By Campaign Zero

This report examines the practice of pay-to-stay fees, which involves charging individuals—both adults and youths—in correctional facilities for costs relating to their incarceration. Pay-to-stay fees not only affect individuals during their time of incarceration but can also result in post-release debt. While the report considers the overarching issues with pay-to-stay fees broadly, it looks more specifically at the imposition of room and board and medical fees at the state level for incarcerated adults and youths serving a sentence. Based on an in-depth literature review, discussions with other researchers, and interviews with people directly impacted by pay-to-stay fees, we argue that these fees are highly problematic for several reasons. Specifically, pay-to-stay fees: Impose excessive financial burdens on incarcerated individuals and their families, many of whom are already economically strained before and during incarceration; Serve as significant barriers to accessing basic goods and services during incarceration, such as medical care; Hinder successful reentry after a person has served their sentence; and Are ineffective fiscal policies that fail to generate significant revenue or meaningfully impact states’ budgets. Despite the lasting harms that pay-to-stay fees pose, these policies are pervasive across the country. Based on our analysis of qualitatively coded state statutes and corrections department policies related to pay-to-stay fees between June 2022 and December 2023, we found that 48 states allow for the imposition of at least one category of pay-to-stay fees 26 states explicitly allow for both room & board and medical fees for both adults and youths who are incarcerated Only the states of California and Illinois have repealed fees for all categories in state correctional facilities Given the widespread prevalence of pay-to-stay fees, we conclude the report by urging correctional systems and state & local governments across the country to explicitly ban the imposition of these fees and work towards dismantling the broader web of legal fines and fees that trap individuals in cycles of incarceration and debt.

Campaign Zero, 2025, 33p.

By Johann D. Gaebler ,Phoebe Barghouty,Sarah Vicol,Cheryl Phillips,Sharad Goel

In almost every state, courts can jail those who fail to pay fines, fees, and other court debts—even those resulting from traffic or other non-criminal violations. While debtors’ prisons for private debts have been widely illegal in the United States for more than 150 years, the effect of courts aggressively pursuing unpaid fines and fees is that many Americans are nevertheless jailed for unpaid debts. However, heterogeneous, incomplete, and siloed records have made it difficult to understand the scope of debt imprisonment practices. We culled data from millions of records collected through hundreds of public records requests to county jails to produce a first-of-its-kind dataset documenting imprisonment for court debts in three U.S. states. Using these data, we present novel order-of-magnitude estimates of the prevalence of debt imprisonment, finding that between 2005 and 2018, around 38,000 residents of Texas and around 8,000 residents of Wisconsin were jailed each year for failure to pay (FTP), with the median individual spending one day in jail in both Texas and Wisconsin. Drawing on additional data on FTP warrants from Oklahoma, we also find that unpaid fines and fees leading to debt imprisonment most commonly come from traffic offenses, for which a typical Oklahoma court debtor owes around $250, or $500 if a warrant was issued for their arrest.

PLoS One. 2023; 18(9): e0290397.

By Nino C. Monea

ABSTRACT In 1776, only two states offered constitutional protections against imprisoning people for debt. Today, forty-one states do. This Article traces that history. It begins by examining how debtors’ prisons operated in early America, and then divides analysis between three phases of state constitutional activity. In so doing, it looks at the arguments that won over states to protect debtors, the state constitutional conventions that enacted protections, and the failure of the federal government to address the issue. The Article concludes by noting that despite the success of adopting constitutional protections, courts have allowed debtors’ prisons to resurge in modern times.

DREXEL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 14:1, 2022.

By Nathan W. Link, Kathleen Powell, Jordan M. Hyatt, and Ebony L. Ruhland

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.

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Volume 37, Issue 1, February 2021, Pages 128-147

By Annie Harper, Callie Ginapp, Tommaso Bardelli, Alyssa Grimshaw & Marissa Justen & Alaa Mohamedali & Isaiah Thomas & Lisa Puglisi

People involved with the criminal justice system in the United States are disproportionately low-income and indebted. The experience of incarceration intensifies financial hardship, including through worsening debt. Little is known about how people who are incarcerated and their families are impacted by debt and how it affects their reentry experience. We conducted a scoping review to identify what is known about the debt burden on those who have been incarcerated and their families and how this impacts their lives. We searched 14 databases from 1990 to 2019 for all original research addressing financial debt held by those incarcerated in the United States, and screened articles for relevance and extracted data from pertinent studies. These 31 studies selected for inclusion showed that this population is heavily burdened by debt that was accumulated in three general categories: debt directly from criminal justice involvement such as LFOs, pre-existing debt that compounded during incarceration, and debts accrued during reentry for everyday survival. Debt was generally shown to have a negative effect on financial well-being, reentry, family structure, and mental health. Debts from LFOs and child support are very common among the justice-involved population and are largely unpayable. Other forms of debt likely to burden this population remain largely understudied. Extensive reform is necessary to lessen the burden of debt on the criminal justice population in order to improve reentry outcomes and quality of life.

American Journal of Criminal Justice (2021) 46:250–278

By Walter Besant.

“On a certain afternoon in about four or five of the clock, I was standing at the open window of my room in that Palace to which Fortune leads her choicest favourites the College, or Prison, as some call it, of the King's Bench. I was at the time a prisoner for debt, with very little chance of ever getting out….”

New York: Dodd, Mead, 1899,. 444p.