Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:57 pm
Time: 11:57 pm
Results for restitution
11 results foundAuthor: Ruback, R. Barry Title: Evaluation of Best Practices in Restitution and Victim Compensation Orders and Payments Summary: Over the past 25 years, the use of economic sanctions has increased because of pressures to punish offenders, to reimburse victims, and to have offenders pay for the costs of prosecution, and fees, as well as mandatory restitution, fines, and various state costs. This research project was concerned with how these different economic sanctions are imposed and with whether they are paid. In addition, the research examined whether state fees and restitution to the state were mandated as imposed by law. Details: University Park, PA: Crime, Law, & Justice Program, Department of Sociology, Penn State University, 2006. 224p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119534 Keywords: RestitutionVictim CompensationVictims of Crime |
Author: Ruback, R. Barry Title: Crime Victims' Perceptions of Restitution: The Importance of Payment and Understanding Summary: Out of concern for victim rights and for the operation of the criminal justice system, the Office for Victims of Crime recommends that victims should be informed, consulted, respected, and made whole, rights that relate to informational, procedural, interactional, and distributive justice. To test whether crime victims’ satisfaction with the criminal justice system was related to their perceptions of the fairness of the process and of their outcomes in their case, particularly with regard to restitution, we surveyed 238 victims in two Pennsylvania counties. Results indicated that payment of restitution, perception of fair process, and good interpersonal treatment were positively related to victims’ willingness to report crimes in the future but that satisfaction with information about the process was not. Victims’ understanding of the restitution process was a significant predictor of willingness to report in a multivariate analysis. Understanding was more strongly related to the victim’s own actions than to the actions of personnel in the criminal justice system. Details: Unpublished report supported by grants from the Pennsylvania Commission Crime and Delinquency and the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, 2010. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 13, 2010 at: www.portal.state.pa.us/ Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119600 Keywords: RestitutionVictims of Crime |
Author: Reynolds, Carl Title: A Framework to Improve How Fines, Fees, Restitution, and Child Support are Assessed and Collected from People Convicted of Crimes. Interim Report, March 2, 2009. Summary: This report describes how fines, fees, and restitution are assessed in criminal courts in Texas, how these court-ordered financial obligations are collected, and how these assessments and collections account for child support that defendants may already owe. The report reviews the challenges court officials encounter under the current system and recommends strategies to clarify and streamline existing policies. Using the findings and recommendations in this report, state and local government policymakers can launch an effort to increase financial accountability among people who commit crimes, improve rates of collection for child support and victim restitution, and ensure people’s transition from prisons and jails to the community is safe and successful. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center: Austin, TX: Texas Office of Court Administration, 2009. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 14, 2010 at: http://www.courts.state.tx.us/oca/debts/pdf/TexasFinancialObligationsInterimReport.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.state.tx.us/oca/debts/pdf/TexasFinancialObligationsInterimReport.pdf Shelf Number: 119962 Keywords: FinesReentryRestitution |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Guardianships: Cases of Financial Exploitation, Neglect, and Abuse of Seniors Summary: As individuals age, some become incapable of managing their personal and financial affairs. To protect these individuals, state laws provide for court appointment of guardians, who may be professionals or family members, to protect the incapacitated person's personal and/or financial welfare. State and local courts are responsible for overseeing guardians. In addition, federal agencies may appoint a representative payee, in some cases, the guardian, to manage federal benefits on behalf of incapacitated adults. Previous GAO reports have found that poor communication between state courts and federal agencies may allow guardians to continue abusing their victims. GAO was asked to (1) verify whether allegations of abuse by guardians are widespread; (2) examine the facts in selected closed cases; and (3) proactively test state guardian certification processes. To verify whether allegations are widespread, GAO interviewed advocates for seniors and reviewed court documents. To examine closed criminal, civil or administrative cases with a finding of guilt or liability in the past 15 years, GAO reviewed court records, interviewed court officials, attorneys and victims, and reviewed records from federal agencies. To test state guardian certification, GAO used fictitious identities to apply for certification in four states. GAO's results cannot be projected to the overall population of guardians or state certification programs. GAO could not determine whether allegations of abuse by guardians are widespread; however, GAO identified hundreds of allegations of physical abuse, neglect