48
|
(Lanham, Md.: Correctional Educa-
tional Association, 2001). Sharon
M. Dietrich, “Criminal Records and
Employment: Ex-Offenders Thwarted
in Attempts to Earn a Living for Their
Families,” in Amy E. Hirsch, Sharon M.
Dietrich, Rue Landau, Peter D. Sch-
neider, Irv Ackelsberg, Judith Bernstein-
Baker, and Joseph Hohenstein,
Every
Door Closed: Barriers Facing Parents with
Criminal Records (Washington, D.C., and
Philadelphia. Penn.: Center for Law and
Social Policy and Community Legal Ser-
vices, 2002). Nancy La Vigne, Christy
Visher, and Jennifer Castro,
Chicago
Prisoners’ Reflections on Returning Home
(Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute,
2004).
23 La Vigne, Visher, and Castro, Chicago
Prisoners’ Reflections.
24 Harry Holzer, Paul Offner, and Elaine
Sorensen,
Declining Employment among
Young, Black, Less-Educated Men (Wash-
ington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2004).
25 Office for Victims of Crime, New
Directions from the Field.
26 Jeremy Travis and Michelle Waul, eds.,
Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of
Incarceration and Reentry on Children,
Families, and Communities (Washington,
D.C.: Urban Institute, 2004).
27 Personal communication, Ron Titus,
Director, Administrative Office of the
Courts, Nevada, May 30, 2006, Febru
-
ary 12, 2007.
28 Personal communication, Donna Far-
ris, Division Director of Operations,
Travis County Probation Department,
Texas, December 28, 2006, February
13, 2007.
29 Federal law requires that child support
be collected separately by designated
child support enforcement officials.
However, respondents to an unpub-
lished joint CSG/APPA survey of 200
members of the American Probation
and Parole Association conducted in
December 2005 reported that separate
agencies within a given jurisdiction are
often responsible for collecting
probation supervision fees, court
costs, fines, and restitution.
30 15 U.S.C. § 1673 (a).
31 A CSG Justice Center review of state
restitution policies in 2006 found
that the following states prioritize
restitution: Arizona, Florida, Hawaii,
Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
States that prioritize other fines, fees,
or surcharges include Alaska, Colorado,
Connecticut, and Georgia. Federal law
(42 U.S.C.
§ 666) prioritizes child sup-
port obligations above all other debts
owed to the state, including restitu
-
tion, fines, fees, and surcharges.
32 Robyn Cohen, Probation and Parole Viola-
tors in State Prison, 1991, U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
NCJ 149076 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, 1995).
33 Ibid.
34 Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Board of Pardons and Paroles, Correc
-
tional Managed Health Care Commit
-
tee, Staff Report: Court Costs and Fees
Study (Austin, Tex.: Sunset Advisory
Commission, 2006).
35 Personal communication, Jim Lehman,
Collections Program Manager, Office of
Court Administration, Texas, November
27, 2006.
36 Texas S.B. 1863: Tex. Code of Crim.
Proc.
§ 103. 0033.
37 42 U.S.C. § 666.
38 Personal communication, Vicki
Turetsky, Senior Staff Attorney, Center
for Law and Social Policy, October 4,
2006.
39 42 U.S.C. § 666.
40 Child Support Enforcement Council,
“How the Child Support System Works,”
retrieved at www.csecouncil.org/
industry/system.htm, November 18,
2006.
41 42 U.S.C. § 666 (a)(9).
42 15 U.S.C. § 1673.
43 Personal communication, Harvey
Goldstein, Chief, Intensive Supervision
Program, Adult Probation Department,
New Jersey, May 11, 2006.
44 Anne Crowe, Morna Murray, and
Melissa Hook, “A Compendium of
Promising Practices for Restitution,”
unpublished bulletin of the American
Probation and Parole Association and
the Victim Assistance Legal Organiza
-
tion, retrieved at www.valor national.
org/restitution.html, November 19,
2006.
45 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor, “Probation Officers and
Correctional Treatment Specialists,”
section of Occupational Outlook Hand-
book, 2006–07 Edition, retrieved at www.
bls.gov/oco/ocos265.htm, November
25, 2006.
46 American Probation and Parole Associ-
ation, Restructuring Intensive Supervision
Programs: Applying What “Works”
(Lexing-
ton, Ky.: American Probation and Parole
Association, 1994).
47 Personal communication, Julie Begoña,
Field Division Director Maricopa
County Probation Department,
Arizona, April 6, 2006.
48 Ibid.
49 Richard Fair, “Report on the Audit of
the Judiciary, Administrative Office of the
Courts, Probation Services Division for the
Period July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2004” (Tren-
ton, N.J.: New Jersey State Legislature
Office of Legislative Services, Office of
the State Auditor, 2004).
50 Personal communication, Harvey
Goldstein, Chief, Intensive Supervision
Program, Adult Probation Department,
New Jersey, May 11, 2006.
51 Personal communication, Michael
Washington, Parole and Post-Prison
Supervision Board Chair, Oregon,
November 1, 2006.
52 Esther Griswold and Jessica Pearson,
“Twelve Reasons for Collaboration
between Departments of Correction
and Child Support Enforcement Agen-
cies,” Corrections Today 65, no. 3 (2003):
88.
53 Rob Atkinson and Knut Rostad, “Can
Inmates Become an Integral Part of the
U.S. Workforce? Employment Dimen
-
sions of Reentry: Understanding the
Nexus between Prisoner Reentry and
Work,” presented at the Urban Institute
Reentry Roundtable, May 19–20,
2003, New York University Law School.
54 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children
and Families, Managing Child Support
Arrears—A Discussion Framework: Sum-
mary of the Administration for Children and
Families, Regions I, II, & III Third Meeting