The Lebanon County Prison has survived a challenge to its cost recovery program, permitting the prison to implement room and board charges for inmates. In a very detailed and soundly reasoned decision, the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered judgment in favor of Lebanon County on the constitutional challenges regarding the cost recovery program. While an appeal to the Third Circuit has been filed in this case, the district court’s opinion currently serves as a sound basis for permitting a cost recovery program.
Inmate, Leonard Tillman, alleged that the room and board charges in the Lebanon County Prison violated his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment and against excessive fines. He also alleged that the cost recovery program violated his due process and equal protection rights. The cost recovery program included a $10.00 per day charge for room and board for all inmates. Every inmate was required to pay the fee except those on work release or trusty status. If, however, the inmate did not have funds available for the room and board charge, he was not denied room and board but rather was charged a negative balance in his prison account. Only one-half of available funds would be taken at any given time to pay the outstanding charges. This allowed the inmate to have some funds available for personal use. The work release and trusty inmates did not pay the fee since work release inmates paid a portion of their salary to the prison, and trusty inmates paid with in-kind services. The objective behind the cost recovery program, as testified to by a county commissioner, was financial responsibility and administrative rather than punitive.
Tillman’s Eighth Amendment argument failed for a number of reasons. First, the Court did not believe it could be considered cruel and unusual to charge for room and board services since in the "outside world", this was a normal expense that an individual would have to bear. Asking an inmate to pay that fee in prison did not constitute any unusual treatment. The Court also found that the fee charged was not excessive so that even if the fee could be interpreted as a "fine" as that term is defined by the Courts, the $10.00 per day charge was not excessive and therefore could not violate the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment.
In regard to the due process claim, the Court found that there was clear notice to all inmates and understanding of the policy by all inmates since the inmate handbook as well as published and posted bulletins provided details about the cost recovery program. The equal protection claim also failed since although work release and trusty inmates were treated somewhat differently, they were not treated any better than all other inmates. The work release inmates had to pay a minimum of $70.00 per week and possibly more depending on their income. Trusty inmates provided in-kind services and therefore were not given a benefit for which they did not pay.
The Court’s opinion clearly provides yet another opportunity for county prisons to implement a cost recovery program. While this decision is on appeal, other counties have tested similar programs and survived. Following the lead of Berks County, whose cost recovery program was also challenged at the Third Circuit level and survived, Lebanon County sets a good example of the type of program which can pass constitutional muster in addition to providing some financial relief to the county. As many county prisons throughout Pennsylvania have implemented cost recovery programs, the Lebanon County decision provides a greater comfort level that such programs, if implemented and carried out in a similar fashion, can be effective from both a financial and administrative standpoint.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
