How the Captive Money Lab identifies, classifies, and documents pay-to-stay laws and policies across the United States

by Rosie Benser and Gabriela Kirk-Werner, Syracuse University

Identifying Statutes and Policies

From summer 2023 to spring 2024, research assistants at Syracuse University, University of California, and North Carolina State read through online state archives and used online search engines to identify statutes in each of the 50 states. The team of four research assistants split up the fifty states and were each responsible for identifying the current statute pertaining to prison pay-to-stay policy and the legislative history for that statute. This first pass highlighted the variety of types of statutes pertaining to costs within prisons, the heterogeneity about where these policies are located in state records, and the variety of definitions and mechanisms by which states impose fees. The next step was to decide on a consistent definition of pay-to-stay and to exhaust all possible sources of information. One research assistant, Rosie Benser, then completed a second and third attempt with a consistent scope and search effort for each of the 50 states. Through an iterative process described below we identified the multiple ways states engage in these practices. Importantly, this research and corresponding map do not tell us to what extent states actively engage in collection. Our efforts to identify the answer of this part of the question are ongoing but in many instances very difficult to answer.

Defining Prison Pay-to-Stay Statutes

In this project, we considered pay-to-stay to refer specifically to statutes that allow collection for the “cost of room and board,” or the “cost of incarceration,” or variations of this language for incarcerated individuals in state prisons. These statutes aim to collect for the day-to-day cost of incarcerating, rather than for particular items used or service rendered. States that only had statutes pertaining to jail and not prison were not included. Statutes pertaining specifically to the cost associated with medical charges, phone or video calls, commissary funds, vandalism, damages, or restitution/child support but not room and board were not included. Policies and statutes that indicated work-release or community corrections programs were not included.

Search

Below is an outline of the step-by-step process Rosie used to assure we captured all active or recently repealed statutes.

Initially she searched the state’s codebooks under chapters specifically pertaining to corrections for policies related to prison pay-to-stay (chapters titled ‘corrections,’ ‘penitentiary’ etc.) . Typically these policies existed within the codebook under chapters related to inmate accounts (inmate money, property of offender, duties of administration), inmate employment or wages (Prison Industry, Labor, Labor at Correctional Facilities), or under general rules. After double-checking other states, she realized that Oregon’s statute existed under another chapter in the codebook, Administration of State Institutions, rather than in the chapter on corrections. Rhode Island had a statute under the State Affairs and Government subchapter called Corrections, not their chapter specifically on corrections. Her method of reading through the codebook chapter on corrections for each state would likely miss these policies. To amend this, she utilized NexisUni’s search feature to comb through the codebook’s table of contents in order to identify any chapters pertaining to the department of corrections under other chapters or titles other than a corrections chapter. This was done for all states unless she had already identified all statutes collecting from inmate wages, their institutional account, and assets/estate. (She checked this method with Oregon and Rhode Island to insure that it would bring up the statutes she initially missed.)

Using NexisUni, each state’s statute codebook was searched with the following steps:

1. NexisUni can only search 100 documents at a time, so she began with the table of contents search to narrow down the amount of documents to search. She used the search function on the table of contents to identify chapters or titles that pertained to the department of corrections, the incarcerated and/or prisoners. Specific search terms were entered until that state’s particular terminology was identified (each state uses different language in their codebooks, she used the following terms: department of corrections, corrections, prisoners, inmates, penitentiary, incarceration).
2. After the chapters or titles pertaining to corrections/prisoners/incarceration were identified, they were selected and she searched the actual statutes of these titles/chapters for pay-to-stay policies. These were typically found under chapters related to prisoner employment or general rules (ex: Care and Discipline of Penitentiary Inmates), however as each state is different she searched broadly any chapter related to prisoners/incarceration first so as to not miss any different categorization of statutes. She used the following terms to identify possible pay-to-stay policies from the chapters/titles of interest: cost of incarceration, cost of care, ability to pay, reimburse/ment, estate, assets, room and board, setoff, wages, account). She excluded from these searches titles or chapters pertaining to jails, community corrections, parole and probation, work-release, community-reentry work program. Articles or chapters that populated were scanned for relevant information.
3. Often relevant statutes referenced other related statutes (for example, statutes collecting from inmate accounts will often reference inmate wages). Additionally, relevant statute chapters were searched for other potentially related statutes.
4. She also reviewed the existing found statutes for that state to gain insight into the language, structure and context of that codebook to further illuminate where other statutes may be in the codebook. Newly found statutes were reviewed in the same manner.
   
