Blog
Fees & Fines
By Roopal Patel & Meghna Philip – 12/22/11
If Lindsay Lohan can afford to pay more than $100 per night to stay in jail, so should anyone else who gets in trouble with the law, at least according to one California county official, Jeff Stone.
Last week, Riverside County, California initiated Stone’s plan to charge inmates $142 per night for being incarcerated in local jails. This is only slightly less than a one-night stay in Riverside’s finest hotel, which runs $190.
This jail stay fee is a short-sighted, fiscally insensible policy. The vast majority of those incarcerated will not be able to pay the fee. Celebrities like Lindsay Lohan are hardly representative of the majority of California’s jailed or imprisoned people, who are disproportionately poor. Stone himself has estimated that only about 25 percent of the county's prisoners would be able to pay anything at all if charged this new fee. The Sheriff's Deputy Chief of neighboring San Bernardino County said Stone’s estimate was high.
Under the ordinance, the county is allowed to garnish wages, put liens on people's homes, and charge parents if their children are jailed. Such financial consequences will push already economically struggling individuals further into poverty and have detrimental effects on the rehabilitation and re-entry of those involved in Riverside County’s criminal justice system.
In addition, there is evidence that instituting such fees may actually result in a net loss for state and local governments. In 2010, an investigative commission in Massachusetts demonstrated that the costs of adding a new jail fee in that state would far outweigh the benefits. The commission determined that the best fee system must track and determine an inmate's ability to pay, and that adequate development of tracking systems would be very costly. Considering the limited revenue that could be generated from an overwhelmingly indigent inmate population, as well as the socioeconomic costs of collecting from such a population, the commission decided not to implement the new jail fee. Such detailed cost-benefit analyses must be conducted before adding new fees that could be detrimental to both local budgets and inmates' rehabilitative prospects. Unfortunately, Riverside County has neglected such a process and implemented a fee that will likely cost more to track and enforce than any revenue it generates.
Riverside County's new policy illustrates how broken California’s criminal justice system is. In May, the Supreme Court found California’s state prison overcrowding unconstitutional, ordering it to downsize by 30,000 prisoners. In response, the state legislature approved a realignment plan to shift thousands of prisoners to local jails, stretching local resources to the limit and resulting in absurd policies such as Riverside’s new pay-to-stay fee.
But shifting the state prison population to local jails does not remedy the problem of prison overcrowding. California must focus its immediate energy on better long-term solutions to address the problems that led to its current state of overincarceration, such as scaling back its Three Strikes law, the toughest in the country. (Advocates are gearing up for a proposed ballot initiative to roll back the law next year.)
In the meantime, local jurisdictions must institute reasoned impact analysis when considering placing new debt burdens on the overwhelmingly poor population involved in the criminal justice system.
Tags: Justice, Criminal Justice, Fees & Fines
By Meghna Philip – 12/15/11
Last year, the Brennan Center published a comprehensive national report on the negative consequences criminal justice debt has on poor people. The report highlighted how underfunded criminal justice systems have sought to fill budget gaps by administering fees, fines and surcharges more and more aggressively, with less and less consideration of people’s ability to pay. Since the initial publication of this report, advocates around the country have mobilized around legal and legislative action to protect poor people from the unfair consequences of criminal justice debt.
Last week in Washington, D.C., at the National Legal Aid and Defenders’ Association (NLADA) Centennial Conference, the Brennan Center hosted a panel to highlight some particularly successful and inspiring efforts. The panel featured Nick Allen of Columbia Legal Services (CLS) in Washington State, Melissa Broome of the Job Opportunities Task Force in Maryland, and Carl Takei of the ACLU’s National Prison Project.
Nick Allen presented his organization’s successful pursuit of legislation for new waivers and reductions of interest on certain fines and fees. Interest on legal debt in Washington accrues at the high rate of 12 percent per year during incarceration, when prisoners are either unemployed, or making extremely minimal rates working inside prisons, and thus effectively unable to make payments. Before the legislation passed, one of CLS’ clients entered prison with $35,000 in debt. By release, his debt was more than $100,000 due to interest accrued. The new legislation allows a person to petition the court, after release, for a waiver of all interest that has accrued on their non-restitution legal debt during incarceration. The legislation received bipartisan support due to its potential for encouraging realistic payments of legal debt, reducing the costs of debt-related re-incarceration over time, and contributing to successful re-entry.