and financial exploitation by guardians in 45 states and the District of Columbia between 1990 and 2010. In 20 selected closed cases, GAO found that guardians stole or otherwise improperly obtained $5.4 million in assets from 158 incapacitated victims, many of whom were seniors. In some instances, guardians also physically neglected and abused their victims. The guardians in these cases came from diverse professional backgrounds and were overseen by local courts in 15 states and the District of Columbia. GAO found several common themes. In 6 of 20 cases, the courts failed to adequately screen potential guardians, appointing individuals with criminal convictions or significant financial problems to manage high-dollar estates. In 12 of 20 cases, the courts failed to oversee guardians once they were appointed, allowing the abuse of vulnerable seniors and their assets to continue. Lastly, in 11 of 20 cases, courts and federal agencies did not communicate effectively or at all with each other about abusive guardians, allowing the guardian to continue the abuse of the victim and/or others. Using two fictitious identities--one with bad credit and one with the Social Security number of a deceased person -- GAO obtained guardianship certification or met certification requirements in the four states where we applied: Illinois, Nevada, New York, and North Carolina. Though certification is intended to provide assurance that guardians are qualified to fulfill their role, none of the courts or certification organizations utilized by these states checked the credit history or validated the Social Security number of the fictitious applicants. An individual who is financially overextended is at a higher risk of engaging in illegal acts to generate funds. In addition, people with criminal convictions could easily conceal their pasts by stealing a deceased person's identity. The tests raise questions about the effectiveness of these four state certification programs. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-10-1046: Accessed October 29, 2010 at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d101046.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d101046.pdf Shelf Number: 120124 Keywords: Elder AbuseElderly VictimsEmbezzlementFinancial CrimesFraudRestitution |
Author: National Center for Victims of Crime Title: Making Restitution Real: Five Case Studies on Improving Restitution Collection Summary: Across the country, policymakers, criminal justice officials, and victim advocates are becoming increasingly attuned to the problem of uncollected victim restitution. Even when ordered by the court, restitution often goes uncollected and victims remain without the financial resources they need to rebuild their lives after crime. While most jurisdictions do not track the amount of restitution ordered or collected (a problem itself), existing reports indicate a widespread failure to collect vast amounts of victim restitution. The most recent public figures show uncollected criminal debt at the federal level to be over $50 billion — most of which is restitution owed to individuals and others harmed by defendants. A study released in 2005 by the Government Accountability Office examined five high-dollar white collar financial fraud cases and found that only about seven percent of the restitution ordered in those cases was collected, up to eight years after the offenders’ sentencing. The experience at the state level is equally discouraging. In Iowa, for example, outstanding court debt, including restitution, amounted to $533 million as of 2010.3 Recent figures show that in Maryland, the Division of Parole and Probation had collected only 12 percent of the restitution that judges had ordered in fiscal year 2007 by December of 2008. In Texas, a 2008 examination found that more than 90 percent of offenders discharged from parole between 2003 and 2008 still owed their victims restitution. In Pennsylvania, $638 million in restitution was outstanding; in Arizona, the amount of unpaid criminal debt, including restitution, totaled $831 million; and in a single Nevada county, $70 million in victim restitution went uncollected during an eight year period. Behind these numbers are real crime victims in need — individuals trying to recover from financial losses related to the crime they experienced. They include victims without medical insurance struggling to pay off their hospital bills; victims suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder but forgoing counseling because they can’t afford it; small-business owners struggling to keep their businesses open after being defrauded by employees; and elderly victims who have lost their life savings to fraud and are suffering not only financial loss, but also the loss of their dignity, security, physical health, and independence. The recent economic downturn has further hampered the ability of victims to recover from crime-related financial losses. Repayment of victims’ financial losses from a crime, including property losses, can be crucial in helping to repair the damages from the offense. Repayment is also important as a tangible demonstration that the state — and the offender — recognizes the harm the victim suffered and the offender’s obligation to make amends. Failure to collect the ordered restitution creates another, even more insidious, harm: when court orders are regularly disregarded with no apparent consequence, it causes crime victims and the public to lose faith in the criminal justice system. Restitution is important for offenders as well. Courts have recognized that restitution is significant and rehabilitative because it “forces