When the North Carolina Department of Correction takes the money that inmates earn on work-release jobs and deposits it in interest-bearing accounts, can the Department take a slice of the interest to cover the staff cost of administering the work-release program or the cost of running the accounts?
Plain-English summary
The Secretary of the Department of Correction asked a focused statutory question. About four years before this 1978 opinion, the Department had begun depositing inmate work-release earnings into interest-bearing private bank accounts. As of approximately January 1, 1978, the Department planned to consolidate those funds with the State Treasurer in a state interest-bearing account, with interest paid to the Department and credited proportionally to individual inmate accounts. The Department was incurring "considerable staff effort" administering these funds. The question: could the Department reimburse that effort by deducting administrative costs from the interest the funds earned?
The 1978 AG said no.
The opinion's analytical move is straightforward. G.S. 148-33.1(f), as amended by the 1977 General Assembly, sets out a priority-ordered list of the deductions that may be taken from inmate work-release earnings:
- To pay travel and other expenses of the prisoner made necessary by his employment;
- To provide a reasonable allowance to the prisoner for his incidental personal expenses;
- To make payments for the support of the prisoner's dependents (court-ordered or DSS-determined);
- To make restitution or reparation to aggrieved parties when imposed as a condition of work release under G.S. 148-33.2;
- To comply with court orders regarding the payment of an obligation of the prisoner.
The Department's right to deduct precedes this list: G.S. 148-33.1(f) first authorizes the Department to deduct "from the earnings of each prisoner an amount determined to be the cost of the prisoner's keep" and to retain "such amount as seems necessary to accumulate a reasonable sum to be paid to him when he is paroled or discharged from prison." Beyond keep and accumulation, the listed five categories define what the Department may disburse.
Administrative costs of the work-release program or of running the bank accounts are not in the list. The AG applies a straightforward expressio-unius reasoning: "Since the statue is explicit as to what may be deducted, it is to be inferred that the General Assembly did not authorize deductions other than those which appear on the list. We can find no other authority which might support such a deduction."
The conclusion is direct: in the absence of statutory authority, the Department cannot deduct administrative costs from work-release interest. Any cost of administering the program must come from a different funding source, presumably general Department of Correction appropriations.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1978. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. G.S. 148-33.1 has been amended numerous times since 1978, including adjustments to the list of permitted deductions and the addition of subsections governing transportation costs, victim compensation, and other items. The current statutory list should be checked directly before relying on any specific rule about work-release fund handling.
Historical context: what the AG concluded
The opinion is a clean application of the rule of statutory construction that an enumerated list is exhaustive when the enumeration is detailed and specific. The General Assembly in 1977 had taken the trouble to enumerate five categories of permitted disbursements in priority order. The level of detail (the priority ordering, the conditions on each category, the cross-reference to G.S. 148-33.2 for restitution) signals that the legislature was being deliberate. The AG read that deliberateness as a complete specification.
The practical context matters. Work-release programs were a relatively new fixture of North Carolina corrections in the 1970s, and the financial logistics had grown rapidly. The Department had moved from private bank deposits to consolidation with the State Treasurer in late 1977 / early 1978. The interest income on the consolidated accounts was a real new asset stream, and the question of who owned the interest (the Department or the individual inmates) was genuinely open.
The AG's answer is implicitly an answer to that ownership question as well: the interest belongs to the inmates (credited proportionally to their accounts), and the Department's claim on it is limited to what G.S. 148-33.1(f) authorizes. The Department's administrative effort, however considerable, is not a permitted claim on the interest.
For Department of Correction budgeting in 1978, the practical takeaway was that work-release administration had to be funded through the Department's general appropriations, not by skimming inmate earnings or interest. If the Department wanted that funding source, it would have to ask the General Assembly to add administrative-cost reimbursement to the G.S. 148-33.1(f) list.
Common questions
Can the Department of Correction charge an administrative fee against inmate work-release earnings?
No, under the 1978 reading. G.S. 148-33.1(f) lists the deductions the Department may take, and program administration is not among them. The General Assembly would need to add such a deduction by statute to authorize it.
Can the Department deduct from the interest on work-release accounts?
No. Interest is credited proportionally to individual inmate accounts. Once credited, it is the inmate's funds and is governed by the same G.S. 148-33.1(f) limits as the underlying earnings.
What deductions are permitted under G.S. 148-33.1(f)?