Melissa Broome spoke of the Job Opportunities Task Force’s efforts to pass legislation ensuring that existing statutory fee exemptions for poor parolees are actually enforced. In 2009, a Brennan Center report found that categorical exemptions put into place by the Maryland legislature to protect people who are unable to pay were largely inaccessible and unenforced. The legislature had vested the Parole Commission, a body with which parolees have little ongoing contact, with the exclusive authority to grant exemptions. The Commission routinely imposed the $40-per-month fee, without conducting evaluations of whether parolees should receive exemptions. Resulting debts led parolees to avoid meeting with their parole agents, which would then lead to parole violations and re-incarcerations, costly to the state. After significant advocacy efforts to highlight the negative consequences of inadequate fee exemptions, Maryland this year passed legislation to ensure that parolees are informed of and have better access to the fee exemption process.
Carl Takei outlined the ACLU’s litigation strategy to protect poor people from the rise of new debtors’ prisons in several states. This alarming practice violates the Supreme Court’s decision in Bearden v. Georgia, which dictates that it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to jail someone who has failed to pay fines or restitution due to indigence. The ACLU’s report, In For A Penny, details its strategy of litigation and public education to put an end to this unconstitutional practice in Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Georgia and Washington.
Last week’s panel showcased promising examples of how to tackle reform in the creation and collection of criminal justice debt, and how to protect poor people from unjust consequences. A forthcoming Brennan Center report will highlight such stories, and provide further examples of achievable reforms that can be implemented across the country. As cash-strapped criminal justice systems continue to enhance debt collection, activists, advocates and policymakers must continue to fight penny-wise, pound-foolish practices and their disproportionate effects on poor people.
Tags: Justice, Criminal Justice, Fees & Fines
By Rebekah Diller – 10/21/11
This post orginally appeared on the Vera Institute of Justice blog.
As states struggle to close persistent budget gaps, they are casting about for ways to raise revenue. One of the more penny-wise, pound-foolish schemes is to levy more fees on a group least able to pay: people involved in the criminal justice system. Just this year, Arizona instituted a $25 background check fee for any family member who wants to visit an inmate in state prison, a move made despite significant evidence that involvement with family is key for preventing recidivism.
Arizona is not alone. In Criminal Justice Debt: A Barrier to Reentry, a report published last year by the Brennan Center for Justice, we surveyed recent fee practices in 15 states and found a disturbing uptick in both the dollar amount and the number of fees imposed on criminal defendants. These fees kick in at almost all stages throughout the process: Fees may be charged for one’s public defender and prosecution, for court costs upon conviction, each day in jail or prison, and for each month of parole or probation supervision.
These fees may seem small in isolation—$25 here, $50 there—but as “The Unintended Sentence of Criminal Justice Debt” demonstrates, they can have harmful and lasting consequences. The amounts add up quickly, often totaling hundreds or thousands of dollars. Collections efforts take an added toll, generating additional fees and interest, often leading to driver’s license suspensions and wrecked credit histories. At its worst, inability to pay criminal fees paves the path back to prison by prompting violations of parole or probation, arrests for failure to appear at fee-related hearings, or other new offenses.
As the human costs mount, there is scant information about the repercussions of imposing these financial costs. Jurisdictions have looked at only one side of the ledger—the amount of money they expect to generate—without thinking through what happens when significant numbers of individuals cannot pay.
It is time to rethink the problem. First, states should exempt up front those who lack the means to pay. This is not only the just thing to do, it’s the smart thing. Jurisdictions would then stop spending scarce resources to chase down debt that is, in many cases, simply not payable.
Second, as “The Unintended Sentence” suggests, evidence-based analysis and programming are desperately needed. For individuals who cannot pay debts such as restitution and fines that are part of their sentence, credit for well-designed community service and other programming could offer a way out of the vicious debt cycle. The rigorous study associated with a demonstration project can help other jurisdictions reform their criminal debt practices too.
Tags: Justice, Criminal Justice, Fees & Fines
By Rebekah Diller – 04/14/11
The Maryland legislature this week took an important step toward helping formerly incarcerated individuals reintegrate successfully into society. In the final hours of the legislative session, it passed a bill that promises to reform a significant financial burden the state has placed on persons on parole.
For 20 years, the state has charged people on parole a $40 monthly fee for their supervision even though the fee is largely uncollectible. The unemployed, disabled and those enrolled in education or job training programs are supposed to be exempt. However, a 2009 Brennan Center report, Maryland’s Parole Supervision Fee: A Barrier to Reentry, found that the exemption system was broken. Most persons on parole are not even aware that the exemptions exist, much less of the system for applying for one. As a result, people emerge from parole in debt and, in many cases, with bad credit.
Maryland has finally taken steps to fix this problem. A bill passed Monday and awaiting the governor’s signature, will ensure that persons on parole are made aware of the opportunity for an exemption and the process by which to apply for one. More will need to be done upon its passage to ensure that the process for obtaining exemptions becomes truly accessible. However, the bill marks an important first step toward fixing the broken exemption system and removing a major barrier to reentry for the thousands of people coming out of prison each year in Maryland . Read the Brennan Center’s testimony in support of the bill here.
Tags: Justice, Racial Justice, Criminal Justice, Fees & Fines
By Emily Savner – 12/03/09
Putting the Sixth Amendment Aside…
In a dramatic policy shift, the Nevada Supreme Court has directed Las Vegas (Clark County) judges to begin charging fees to indigent defendants for their representation by the public defender’s office, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
No formal court rule has yet been issued by the Supreme Court or the Clark County District Court, and, according to the Clark County Public Defender, details regarding the fee’s imposition and collection are still murky. However, as of last week, assessment of the shotgun fee was nonetheless scheduled to go forward.
Clark County will follow the lead of Washoe County (Reno) by charging indigent defendants for the cost of their legal representation. Clark County’s new fee will operate on a sliding scale, with the fee will range from $250 to $750 depending on how much time the defender spends on the case and whether or not the case goes to trial, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Individual judges will be tasked with determining how much of the fee is assessed in a particular case, according to the report.
“This is their co-pay,” one district court judge told the Review-Journal. “Now we're an HMO.” Although a callous way to analogize the justice system, a move toward financing the court with “user fees” is a business model Nevada is not alone in adopting. Instead of funding courts through higher state appropriations for the judiciary, jurisdictions across the country are upping all kinds of fees collected from the pockets of criminal defendants, as state revenue collected from other sources slows. Crime is one rock-solid investment, even in recessionary times.
At least, the Review-Journal reports, revenue collected from this new fee will go toward funding indigent defense services. The same cannot be said of other jurisdictions, where courts’ user fees fund completely unrelated state functions.
Where does the right to counsel play into all this? Seemingly, nowhere.
Read the rest of this story ...
Tags: Justice, Criminal Justice, Fees & Fines
By Alice Hsieh – 03/27/09
Maryland
and other states have created a lose-lose situation—attempting to fund court
and correctional systems by levying fees on people who are unable to pay them.
States have increasingly turned to justice system "user fees"
to cover funding shortfalls. But, the
superficial appeal of making prisoners and those with criminal convictions pay
their way through the correctional system is proving to be bad policy on all
fronts. Legal financial obligations imposed
on ex-offenders keep them in an endless cycle of debt and probable payment
failure. The Brennan Center's new
report, Maryland's
Parole Supervision Fee: A Barrier to Reentry, found that despite the
fact that 76 percent of prisoners are unable to find full-time employment at
the time of release, the state of Maryland still requires every parolee to pay $40
a month to cover the expenses of his or her parole supervision, often with a 17
percent surcharge if payments are late enough to trigger transfer to the
state's debt collection unit.
