Private Probation Archives - Fines and Fees Justice Center

Regressive Revenue Perpetuates Poverty: Why Georgia’s Fines and Fees Need Immediate Reform

More than 300 localities in Georgia use revenue from fines and fees to balance their budgets, and 20 percent do so at rates researchers consider high and abusive. Georgians who …

In Small-Town Georgia, A Broken Taillight Can Lead to Spiraling Debt

Georgia is one of the few states that criminalize traffic fines and allow localities to outsource misdemeanor probation supervision to private companies that are permitted to charge fees. This article …

Private Probation Costs, Compliance and the Proportionality of Punishment: Evidence from Georgia and Missouri

In misdemeanor courts, private probation companies provide supervision in at least a dozen states. Private probation is often accompanied by a number of unique supplementary costs, all of which individuals …

Unjust Revenue from an Imbalanced Criminal Legal System: How Georgia’s Fines and Fees Worsen Racial Inequality

Georgia’s localities are over-reliant on fines and fees revenue, making up more than 10 percent of their general revenue, while the national average among localities was two percent in 2018. …

Carter v. Montgomery

Hundreds of individuals were assessed fines by the Montgomery Municipal Court for misdemeanors, primarily traffic tickets like driving with a suspended license and other low-level crimes of poverty. When they …

The Price of Justice: Fines, Fees and the Criminalization of Poverty in the United States

Mass incarceration and the rising cost of the justice system correlate with the high number and value of fines and fees imposed throughout the justice system. As federal funding for …

Privatization of Services in the Criminal Justice System

Privatization throughout the justice system has exacerbated the cycle of mandatory fees, nonpayment, and consequent additional fees. Private companies, often with little to no oversight, can have economic incentives to …

Edwards v. Leaders in Community Alternatives

Alameda County contracts with Leaders in Community Alternatives (LCA) to provide court-ordered GPS tracking and alcohol monitoring devices for people on pre-trial or home detention. Although LCA is supposed to charge fees on a sliding scale based on a person’s ability to pay, LCA does not adjust its fees based on a person’s actual financial circumstances and never informs people that reduced fees are available.

Catherine Harper, et al v. Professional Probation Services, Inc.

Defendants in the Gardendale Municipal Court are placed on probation when they are unable to pay court fines and fees in full. Professional Probation Services, Inc. (PPS) is the sole probation provider through a contract with the City and the Municipal Court judge. PPS charges a $40 monthly fee which is paid before the court’s fines and fees.

Brucker et al. v. The City of Doraville

Plaintiffs argue that by budgeting for revenue from fines and fees, Doraville creates a perverse incentive for the city’s police, prosecutors, and judges.