Considering the Process of Debt Collection in Community Corrections: The Case of the Monetary Compliance Unit

• Author: Jordan M. Hyatt,Ebony L. Ruhland,Nathan W. Link,Kathleen Powell
• Date: 01 February 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/1043986220971394
• Published date: 01 February 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986220971394

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2021, Vol. 37(1) 128 –147

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1043986220971394

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Article

Considering the Process

of Debt Collection in

Community Corrections:

The Case of the Monetary

Compliance Unit

Nathan W. Link1, Kathleen Powell2, Jordan M. Hyatt2,

and Ebony L. Ruhland3

Abstract

Monetary sanctions levied on individuals on probation and parole may dramatically

influence their ability to reintegrate into the community and to complete their

community supervision. Yet very little work has empirically assessed how agencies

respond to these obligations. This is critical, given that individuals under community

supervision occupy a liminal space: free in the community yet often at risk of violation,

rearrest, additional fines, or re-incarceration. In this article, we introduce an approach

to the collection and management of monetary sanctions by an adult probation and

parole agency in one Pennsylvania county. This specialized department focuses solely

on repayment of fines, fees, and costs for a subset of probationers and parolees who

have completed all other supervision requirements. We complement the conceptual

overview by presenting administrative data on this caseload (N = 5,811) to describe

the population under supervision and assess the factors associated with debt amount,

having difficulty with repayment, and being the subject of an enforcement action for

non-payment. We conclude with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of

this model compared with historical and other existing models of debt enforcement

during community supervision.

Keywords

monetary sanctions, fees, criminal justice debt, probation, parole

1Rutgers University, Camden, NJ, USA

2Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

3University of Cincinnati, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:

Nathan W. Link, Rutgers University, 405-7 Cooper Street, Camden, NJ 08102, USA.

Email: nathan.link@rutgers.edu

971394CCJXXX10.1177/1043986220971394Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeLink et al.

research-article2020

Link et al. 129

Involvement with the criminal justice system is associated with a range of collateral

consequences. An extensive literature documents numerous harmful impacts of being

arrested, convicted, and punished (Kirk & Wakefield, 2018), including the imposition

of legal financial obligations (LFOs), such as the fines, fees, and costs incurred from

contact with the criminal justice system. Much of the relevant scholarship documents

the prevalence, amount, and consequences of LFOs assessed against individuals.

Legal debts are often substantial in amount, can exacerbate preexisting inequalities,

and adversely affect the prison reentry process (Bannon et al., 2010; Harris et al.,

2010; Link & Roman, 2017; Pleggenkuhle, 2018). Moreover, the study of LFOs

assessed and/or collected by community correctional agencies suggests that leverag-

ing traditional law enforcement tools, such as arrest or incarceration, in the event of

nonpayment can result in additional and serious legal and collateral consequences

(Link et al., 2020), often disproportionately impacting people of color (Harris, 2016).

However, despite a growing awareness that LFOs cause a serious burden to those

under supervision, the exact processes of payment collection and enforcement used by

criminal justice agencies remain poorly understood. This gap in understanding exists

amid an expansion of financial penalties of criminal justice involvement within the past

10 years and an acknowledgment that LFOs are relied upon as an essential revenue

stream for justice system agencies (Menendez et al., 2019). The mechanisms and poli-

cies surrounding debt collection are important for two key reasons: (a) they help to

contextualize the adverse individual-level consequences reported in the literature, and

(b) they clarify how institutions have responded to an increased emphasis on collecting

monetary sanctions. These institutional arrangements likely vary across jurisdictions

and constitute an important area of research as they potentially set in motion processes

that expand or retract the reach of the criminal justice system (Beckett, 2018).

In this article, we document one institutional arrangement used to oversee LFO

compliance: the creation of a distinct unit within a community correctional agency

specifically tasked with the collection of previously accumulated debt stemming from

monetary sanctions. This unit constitutes a departure from a “probation as usual” col-

lection model by monitoring individuals with outstanding LFOs who have otherwise

met all terms of supervision and, in turn, allowing them to escape the often onerous

restrictions of supervision while paying off old balances. In this structure, individuals

may face enforcement actions in response to non-compliance with payment agree-

ments, but punitive measures such as supervision violations or re-incarceration are not

used. Importantly, although this model is concerned primarily with the collection of

old debts, it is distinct from pay-only, private probation because there are no supervi-

sion conditions, potentially punitive direct criminal sanctions (e.g., revocation), or

additional fees (see Albin-Lackey, 2014). We describe the structure and policies that

govern this unit, highlighting how this model hybridizes criminal and civil systems in

the pursuit of legal debt repayment. We supplement this description with an analysis

of individuals under this specialized probation caseload, how much debt they owe, and

the use of levers to encourage payment. In this way, we begin to illustrate this particu-

lar type of collection model and its impact on people under supervision.