Read the rest of this story ...
Tags: Justice, Criminal Justice, Fees & Fines
01/26/08
by
Matthew Gruchow
The Argus Leader (VA)
Court-appointed
lawyers and public defenders are expensive, and counties - and their taxpayers
- are picking up most of the costs when clients fail to meet their financial
obligations.
Supplying
defendants with their Constitutional right to a lawyer cost Minnehaha and Lincoln
counties more than $2.6 million last fiscal year. Of that, only a little more
than $830,000 was recovered from the clients represented. Those two counties
make up the Second Judicial District.
As both
Minnehaha and Lincoln counties see their populations grow, they will see more
crimes, more court costs and more lawyer fees, and they eventually will need to
make tough budget decisions, Lincoln County Commissioner Jim Schmidt said.
"The
trickle-down effect is that you cut services," he said. "Out of whose
cookie jar do you take to meet that obligation? And that will be a very, very
difficult decision to prioritize that."
The rate of
recovery in 2006 wasn't any better than last year. The Second Judicial District
reported $2.42 million in court-appointed attorney expenses, according to the
Unified Judicial System reports. That year, they collected $692,493, or about
28 percent, of that balance.
There are few
tools available to county governments to collect outstanding lawyer fees.
Schmidt and
Minnehaha County Commissioner Jeff Barth said the primary way the counties
collect legal fees is by a lien on any property owned by a client. But payments
on those liens either do not come or trickle in over years, they said.
"If you
have property, we put a lien on your property, and we ask that you pay it, but
we don't collect very much," Barth said.
The issue is
complicated by the economic status of those who often use public-defender
services, Barth said.
"We do
have a collections agency, and sometimes they do go to court, but a lot of
these people don't have anything," Barth said. "There's nothing you
can do."
In Minnehaha
County, Barth said the commission will review the liens, reduce some of their
amounts or forgive them entirely.
More
aggressive steps to collect legal fees from clients could make the problem
worse, Schmidt said. The repayment of lawyer fees often is a condition of
probation or sentencing, and failure to pay can bring clients into court again,
where they again must rely on a court-appointed lawyer.
"We
wouldn't want to put them back into the position to be back in trouble, back
into court, because of court costs," he said.
Two private
lawyers
The problem
of uncollected attorney fees appears to have little effect on operations within
public defenders' offices.
In Lincoln
County, which contracts with two private lawyers for public defender cases,
both are paid a flat rate each month for their services, regardless of how many
hours they work.
For now, that
is a cost-savings for county taxpayers, said Bill Golden, one of Lincoln
County's public defenders.
"I take
the risk that over the next two years, it's going to be real, real busy,"
he said. "If it slows down, then that would be the county's risk."
Phillip
Peterson, the other lawyer on contract with Lincoln County, said how much a
county can recover in legal fees potentially affects him only at contract
renegotiations.
"The
higher the rate of reimbursement, the better the county commissioners feel about
it if I'm asking for a raise," he said.
So far,
unpaid legal fees have not affected contract negotiations, Peterson said.
The Minnehaha
County Public Defender's Office declined to comment for this story.
Rising
workload
Golden and
Peterson said the chief complication between their duties as public defenders
and the county's payment for their services is workload. It keeps going up.
Peterson said
his caseload has quadrupled since he began public-defender duties in 2000. That
sort of increase in caseload requires more money to manage, to where it could
become too burdensome on county governments, he said.
"And
attorneys are going to get out of it, because there's more and more caseload,
and the pay doesn't keep up with the caseload," he said.
In Lincoln
County, that could become a big problem in the next decade, he said.
Schmidt said
he sees Lincoln County forced to create a full-time public defender's office in
five to seven years.
But with the
option of more aggressive bill collection all but ruled out, county governments
can only look for new revenue streams to keep up with the financial obligations
of those growing court systems, Barth and Schmidt said. That could include
cutting programs, reducing the budgets of other agencies and increasing property
taxes, they said.
