63 percent of respondents report that fee revenue is moderately to extremely important for funding agency operations and services.
Fines and fees are rarely analyzed from the perspective of the agency tasked with managing fine and fee debts. This study investigates how community corrections agencies perceive and implement monetary sanctions, particularly focusing on probation and parole officers in Pennsylvania. Using a 2019 survey of county-level Chiefs of Probation and Parole, the authors analyze how fees are assessed, collected, and viewed by those responsible for administering them. The findings reveal significant variation in the types and amounts of supervision-related fees assessed across counties, even within a single state. Although all surveyed agencies charge a monthly supervision fee, other charges vary widely in prevalence and amount. Agencies also differ in how they respond to nonpayment: some allow flexibility, such as revising payment plans or waiving fees; others impose punitive measures like extended supervision or revocation. The authors conclude that while agency leaders may question their appropriateness or fairness, financial incentives and structural dependence on fee revenue in community supervision systems pose significant obstacles to reform.
You can read the full text here.
Key Findings:
- Most agency leaders rank fee collection as the least important task of their job duties.
- There is no consensus among officers regarding the appropriateness of monetary sanction collection by their agencies.
- The most common officers’ responses to nonpayment are: co-create a payment plan, request to revoke supervision, aid with job searching, prolong case termination, request court waiver of judicial fees, and waive supervision fees.