the defendant to confront, in concrete terms, the harm his or her actions have caused.” In fact, a study that examined the connection between restitution and recidivism found that individuals who paid a higher percentage of their ordered restitution were less likely to commit a new crime.7 Significantly, the payment of criminal fines did not have this effect, indicating that it is the act of reparation to the victim that is important. To improve the collection and payment of victim restitution nationwide, the National Center for Victims of Crime, with support from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, commissioned five papers by expert practitioners in the field of restitution who discuss their jurisdictions’ current issues, challenges, and promising practices. Drafts of these papers were presented at a national roundtable discussion with invited criminal justice practitioners, policymakers, and victim advocates to review these promising programs. That event was Webcast to another 200 professionals located throughout the United States. The five papers presented here offer valuable case studies. Two of those reflect statewide efforts — in California and Michigan — to promote and support greater collections. While these efforts differed in scale and some of the methods used, both were grounded in a commitment by their state’s chief justice to make increased collections a priority. Both states used deliberate approaches that sought input from stakeholders at the state and local levels. Both adopted statewide mandates that allowed for elements of local flexibility, allowing local jurisdictions to adopt a certain number of best practices from a list developed at the state level. And both created tools to help local courts improve their tracking and reporting of collections. A third paper also addresses a statewide effort, but one using a far different framework. Rather than improving local collection efforts throughout the state, Vermont created a centralized Restitution Unit that pays individual victims upfront and then takes on the burden of collecting from offenders. This program represents fresh thinking, as it reconceptualizes the process to restore victims through restitution. Two local programs are also featured. Maricopa County, Arizona, through the commitment of a local judge and the probation department, created a Restitution Court using existing legal tools to improve collection from offenders. And Project Payback, in Florida’s Eighth Judicial Circuit, embraced victim restitution as a means to rehabilitate juvenile defendants as well as restore their victims. Despite the variation in approaches among the five programs highlighted, they share important elements in common: • Leadership. Each program exists because an individual stepped forward with the authority to change the status quo. In two statewide programs it was the state’s chief justice; in the third it was the statewide victim services center. For one local program, it was the state’s attorney; for the other it was a superior court judge. • Commitment. Each program demonstrates a commitment to change, coupled with the development of partnerships and collaborations to transform good intentions into measurable progress. For four of the programs highlighted, this commitment included dedicated staff. • Openness to new thinking. In different ways, the approach of each program reflects an openness to new thinking. For some, that new thinking involved reframing the issue of uncollected criminal debt as an issue of the failure of courts to enforce their own orders. For the juvenile restitution program in Florida, it involved recasting the issue of financial responsibility as central in the rehabilitation of juveniles. And for Vermont, it was openness to a new model for victim restitution. The papers highlighted here address important lessons learned and the challenges that remain. From statewide, multi-year initiatives to vigorous local programs, it is our hope that these examples will inspire advocates and officials around the country to reexamine their own policies and programs and renew their commitment to improving the lives of crime victims through the collection of restitution. Details: Washington, DC: National Center for Victims of Crime, 2011. 140p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2011 at: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=48480 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=48480 Shelf Number: 121882 Keywords: RestitutionVictim CompensationVictims of Crime (U.S.) |
Author: Tran-Leung, Marie Claire Title: Debt Arising From Illinois’ Criminal Justice System: Making Sense of the Ad Hoc Accumulation of Financial Obligations Summary: When a person enters the criminal justice system, a complicated, ad hoc system of financial obligations awaits. The financial obligations go by many different names: fines, fees, surcharges, assessments, restitution, just to name a few. And they are scattered through the Illinois Code, making them even more difficult to identify. Yet, when a person exits the criminal justice system, all of these financial obligations often converge to create a significant barrier to successful reentry. As the government branch responsible for collecting and disbursing these financial obligations, the Illinois judiciary has long recognized how complicated the system of financial obligations is. In describing the “plethora of user fees and surcharges,” Chief Justice Benjamin K. Miller of the Illinois Supreme Court remarked in 1991: “The complexity of the structure of various charges is such that they are not uniform and are confusing. It has been impossible