as busfair to and from work can take a huge bite.
In consequence of this, a state imposed supervision fee or penalty does not encourage a person to find and keep work. Basic human needs for shelter, food, clothing, medicine and small luxuries are more than enough encouragement for that.
Rather, the state fees add a burden, reducing a former prisoner's narrow window, perhaps stealing away small luxuries, infringing on money for travel, for clothing, for food, reducing life and quality of living. In that sense, it literally discourages work or job seeking. Why seek or hold a job, if the Man takes your money?
This strikes me as verging on nakedly dishonest. Perhaps its different in Ohio, but in most jurisdictions, a difference is drawn between fines (which can be redeemed by community service) and court costs or assessments or fees (cash only). In most jurisdictions, court ordered or statutory supervision fees represent a non-penal civil debt which annot be redeemed by community service.
In any event, even assuming that Ohio bucks this trend, we've merely returned to the old southern principle of forced labour. That's hardly enlightened.
Actually, the 'behaviour' upon release and under supervision is good behaviour. We impose punitive financial penalties for them being law abiding. Breaching the terms of their release takes them back into the prison or the court system.
In any event, is it really a matter of cost?
More costly than incarceration? I don't think so. But if it is less costly to the community than incarceration, why should that reduction in costs be transformed into a penalty and a financial burden on the recipient?
October 25, 2007 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally! I've been saying for years that someone needs to look at the impact of the high level of debt and poor credit histories of ex-offenders.
Something to be considered that has been left out of the study, article and the comments is what shape an ex-offender's credit is in when they leave the institution. A few years ago I went to a prison to teach a money management class to a group of inmates who were preparing for release. We pulled credit reports on 24 men (equally white, hispanic and black--by chance) in a Federal facility and found that half of them were themselves the victims of identity theft. One young man had turned 18 while he was in prison and was therefore ineligible to enter into a contract and shouldn't have been in the system at all dropped his jaw to the floor when I handed him his 3 page credit report. He had accounts at several utility companies, a couple of land lords and several cell phones--all in collections. Looking at the documents, this young man concluded that it was likely a relative who had used his identity to open accounts when she was in arrears under her own identification. We were able to assist him file the necessary paperwork and negotiate with the creditors and credit reporting agencies and got these items mostly removed from his credit report. The ONLY way we were able to do that, however, was because he pressed charges against his step-mother who had co-opted his identity.
This is VERY important in an ex-offenders endeavor to re-entery--the young man described above would have had an impossible time getting an apartment based on the false information in his credit report (only 2 of the 24 had ever seen a credit report or understood its importance) he would also have a terrible time getting a job--as it is legal to make a hiring decision based on credit (even if the job isn't directly related to handling cash) and even driving a car to get to work or as part of the job is now made more expensive by insurance companies using credit scores to determine rates.
This made us curious as to how many inmates or ex-offenders are the victim of ID theft or other mis-information on their credit reports. So we did another "unscientific" study and as part of a probation/parolee program we pulled credit reports on over 300 ex-offenders and found that, conservatively, over half were the victim of some sort of identity theft by someone they knew (if the weren't willing to turn in the one who used their ID to get credit--the credit reporting agencies won't help and neither will the collection agencies). We also found that probably 2/3rds claimed they were not aware of the fines or other payments they owed--especially civil money judgements. Many were also in collections for bills they were not able to pay because of their incarceration--car, apartment and furniture leases were the most common behind child support. Some states allow you to request that child support be frozen while you are incarcerated--but not a lot of people seem to be aware of it--and most people aren't thinking of these things (they probably should be...) when facing a trial then a prison sentence. Many facing large utility bills never thought to have the service turned off in their name or transferred to another name when they went to prison. For most--it was pretty grim trying to help them clean up their credit and devise a way to pay off debts--the amounts are overwhelming.
I don't believe that there are many guilty people in prison that didn't know it was against the law to sell drugs, steal or kill people or commit whatever crime they commited. But I DO know that there are a LOT of people everywhere that don't understand or are unable to successfully navigate the mainstream economy because they haven't been exposed to it, have a mental illness, are keeping up with the joneses and/or are easily swayed by advertisers et al that adeptly help us rationalize that what we want is really what we need to an extent that we make financial decisions outside of our own best interest.
People are poor because they don't have any money. Poverty is not a social problem with economic consequences. Poverty is an economic problem with social consequences that will not be solved until we make the economics of it a priority.
October 30, 2007 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your post is one of the most important insights into the problem of reintroduction of individuals from prison back into the community.
Thank you.
We hear about the issue of jobs when coming back to the community from prison but not about this issue of the credit background check that can prevent getting a job, housing, and other things that prevents a reintegration into society as you point out.
If someone is on probation I wonder if the probation officer has the previous credit history and there is help in the community to correct or negotiate credit problems? Reading you post it seems that this is a necessity.
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
October 31, 2007 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron,
We have similar programs in Washington State, and prisoners are desperate to get enrolled. One is simply a form of house detention, where convicted felons are allowed to live in their own homes and attend work, care for children, etc. They can only leave their homes for work and a handful of necessities, such as doctors visits and buying food. Another program involves incarceration with work release, where prisoners are allowed out during work hours to attend their jobs.
While many felons and "hardened criminals" have a great deal of difficulty finding work, many have well established jobs with companies that don't necessarily want to lose them just because they got caught with some heroin, or got drunk and punched their mothers. These people do well in alternative forms of incarceration, and are able to continue to earn money and pay for their financial obligations.
October 31, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with your theory is that every other country struggles with many of the same issues. For example, look at the growing racism and anti-immigrant sentiments in European countries. Only in the past twenty years or so have they started dealing with the social issues of race that we've grown accustomed to over the past century and a half.
Face it, these are complex problems without simple solutions. Countries handle their problems, some better, some worse. And maybe the U.S. is worse. But struggle is often mistaken for failure.
October 31, 2007 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that every institution we have is in failure mode.
I agree that struggle is not failure, but is a time of effort to educate, understand and advance hopefully.
What I mean by failure mode is what I see and experience (personally) with everything from heath care, state and local government to the legal system that politicians use as a whipping boy to get elected.
I live in Florida and there is not a law or ordinance that is observed or can be used by a citizen to stop a politician or influential from using the system to obtain what they want to do.
There is no news outlet that will print the facts about black and white failures to observe the laws that the government organizations are governed by to the extent that I think some would be open to charges of a co-conspirator.
If I sound discussed I am. I have experienced the political process in the past and know and understand the facts of the system, but before the facts and actions in the files met the requirements of the statutes, twisted, but there. Today the file containing the history and result of actions by politicians and governing bodies do not meet the requirements of the law and no one in authority or media responds to the most outrageous actions. That is the failure mode I see in the legal system and some parts of the health care also.
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
October 31, 2007 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink