Social worker, law enforcer, and now bill collector: Probation officers’ collection of supervision fees

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

Petkus

Link

et al. 2020

Self Cite

The assessment and collection of monetary sanctions (fines, fees, and restitution) have become a common element of the U.S. criminal justice system, especially in community corrections. Although the application of monetary sanctions is often dictated by state-level legislation, court rules, and agency policy, little research has sought to organize and systematically examine a set of these policies to compare them across several community corrections contexts more broadly. As such, this study fills a gap in the literature by using thematic content analysis to examine legislative policies governing the use of monetary sanctions in six states from across the United States. Laws and policies regarding the assessment, waiver, and collection of monetary sanctions utilized by agencies of varying size and jurisdictional scope were considered to identify common themes. We conclude with a discussion of whether the policies and laws examined align with rehabilitative and punitive goals of community supervision and highlight emerging opportunities for research and policy reform.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monetary Sanctions in Community Corrections: Law, Policy, and Their Alignment With Correctional Goals

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

Petkus

Link

et al. 2020

Self Cite

“…Monetary sanctions can be burdensome for justice-involved individuals who have limited incomes and/or multiple other household and family demands (Beckett & Harris, 2011; Pleggenkuhle, 2017; Ruhland, 2020). Such cases require navigating the existing tension between competing personal requirements―payment of rent or other basic needs with payment of monetary sanctions (Beckett & Harris, 2011).…”

Section: Monetary Sanctions In Community Supervisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Fines and Fees on Probation Outcomes

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Holmes

Petkus

2020

Individuals on probation are commonly assessed fines and fees. These monetary sanctions serve different purposes. Fines are primarily used for more punitive purposes, whereas fees are often used to recover the costs of services provided. Regardless of ability to pay, monetary sanction payments are often required as a probation condition. Nonpayment therefore can result in violations and potentially revocations. However, little is known about how fines and fees operate specifically within probation. This current study explored legal and extralegal factors that influence the total amount of fines and fees assessed in individual cases, as well as the influence of fines and fees on probation revocations. The implications of the findings concentrate on ways to improve probation policies as well as probation officer’s practices as they relate to the collection and enforcement of monetary sanctions.

“…The lack of knowledge regarding repayment structures may also reflect variation in the degree that departments of probation and parole prioritize LFO enforcement. Some intensively focus on payment collection and enforcement because the agency depends on this revenue for their operating budgets (Ruhland, 2020). Others prioritize collection because LFO payment is considered an obligation or condition of supervision that individuals, by law, must fulfill.…”

Section: Processes Of Collecting Fines and Fees In Community Correctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others prioritize collection because LFO payment is considered an obligation or condition of supervision that individuals, by law, must fulfill. In these contexts, payment compliance and collection activities can become a dominant point of emphasis such that probation and parole officers report feeling like bill collectors (Morgan, 1995;Ruhland, 2020). Some agencies may elect to ignore them in light of other supervisory obligations.…”

Section: Processes Of Collecting Fines and Fees In Community Correctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Possible consequences for nonpayment can include the loss of a driver's license, loss of voting rights, or damage to credit (Martin et al, 2018). Moreover, nonpayment may extend the duration of community supervision (Ruhland, 2020) or result in incarceration through supervision revocation (Martin et al, 2018) despite legal prohibitions on debtors' prisons (Bearden v. Georgia, 1983;Miller et al, 1999).…”

Section: Processes Of Collecting Fines and Fees In Community Correctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Considering the Process of Debt Collection in Community Corrections: The Case of the Monetary Compliance Unit

Link

Powell

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2020

Self Cite

Monetary sanctions levied on individuals on probation and parole may dramatically influence their ability to reintegrate into the community and to complete their community supervision. Yet very little work has empirically assessed how agencies respond to these obligations. This is critical, given that individuals under community supervision occupy a liminal space: free in the community yet often at risk of violation, rearrest, additional fines, or re-incarceration. In this article, we introduce an approach to the collection and management of monetary sanctions by an adult probation and parole agency in one Pennsylvania county. This specialized department focuses solely on repayment of fines, fees, and costs for a subset of probationers and parolees who have completed all other supervision requirements. We complement the conceptual overview by presenting administrative data on this caseload ( N = 5,811) to describe the population under supervision and assess the factors associated with debt amount, having difficulty with repayment, and being the subject of an enforcement action for non-payment. We conclude with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of this model compared with historical and other existing models of debt enforcement during community supervision.