for the court system to apply the charge in a consistent and coherent manner.” Little has changed in the last eighteen years. Today, the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts distributes to chief judges the Manual on Fines and Fees, a 500-page cheat sheet of all civil and criminal financial obligations authorized by Illinois statutes and the different funds they flow into. The universe of financial obligations is best classified by their purpose. Restitution, for example, compensates victims for their losses and attempts to make them whole. Fines punish the defendant for his actual conduct. Traditionally, courts calibrate restitution and fines to the particular facts of a case. By contrast, fees, the third and last type of financial obligation, tend not to be so refined. Instead, they usually aim to recover the costs incurred by the government in running the criminal justice system. When viewed in isolation, each financial obligation seems unobjectionable. They do not, however, operate in isolation. Rather, they accumulate at multiple points from the pre-trial stage to the last day of correctional supervision, creating significant debt for people who eventually exit the criminal justice system. In a study of men returning home to Chicago after being incarcerated in Illinois prisons, one out of five men reported owing money because of child support, fines, restitution, court costs, supervision fees, and other types of financial obligations. Of this group, nearly three-fourths found those debts difficult to pay down. Details: Chicago: Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, 2009. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 25, 2011 at: http://www.povertylaw.org/advocacy/publications/debt-report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.povertylaw.org/advocacy/publications/debt-report.pdf Shelf Number: 123138 Keywords: Ex-Offenders, DebtsFeesFinesOffenders, Financial ObligationsRestitution |
Author: Lee, Cynthia G. Title: A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center. Summary: In April 2000, a new courthouse opened its doors in a vacant schoolhouse in the Red Hook neighborhood of Brooklyn. Over the course of the five previous decades, Red Hook had declined from a vibrant, working-class waterfront community into a notorious hotbed of drug-related violence, cut off from the rest of Brooklyn by an elevated highway and a lack of public transportation. Following in the footsteps of the nation's first community court, established in Manhattan seven years earlier, the Red Hook Community Justice Center aimed to help transform the neighborhood by cleaning up misdemeanor crime and offering defendants treatment for the drug addictions and other social dislocations believed to fuel their criminal behavior. The Justice Center would also handle juvenile delinquency cases, hear landlord-tenant disputes, and provide a wide variety of youth and community programs open to all residents. The ultimate goal was to create a court that "would both respond constructively when crime occurs and work to prevent crime before it takes place," halting the "revolving door" of the traditional criminal justice system. "By bringing justice back to neighborhoods and by playing a variety of non-traditional roles," Justice Center planners asserted, "community courts foster stronger relationships between courts and communities and restore public confidence in the justice system". More than a decade later, the Red Hook Community Justice Center (RHCJC) is a prominent fixture in the Red Hook neighborhood. The Justice Center is the product of an ongoing partnership among the New York State Unified Court System, the Center for Court Innovation, the Kings County District Attorney's Office, the Legal Aid Society of New York, and a number of other governmental and nonprofit organizations. As a demonstration project, it is also arguably the best known community court in the world, welcoming visitors from as far away as South Africa, Australia, and Japan and serving as a model for other community courts across the nation and the globe. In 2010, the National Institute of Justice funded the first comprehensive independent evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center. Conducted by the National Center for State Courts in partnership with the Center for Court Innovation and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, this evaluation represents a rigorous multi-method investigation into the impact of the Justice Center on crime, incarceration, and costs; the mechanisms by which the Justice Center produces any such results; and how policymakers and court planners in other jurisdictions can adapt the Justice Center's vision of the community court model to suit the unique needs of their own communities. The evaluation consists of four major components: a process evaluation that documents the planning and operations of the Red Hook Community Justice Center and investigates whether the program was implemented in accordance with its design; an ethnographic analysis that examines community and offender perceptions of the Justice Center; an impact evaluation that analyzes the Justice Center's impact on sentencing, recidivism, and arrest rates; and a cost-efficiency analysis that quantifies the Justice Center's costs and benefits in monetary terms. Details: Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2013. 286p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/RH%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/RH%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 131668 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Courts (U.S.)Community JusticeProblem-Solving CourtsRestitution |
