Monetary Sanctions in Community Corrections: Law, Policy, and Their Alignment With Correctional Goals

• DOI: 10.1177/1043986220971393
• Date: 01 February 2021
• Published date: 01 February 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986220971393

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2021, Vol. 37(1) 108 –127

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1043986220971393

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Article

Monetary Sanctions in

Community Corrections:

Law, Policy, and Their

Alignment With

Correctional Goals

Ebony L. Ruhland1, Amber A. Petkus1,

Nathan W. Link2, Jordan M. Hyatt3,

Bryan Holmes1, and Symone Pate1

Abstract

The assessment and collection of monetary sanctions (fines, fees, and restitution) have

become a common element of the U.S. criminal justice system, especially in community

corrections. Although the application of monetary sanctions is often dictated by state-

level legislation, court rules, and agency policy, little research has sought to organize

and systematically examine a set of these policies to compare them across several

community corrections contexts more broadly. As such, this study fills a gap in the

literature by using thematic content analysis to examine legislative policies governing

the use of monetary sanctions in six states from across the United States. Laws

and policies regarding the assessment, waiver, and collection of monetary sanctions

utilized by agencies of varying size and jurisdictional scope were considered to identify

common themes. We conclude with a discussion of whether the policies and laws

examined align with rehabilitative and punitive goals of community supervision and

highlight emerging opportunities for research and policy reform.

Keywords

probation, parole, criminal justice debt, legal financial obligations, community

supervision, policy

1University of Cincinnati, OH, USA

2Rutgers University, Camden, NJ, USA

3Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Ebony L. Ruhland, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, 650 Teacher Dyer, 2610

McMicken Cir., Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA.

Email: ebony.ruhland@uc.edu

971393CCJXXX10.1177/1043986220971393Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeRuhland et al.

research-article2020

Ruhland et al. 109

Introduction

As a result of their conviction, many individuals are ordered by their sentencing judge

to pay monetary sanctions. These monetary sanctions may include fines, restitution,

and several types of fees. In addition to what is ordered by the judge, fees may be

assessed by probation and parole agencies. Failure to pay these debts could result in

further legal consequences. Limited research has systematically explored the statutes

and policies that govern the assessment, collection, and enforcement of monetary

sanctions in the context of community corrections (e.g., probation, parole/supervised

release). Thus, we know little about how existing monetary sanction policies (a) guide

assessment practices, (b) influence supervisee ability to pay determinations, (c) deter-

mine individual nonpayment consequences, and (d) may vary between jurisdictions.

The current study examines policies related to the imposition and collection of

monetary sanctions in community corrections across six states. Due to space con-

straints, we concentrate on policies within three specific subtopics: (a) supervision

fees, (b) ability to pay considerations, and (c) nonpayment consequences. These

topics were selected for discussion due to their potential for comparison across juris-

dictions. Although the number and types of monetary sanctions vary widely between

states in this study, policies in nearly every state permitted some form of a supervi-

sion fee, set ability to pay criteria, and detailed consequences for nonpayment. Such

policies can have important consequences for the liberty of justice-involved indi-

viduals. In this study, we also assess the alignment of these policies with key cor-

rectional philosophies (rehabilitation, retribution, restoration, and deterrence).

Results can be used to inform future research and policy initiatives surrounding the

use of financial sanctions.

Monetary Sanctions and Community Corrections

The imposition of monetary sanctions has become increasingly routine, and their pay-

ment is now a common condition of community supervision (Harris, 2016; Travis &

Stacey, 2010). Several types of monetary sanctions exist today. Fines are imposed

upon conviction of a criminal offense, mainly for punitive reasons. In comparison,

restitution is imposed to compensate the victim(s) for losses stemming from the

offense (Beckett & Harris, 2011). Meanwhile, revenue from fees can offset the costs

associated with courts and corrections (Harris, 2016). Examples of fees include those

for electronic monitoring and substance abuse counseling. Fees could also be assessed

to pay for specialty programs and interventions (Friedman & Pattillo, 2019).

Community supervision was originally developed as an alternative to incarceration,

with a rehabilitative focus accomplished by allowing defendants to live their “normal”

lives (i.e., going to work, maintaining relationships) while receiving rehabilitative/

treatment services and supervision (Grinnell, 1941). However, the ideological focus of

community corrections has shifted over time. In the late 1980s through the 1990s, cor-

rectional populations skyrocketed, including the number of individuals on probation

and parole (Maruschak & Parks, 2012). Around the same time, Martinson’s (1974)