In addition to the cost of the prisoner's keep and accumulation toward release, five categories of disbursements: employment-related travel and expenses, reasonable personal allowance, dependent support, restitution if a condition of work release, and other court-ordered obligations.
Where should administrative costs come from?
The opinion does not specify, but the implication is that they must come from the Department's general appropriations, since the G.S. 148-33.1(f) list is the only authorization for using inmate funds and that list does not include administrative costs.
What is the reasoning behind treating the list as exhaustive?
The AG applies the canon of expressio unius est exclusio alterius: when a statute lists what is permitted, the items not listed are excluded by implication. Combined with the level of detail in G.S. 148-33.1(f) (priority ordering, sub-conditions on each category), the canon suggests that the General Assembly intended the list to be complete.
Background and statutory framework
The work-release statutes. G.S. 148-33.1 governs the administration of inmate work-release accounts. G.S. 148-33.1(f), as amended by the 1977 General Assembly, sets out the structure of deductions and disbursements: the Department deducts the cost of keep and retains accumulation funds, then makes disbursements in priority order from any balance for the five listed categories. G.S. 148-33.2 provides for restitution as a condition of work release, which is the source of authority for the fourth disbursement category.
The canon of construction. The opinion relies on expressio unius est exclusio alterius without naming it: an enumerated statutory list is presumed complete unless the statute indicates otherwise. The AG simply concludes that since the statute is "explicit as to what may be deducted, it is to be inferred that the General Assembly did not authorize deductions other than those which appear on the list."
Citations
- G.S. 148-33.1
- G.S. 148-33.1(f)
- G.S. 148-33.2
Source
Original opinion text
Requested By: Amos E. Reed, Secretary Department of Correction
Question: May the Department of Correction deduct from the interest drawn on work-release funds the cost of administering the work-release funds or any of the administrative costs of the work-release program?
Conclusion: No.
Approximately four years ago the Department of Correction began a program of placing inmate work-release funds in interest bearing accounts. These accounts were established by the Department with a private banking institution. On approximately January 1, 1978, the Department intends to place with the State Treasurer the work-release funds which will then be deposited in an interest bearing account with other state monies. The interest drawn on the work-release funds will be paid to the Department and credited proportinately to the respective inmate accounts. In the words of the requestor of this opinion, "considerable staff effort is, and will be in the future expended on administering these funds." The Secretary of Correction inquires whether the Department can deduct from the interest drawn on the work-release funds the cost of administering the funds or the work-release program.
G.S. 148-33.1 sets for the provisions for adminsitering prisoners work-release accounts and the deductions which may be made therefrom. G.S. 149-33.1(f), as amended by the 1977 Session of the General Assembly, reads as follows:
"(f) Prisoners employed in the free community under the provisions of this section shall surrender to the Department of Correction their earnings less standard payroll deductions required by law. After deducting from the earnings of each prisoner an amount determined to be the cost of the prisoner's keep, the Department of Correction shall retain to his credit such amount as seems necessary to accumulate a reasonable sum to be paid to him when he is paroled or discharged from prison, and shall make such disbursements from any balance of his earnings as may be found necesssary by the Department for the following purposes, considered in a priority order as stated:
- (1) To pay travel and other expenses of the prisoner made necessary by his employment;
- (2) To provide a reasonable allowance to the prisoner for his incidental personal expenses;
- (3) To make payments for the support of the prisoner's dependents in accordance with an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or in the absence of a court order, in accordance with a determination of dependency status and need made by the local department of social services in the county of North Carolina in which such dependents reside;
- (4) To make restitution or reparation of an aggrieved party or parties for the damage or loss occasioned by the offense or offenses committed by the prisoner when such restitution is imposed as a condition of work release privileges pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 148-33.2.
- (5) To comply with an order from any court of competent jurisdiction regarding the payment of an obligation of the prisoner in connection with any case before such court."
G.S. 148-33.1(f) makes no provision for the deduction of the cost administration of the work-release account. Since the statue is explicit as to what may be deducted, it is to be inferred that the General Assembly did not authorize deductions other than those which appear on the list. We can find no other authority which might support such a deduction.
It is therefore our opinion that the cost of administering the work-release program, or the costs of administering the work-release funds on deposit, cannot be deducted from the interest drawn on those funds in the absence of statutory authority to do so.
Rufus L. Edmisten
Attorney General
James Peeler Smith
Assistant Attorney General