Tools Archives - Page 7 of 12 - Fines and Fees Justice Center

Texas Chapter 175 Collections Improvement Program (1 TAC §175)

Starting in 2018, Texas’ Office of Court Administration (OCA) made changes to the rule that requires Texas counties and cities with a population of 100,000 or more to implement a Collection Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP webpage also includes a variety of sample language for court and program staff to use, including “Sample Payment Plan Application” and “Sample First Written Notice.”

The Price of Justice: The High Cost of “Free” Counsel for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

This report documents that the families of children charged with crimes are forced to pay for the cost of legal counsel in all but 10 U.S. states – despite the Constitution’s guarantee that young people who are indigent are entitled to court-appointed counsel.

Why journalists should cover local jails

In this article for The Poynter Institute, Al Tompkins underscores the importance of journalists covering local jails and suggests several coverage angles that journalists can use to convince readers to care more about incarceration at the local level.

WA State Courts of Limited Jurisdiction: 2018 Reference Guide on Legal Financial Obligations in Criminal Cases

This bench card is meant to educate Washington State judges about procedural protections owed to defendants who are ordered to pay fines and fees in criminal court.

LFO (Legal Financial Obligations) Calculator (State of Washington)

With the help of Microsoft and a Department of Justice grant, the state of Washington launched a web-based Calculator to enable judges, defendants, and public defenders to calculate fines and fees owed.

Report of the New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on Municipal Court Operations, Fines, and Fees

This report is a result of a comprehensive review of New Jersey municipal courts by the Supreme Court Committee on Municipal Court Operations, Fines, and Fees.

Monetary Myopia: An Examination of Institutional Response to Revenue From Monetary Sanctions for Misdemeanors

This study assesses the use of fines and fees for misdemeanor crimes in Nevada and Iowa to highlight the perverse incentives embedded in the practice of using courts as revenue centers. The article proposes the concept of “monetary myopia,” or a short-sighted focus on revenue at the expense of other concerns, to explain the states’ behavior.

Criminal Justice Administrative Fees: High Pain for People, Low Gain for Government. A Call to Action for California Counties.

In 2017, the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, Financial Justice Project, and Mayor’s Office of Budget and Public Policy studied the collateral consequences of criminal justice administrative fees on San Franciscans. Their findings were published in this report, which also coincides with 2018 San Francisco County legislation that abolished all discretionary fees imposed by the county.

[Bench Card] Monetary Obligations in North Carolina Criminal Cases

This bench card provides guidance to North Carolina judges regarding the imposition and collection of fines and fees in criminal cases. In particular, the bench card outlines the law as applicable to court costs, attorney fees, other fees, fines, and restitution, and highlights when each obligation applies as well as when and how courts can provide relief.

Penalty Assessment Funds – California’s Penalties and Fees Provide Inconsistent Funding for State and County Programs and Have a Significant Financial Impact on Drivers

This report reveals that California programs and services supported by revenue from fines and fees have been compromised by low-income motorists’ inability to pay those fines and fees.