"But to
use more aggressive collecting, if you will, just won't work," Schmidt
said. "It's too hard to squeeze any more money out of these people,
because it's simply not there."
Tags: Fees & Fines
01/21/08
by Jen Lynds
Bangor Daily News (Maine)
HOULTON,
Maine - As an attorney, Rep. Richard Cleary has seen a number of
instances where people appear repeatedly before a judge because they
are unable to pay a court fine they have been assessed.
With an
estimated $3 million in court fines still uncollected in the state, the
Houlton lawmaker believes his bill, LD 1938 "An Act To Allow Community
Service In Lieu of Fines," would give the court system additional
options to collect the money it is owed.
Cleary, a Democrat, represents the District 8 towns of Amity, Hodgdon, Houlton, Orient and Cary Plantation.
Speaking
before members of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee last
week, Cleary explained the substance of his bill by outlining a
scenario in which a defendant has been sentenced to serve two days in
jail and pay a $500 fine. The defendant in the case serves his sentence
but can’t immediately pay the fine, so the judge imposes a payment
schedule.
The defendant is unable to make the payments and is called back to court. The individual appears, still unable to pay.
The
process repeats until the judge has no alternative but to send the
nonpaying defendant to jail to "sit off" the fine at a rate of $5 per
day, Cleary told committee members.
In Cleary’s scenario, the defendant would spend 100 days sitting in jail to pay off the $500 fine.
The
cost of housing an inmate at a county jail, however, is significantly
higher than $5 a day. In Aroostook County, for instance, it costs an
average of $75 per day.
If the "sit off" plan is used, The
County incurs an expense and the state does not collect its $500 fine.
The state also picks up the tab for other expenses, such as court time
and judge and clerk staff time.
"We have been talking a lot in
Augusta about budget shortfalls and how to save money," Cleary noted.
"Unpaid fines add up to over $3 million in this state. It does not make
fiscal sense to incur the costs of putting a person in jail and then
lose out on those dollars, too. Community service provides value to the
public rather than costing taxpayer dollars."
Current law
provides courts the authority to order community service during
sentencing, but Cleary added the law is "unclear about whether or not
community service can be ordered after a defendant defaults on
payments," the representative explained.
Under Cleary’s bill,
the court would have the option of turning to a collection agency to
recoup unpaid fines, including an additional amount of money — up to 33
percent of the original fine — to be retained by the collection agency
for its work.
Other states, including New York, Virginia and Texas, use collection agencies to recoup court fines.
Cleary
said the state court system had tried using a collection agency, but
because the collection agency was taking a portion of the fine as a
fee, the court was not receiving its full amount of money.
He said adding money to the fine as a surcharge would alleviate the problem.
The
lawmaker also said the state could employ other collection methods such
as seizing tax refunds and driver’s licenses and placing liens on
properties owned by the defendants.
If the defendant proves he
or she is unable to pay, the bill also would allow the court to reduce
the amount of each payment installment or order the offender to perform
a specified number of hours of community service work. If the court
determines the fine cannot be collected because of death or disability
of the offender, the court could reduce or discharge completely the
unpaid balance.
If the bill passes, the procedure currently used
would remain in place, but additional options for the court to collect
fines would be implemented, according to Cleary.
"We do have a
large amount of uncollected fines that perhaps could be a revenue
source for the state in the current situation we are in," Cleary told
committee members on Wednesday.
Cleary said the impetus for the bill came after conversations he had with judges in Aroostook County.
No
one spoke in opposition to Cleary’s bill, and the proposal garnered
support from Robert Howe, the executive director of the Maine County
Commissioners Association.
"I want to speak in support of this
because of the additional options it gives the court," he said. "The
cost of housing an inmate is a great deal more than $5 a day.
"Community
service also provides a value to the taxpayer, and using a collection
agency is a reasonable option now," Howe said. "We think it is a good
idea that these additional options be added."
The bill has been
scheduled for a work session on Jan. 23 to further explore the issue
before the committee makes a recommendation to the full Legislature.
Tags: Fees & Fines
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Permalink