Inmates seek John Doe probe over accounts

Money sent from families being withheld, they say

An increasing number of Wisconsin inmates may never see any of the money sent to them by friends and loved ones for items such as stamps and hygiene supplies under an updated Department of Corrections policy at the center of a nonprofit’s request for a John Doe investigation.

State law has long allowed the department to withhold money sent by inmates’ families or from wages earned at prison jobs — which often amount to less than $1 per hour — for restitution, court surcharges or for “the benefit of the prisoner or resident.”

If an inmate has multiple financial obligations, up to 100% of a gift from a friend or family member or from an in-custody job can be used to pay them rather than being placed into the prisoner’s commissary account, Department of Corrections spokesman Tristan Cook said.

While that has happened in the past, it is becoming more common since last year, when the corrections department changed its policy to withhold more money and a new computer system came online, according to the Forum for Understanding Prisons, a nonprofit organization asking a Dane County court to investigate via a John Doe hearing on the inmates’ behalf.

In the past, the department seized 25% of every deposit into inmates’ accounts toward payment of restitution, according to Cook. In April, after changes in state law, officials increased the withholding to 50% — which they say qualifies as “a reasonable percentage” as defined by the new law.

In the petition for a John Doe, the inmates allege not only that the percentage is unreasonable, but also that money has been withdrawn from their accounts to cover fines they have already paid, restitution that was never ordered or fees not required to be paid until after they are released.

The petition blames the errors on the implementation of the new computer system, saying they began shortly after it was implemented late last year. Twenty-two inmates attached affidavits, many of them saying they haven’t had money deducted from their accounts for 10 or 20 years because all their court-ordered balances have been paid.

Cook said perhaps the prisoners may not have been aware of everything they owed. He would not say whether the types of mistakes cited by the inmates occurred.

He contended the glitches with the new computer system did not add new debts to inmate ledgers. Rather, the conversion to the new system inadvertently caused more than the 50% called for by the new department rules to be withdrawn for restitution.

As a result, the department temporarily stopped withdrawing money for that purpose so officials there could fix the process.

During that time, though, the system continued to remove payments for lower priority items that should have been paid after the restitution. As a result, some of that money was redeposited into the inmates’ accounts, so payment to victims could be made first, as the April law requires.

The problem affected “a limited number of inmates’ accounts,” according to Cook.

“If they disagree with the money that we’ve taken from their accounts, they have the ability to complain about what was withdrawn,” he said. “If we determine that money was taken outside of our policies, it can be refunded. We look at this on a case-by-case basis.”

Several inmates who filed affidavits with the John Doe petition say the complaint process has not been effective.

Gregory D. Perkins, who has been in prison for 25 years, said the department recently started taking money to cover restitution and other debts that he paid off years ago. When he filed a complaint, officials told him to provide documentation of the prior payments.

“For them to sit there and tell me I have to prove that I paid it … How? When they are the only ones who have access to the system?” he wrote.

The petition also alleges the corrections department has taken money from inmates’ accounts to pay the costs of probation or parole or to help pay public defenders.

The inmates say that’s not allowed under state statute.

But in a letter to one of them, Marc Clements, assistant administrator for the Department of Adult Institutions, asserts that it is.

“Paying down an inmate’s lawful debt certainly provides for the benefit of the prisoner,” Clements wrote.