Author: Minnesota Restitution Working Group Title: Report to the Legislature 2015 Summary: In 2013, the Minnesota Legislature directed the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to convene a working group to study how restitution for victims in criminal cases is requested, ordered, and collected in Minnesota. The legislation creating the Restitution Working Group (RWG) arose from informal discussions among stakeholders with concerns about the current restitution process and the lack of information about the extent to which restitution is paid. Under the direction of the DPS Office of Justice Programs, representatives from all parts of the criminal justice system and victim support community engaged in an intensive examination of the restitution statutory framework, the practices of local and state agencies, and the experiences and perspectives of victims and practitioners. In addition, the State Court Administrator's Office (SCAO) conducted a comprehensive analysis of court data, providing much needed clarity on the payment of restitution in Minnesota. The RWG's examination revealed that a patchwork of approaches to restitution exists across the state, with inconsistencies spanning all parts of the process, including steps to request restitution, types of restitution that might be ordered, the process and impact of "reserving" restitution, the establishment of payment plans, and the effort devoted to restitution collection. In addition, the statutory framework was uniformly regarded as cumbersome and confusing at best, and underutilized and disregarded at worst, prompting considerable discussion on ways to clarify and improve it. These inconsistences in ordering, collecting, and enforcing restitution pose challenges for victims, offenders, and criminal justice system professionals. The RWG legislation directed the SCAO to provide the RWG with summary data on restitution. Using a cohort model, the SCAO conducted a comprehensive analysis of court data, examining restitution amounts ordered and paid by case type and offense level, identifying the extent to which payment plans are established, and summarizing restitution data by county and judicial district. The SCAO analysis identifies factors that affect the likelihood of an offender paying restitution. Most importantly, the analysis reveals that for many victims, restitution is not just an empty promise. While this result is encouraging, the SCAO's efforts also point to the usefulness of ongoing data review to uncover areas that require further attention, direct efforts for improvement, and prompt further analysis. The results demonstrate positive payment patterns in some types of cases, but they also reveal the need to find ways to improve payment rates in all cases. This corresponds with the predominant theme emerging from the RWG process of the importance of assessing whether nonpaying offenders truly lack the ability to pay and ensure that all offenders are paying restitution according to their ability. In this nearly year-long process, the RWG crafted more than 40 recommendations aimed at (1) improving the clarity, consistency, and efficiency of the process, (2) ensuring that all victims are well informed and have the opportunity to make appropriate restitution requests, and (3) improving the likelihood of payment by offenders. These recommendations, outlined in Part 4 of the report, call for changes and refinements to all parts of the restitution process, improved information to both victims and offenders, and comprehensive training of criminal justice professionals and partners. Most importantly, these overarching goals emerged as the group set out to identify ways to improve the restitution process: - Make restitution a priority: Restitution should be regarded as a right of victims who have been harmed by a criminal offense, and the justice system should take steps to ensure that offenders pay restitution to the greatest extent possible. - Establish a clear, consistent process: Strive for a measure of consistency and uniformity in restitution process and procedures across the state, with the end result that all victims have the same opportunity to be made whole. - Rely on data: Continue the comprehensive examination of restitution data, and determine ways to make relevant information readily available to stakeholders in the system. - Devote resources: Devote resources to the restitution process to make it more efficient and effective. Invest in technological strategies that can improve restitution processing and collection, track restitution payments, aid in ensuring that victims are a part of this process, and facilitate the evaluation of restitution collection efforts. - System oversight: Establish an ongoing, collaborative group of stakeholders responsible for overseeing restitution on a statewide level, including review of new statutory provisions to ensure they have the desired effect, monitoring the restitution collection data, and promoting adoption of recommendations from the RWG. The end result of the RWG process was a set of statutory and practice recommendations put forward by the RWG to stakeholder constituencies and the legislature for future implementation. To ensure that these recommendations are implemented, the RWG proposes the following: - Form a drafting committee: An ad hoc drafting committee should be convened in 2015 to undertake the task of revising Minnesota Statutes section 611A.04 to incorporate statutory changes recommended by the RWG and improve the overall organization and clarity of the statute. - Distribute findings: Publicize the findings of the RWG, and encourage the adoption of improved restitution practices by those involved in the process. Present the findings from the RWG to all key stakeholder groups. - Request legislative action: The RWG requests that the Minnesota Legislature consider the comprehensive legislative proposal to be submitted in the 2016 session. Further, the RWG requests continued support from the Legislature for all efforts aimed at increasing the efficiency of the process, improving the likelihood of collecting restitution, and focusing efforts on those offenders with the ability to pay restitution. