Announcement for 06/23/09

CSG Justice Center Works with Policymakers to Improve Assessment and Collection of Court-Ordered Fines, Fees, Restitution, and Child Support

Struggling with budget gaps, policymakers in state and local government have taken steps to generate additional revenue through the assessment and collection of fines, fees, and surcharges for people involved in the criminal justice system. In many states and counties, elected officials have added or raised fees associated with a wide range of criminal justice system operations, including court processing and electronic monitoring. Counties are also increasingly moving to pass along to the person incarcerated the costs of meals and/or medical services. But such efforts can have unintended consequences. The CSG Justice Center is conducting a project to improve how state and local officials design and implement policies that aim to increase revenues through the assessment and collection of court-ordered fines and fees.

Kansas House Bill 2207 was signed into law this year and amends K.S.A. 22-2802 by increasing the fee for supervised pre-trial release from $10 per week to $15 per week. Georgia House Bill 344 also was signed into law and amends Georgia Code Sec. 42-8-34 by adding a new $10 per day fee for individuals on probation who are sentenced to day reporting centers. Finally, Texas Senate Bill 82 requires people who are convicted of crimes involving family violence and granted probation to pay a mandatory, one-time fee of $100 to local family violence centers.

Similarly, state and county officials are stepping up efforts to ensure the collection of court-ordered fines and fees. A recent article in the New York Times described how “collections courts” in Florida use strict enforcement strategies to collect court fines and fees, and incarcerate thousands of people every year for failure to pay. In February, an article in the Los Angeles Times highlighted the billing policies that the Los Angeles County Probation Department uses, including state tax return intercepts, property liens, and wage garnishment, to recoup money from individuals with little ability to pay. (See list of recent news articles on this issue below.) In contrast, some states allow people to perform community service to fulfill their financial obligations. Iowa Stat. § 910.2 (Supp. 1999) allows sentencing courts to require individuals who are not reasonably able to repay their court-ordered debts to perform a set number of hours of community service in lieu of monetary payments.

Such increased emphasis on using fines, fees, and surcharges to fund the criminal justice system can inadvertently undermine efforts to collect other court-ordered debts, such as child support and victim restitution. At the instruction of its Board of Directors, and with funding support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice, the Justice Center has analyzed some of these issues.

In its Repaying Debts report, the CSG Justice Center found that it is commonplace for people released from prison (whose employment prospects are particularly dim) to owe thousands of dollars in fines, fees, restitution, and child support. Aggressive enforcement policies pit various agencies against each other, as probation departments, health and human services agencies, and others compete for their share of whatever small payments a person is able to make.

With continued support from BJA, Justice Center staff partnered with Barry Mahoney from the Justice Management Institute, Carl Reynolds, Director of the Texas Office of Court Administration, and Patti Tobias, Administrative Director of the Courts, Idaho Supreme Court, to review collections policies in those states, and to develop strategies that ensure people are held accountable for their crimes while maximizing the likelihood that their transition to the community is successful. In each state, a working group of state and local officials – including judges, court clerks, database and information systems specialists, child support enforcement officials, supervision officers, and corrections administrators – was convened to tackle this difficult issue. The working groups oversaw a year-long project to conduct a comprehensive review of how various financial obligations are assessed and collected.

In March 2009, the CSG Justice Center and the Texas Office of Court Administration coauthored A Framework to Improve How Fines, Fees, Restitution, and Child Support are Assessed and Collected from People Convicted of Crimes: Interim Report – a joint report to the Texas Legislature that recommends, among other things, enabling judges to consider a defendant’s ability to pay at sentencing, improving coordination among agencies collecting payments from the same individuals, and consolidating various state and local fees assessed on people involved in the criminal justice system. Work is still underway in Idaho to develop a report with research findings and policy recommendations.

In addition to its state-based work in Texas and Idaho, the CSG Justice Center will continue to examine the relationship between what a person owes and what state and local agencies collect. In particular, is there a level of court-ordered financial obligations at which people stop paying, and collections and revenues decrease as a result? Similarly, is there a point at which outstanding court-ordered debts reduce the likelihood of a person’s success on community supervision? Answers to these questions will inform the design and implementation of policies to ensure that state and local officials understand if and when increased fines, fees, and surcharges for people involved in the criminal justice system yield negative results.

For more information on the Justice Center’s work on this issue, visit the Reentry Policy Council website.

Other organizations have explored this issue and developed reports, which include policy recommendations:

Recent news articles on the debts of people involved in the criminal justice system:

All Announcements for June 2009