   For example, while California had a chapter on inmate labor, statutes relating to collecting inmate wages was in their chapter on their prison industry enterprise called “Joint Venture Program” in another section besides corrections and inmate labor. This was initially missed using my original search methods but was revealed during the new search method.
5. Then she would search the table of contents of the codebook again using search terms: inmate liable, assessment of costs, cost of care, cost of incarceration.
6. Any results that came up were scanned for content of interest. Items that appeared related were actually read by the researcher. Sometimes she would follow-up by looking through the chapter the unrelated policy was housed under or referenced codes to check for other actually related statutes.
7. Failing these methods, she would then manually search the codebook table of contents for chapters and titles based on the findings in Oregon and Rhode Island for example:
   
   Examples of Manual Search Pathways
   
8. 1. (RI) State Affairs and Government → Department of Corrections → Compensation for care
   2. (OR) Executive Branch, Organization → Administration of State Institutions → Responsibility for cost of care of persons in state institution
   3. Government Code → Executive Branch → Subtitle G Corrections → Inmate Welfare
   4. State Institutions → Department of Corrections- State Prisons
   5. (NE) State Institutions → Management → Correctional Service, Parole and Pardons
   6. NOT in the chapter called Jails and Correctional Facilities
      
      Practically, what this looks like is searching for chapters/titles called ‘State Affairs," "Executive Branch” or “Administration of State Institutions” and searching these chapters for content about their prison systems, budget or administration. She would do this by selecting these chapters and searching for terms (estate, asset, room and board, cost of care, cost of incarceration, set off, etc.).
      Some states do not have these chapters at all. Some states that have these chapters do not have anything related to prison budgets or policies.
      
8. She also searched case law for references to prison pay-to-stay and searched footnotes for references to state statutes.
   

For states that she could not identify an active statute for, she searched that state’s Department of Corrections (DOC) website for inmate rulebooks, DOC policies or other evidence of the existence of pay-to-stay policies. Utah’s DOC website had a policy housed in “GC12 - Status of Inmates Participating in UCI Programs” listing ‘incarceration expenses’ under wage deductions. The remaining unknown policy states (MA, NJ, NC, ND, PA), she submitted FOIAs to their respective DOC representatives requesting documentation on any policies related to charging inmates for the cost of their incarceration and are currently waiting for responses. States with statutes we did identify were categorized by typology.

Establishing a Typology of Pay-to-Stay

Have Active Pay-to-Stay State Statute or Policy

Following the search effort, we categorized state statutes by whether they currently have an “active” mechanism to allow for the collection of pay-to-stay fees. While a number of states have repealed portions or certain mechanisms of collections, states are marked as having an “active” statute or policy if any portion of the statute is still “on the books.” In some instances the legislative authority to impose or collect pay-to-stay fees was located not within a state statue but rather in the Department of Correction’s own handbook. While the vast majority of states granted through specific state authority through a explicit statute, a small number of states have policies or engage in pay-to-stay through federal authority as part of the PIECP.

Only Through PIECP or Wages In Conjunction with Private Employers

In 1979, the federal government passed the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-157, Sec. 827) which created the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) which allowed local and state prison industry programs to be exempt from existing laws restricting interstate commerce of prisoner-made goods. This program allowed for the establishment of new correctional industries and work programs across the country. Wages paid through this program were meant to be closer to minimum wage but prisons are required to deduct a portion for room and board costs. According to the BJS website, as of 2022, $343.8 million has been collected for pay-to-stay fees.

Through our research we found that many states adopted their own statutes that mirror the language of this bill. In some states, these statutes refer specifically to this program but other states allow for the collection of room and board fees from any private employer within the prison. States are marked in our map if the collection of pay-to-stay fees is limited only to wages paid through private employers within the prison.

Earliest Year Statute Passed

This is the earliest year we were able to identify in the legislative record. The lack of digitized records, especially pre-1980, in some states makes it difficult to know the exact year and bill. We have contacted legislative librarians in each state in our effort to get the most accurate year possible.

Active Mechanisms

Finally we categorized states by their mechanisms for collection. While states vary greatly, we have created several “buckets” to identify different types of pay-to-stay regimes.

• Wages: wages (aka allowances, incentive pay, etc.) earned by inmates while incarcerated within a state prison where a deduction is made for room and board by the Department of Corrections. Employed either directly by the DOC or through a contracted employer or independent entity affiliated with the DOC (prison industry enterprises programs). Does NOT include work-release, community corrections, transitional programs where inmates are housed separately from the state prison and employed by private employers in preparation for release Exception: CA has some employment programs where inmates are housed away from general population but still considered actively incarcerated
• Assets/Estate: Inmate accounts: sometimes called inmate trust funds, are accounts used internally by the DOC to deposit wages, money in custody of inmates upon arrival, incoming monies from outside sources (SSI, workers comp, family/friends), used by inmate to pay for costs while incarcerated (commissary, telephone, postage, medical co-pays, fines, etc.). This can also include interest on inmate accounts and personal belongings in some cases. DOC will deduct a portion of incoming funds for costs of incarceration in various scenarios or conditions. Estates refer to individual or family financial resources and assets, sometimes including property but often referring to financial accounts. While considered an incoming asset by some statutes, inheritance was listed if a statute specifically indicated that inheritance was an item that was liable to collection.
• Legal: Varied situations where an incarcerated person or recently released person receives money through legal winnings, claims, awards. This differs from the actual mechanisms used to extract payment from inmates. These statutes categorized as ‘legal’ were written separately from estate/asset statutes and specifically outline which legal scenarios are liable for collection.

Recommended Citation

Captive Money Lab. (2026). *The State of Pay-to-Stay in the United States* [Interactive Tool]. Captive Money Lab. [https://captivemoneylab.org/state-of-pay-to-stay](https://captivemoneylab.org/state-of-pay-to-stay)