At the time of a person's release from prison or jail, he or she may have accumulated a host of debts. Some of these obligations, such as court costs or fines, may be traced to the sentencing court. Others, such as supervision fees or, in some cases, restitution, may be set by the releasing authority. And, of course, a person who is re-entering the community is also likely to need to make significant payments for housing and other necessities, in addition to any accumulated child support debt. Prioritizing these financial responsibilities may require releasing authorities to strike an especially careful balance between achieving reparative justice (for the victim or community), meeting the needs of the released person's family, and creating a manageable, if difficult, obligation for the individual.

Releasing authorities or other state decision makers must establish a clear consensus among their members for the prioritization of these expenses that takes into account the realities of a re-entering person's financial situation and acknowledges the policies behind each amount levied. On the one hand, in most states, prisoners can earn some wages during their incarceration (and more after their release). Accordingly, those releasing authorities that set conditions of release should order restitution or other fees where appropriate, instead of assuming that people who have been incarcerated are completely without resources to pay anything. On the other hand, when monetary payments are incorporated into the release plan, the releasing authority must consider whether the particular individual in question will be able to pay and, if so, how much and on what timeline.

In addition, the releasing authority should prioritize families and victims for payment, knowing that child support and restitution may have greater consequences for nonpayment than fees or fines. Releasing authorities should also be aware of potential legal repercussions-beyond possible revocation-for the individual if, for example, he or she is unable to pay child support. (See Policy Statement 8, Development of Intake Procedure, and Policy Statement 13, Children and Families, for more on what governments, corrections, and community-based agencies can do to help inmates manage child support debt and arrears). According to some victim advocates, court-ordered child support payments should have first priority, followed by restitution payments to individual victims, and then other court costs, fines, and fees. ^[1]  

Example: Restitution/sentencing statute (WI)

Wisconsin's sentencing statute (Wis. Stat. 973.20) requires that the sentencing judge create a single order establishing all payments due from the defendant in each case. In determining whether and to what extent restitution should be ordered, the statute provides that the judge shall consider: (1) the victim's financial loss; (2) the financial resources of the defendant; (3) the present and future earning ability of the defendant; (4) the needs and earning ability of the defendant's dependents; and (5) any other factors that the court deems appropriate. Payments are to be directed first to satisfy the ordered restitution in full; then to pay any fines or surcharges under a particular list of such costs; then to pay other court costs, fees, and surcharges (apart from attorney fees); and finally, to reimburse county or state costs of legal representation.

In situations where it is unrealistic to think that the released prisoner will ever be able to make a restitution payment (such as when a permanent disability prevents the releasee from working) or where the total debt would place such a burden on the offender that it would be likely to increase his or her chances of recidivating, the releasing authority should mandate nonfinancial reparative or restorative activities, such as community service or formal gestures of apology. Corrections staff should impress upon the releasee that, whatever the nature of the reparative activity, it is not merely an obligation, but an opportunity to understand and show empathy for the harm he or she may have caused to the victim and/or the community.