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Public Safety, 2015. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2015 at: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/Restitution%20Working%20Group/Minnesota%20Restitution%20Working%20Group%20Report%20January%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/Restitution%20Working%20Group/Minnesota%20Restitution%20Working%20Group%20Report%20January%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 136414 Keywords: RestitutionVictim CompensationVictims of Crime |
Author: Martin, Karin D. Title: Shackled to Debt: Criminal Justice Financial Obligations and the Barriers to Re-entry They Create Summary: The authors discuss the long-term and unintended consequences of criminal justice financial obligations (CJFOs): fines, forfeiture of property, court fees, supervision fees, and restitution. The authors find that CJFOs are imposed at multiple stages of justice involvement, generating complexities that are difficult to navigate for both individuals and system actors alike. Additionally, financial sanctions are usually imposed without regard for individuals' ability to pay, and yet failure to pay can trigger additional monetary and criminal sanctions. This means that relatively minor initial infractions can result in large debt accrual and escalating involvement in criminal justice systems. Current systems of criminal justice financial obligations can also generate perverse incentives for justice-involved individuals - who may forego pursuing long-term sustainability in favor of being able to pay off their criminal justice debt quickly – and for system actors. Probation and parole officers, for example, may find that their ability to foster trust and positive behavior change in the lives of those they supervise is compromised by the role of debt collector. Consequences of criminal justice debt can undermine post-incarceration re-entry goals such as finding stable housing, transportation and employment. Failure to achieve these goals is costly not only for justice-involved individuals, but also in terms of public safety outcomes. To address the complexity, perverse incentives, and individual and social costs of CJFOs, the report presents recommendations in seven areas: (1) Factor in ability to pay when assessing CJFOs; (2) Eliminate “poverty penalties” (e.g. interest, application fees for payment plans, late fees, incarceration for failure to meet payments); (3) Implement alternatives to monetary sanctions where appropriate (i.e. community service); (4) Provide amnesty for people currently in debt due to CJFOs; (5) Deposit any CJFOs that are collected into a trust fund for the express purpose of rehabilitation for people under supervision; (6) Establish an independent commission in each jurisdiction to evaluate the consequences of CJFOs; and (7) Relieve probation, parole, and police officers of the responsibility of collecting debt. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, 2017. Source: Internet Resource: New Thinking in Community Corrections, no. 4: Accessed February 15, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249976.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249976.pdf Shelf Number: 140932 Keywords: Asset ForfeitureCourt FeesCriminal DebtCriminal Justice FinesFinancial SanctionsMonetary SanctionsPovertyPrisoner ReentryRestitution |
Author: Beckett, Katherine Title: The Assessment and Consequences of Legal Financial Obligations in Washington State: Research Report Summary: This study explores the assessment and consequences of Legal Financial Obligations (LFOs) in Washington State. For the purposes of this study, LFOs include the fees, fines and restitution orders assessed by judges at the time of criminal conviction. Persons assessed LFOs for offenses committed after July 1, 2000 may remain under the court's jurisdiction "until the [financial] obligation is completely satisfied, regardless of the statutory maximum for the crime." It is important to note that other financial obligations may result from an arrest and/or criminal conviction, including jail booking and operations fees, Department of Corrections fees, and collection fees. This report focuses solely on the LFOs assessed by Washington State Superior Courts, and addresses three main research topics. Part I describes the nature of the fees and fines typically assessed, and identifies the case, defendant, and county-level factors that predict variation in the assessment of LFOs. Part II assesses how LFOs affect the lives of those who possess them, and, in particular, how legal debt affects the re-entry process. The concluding section considers whether the assessment of LFOs is consistent with legislative intent and other important policy goals, including the promotion of reintegration and the reduction of recidivism. The study draws primarily on two main data sources to address these topics. First, data pertaining to 3,366 Washington State Superior Court cases sentenced in the first two months of 2004 were analyzed to quantitatively assess the nature of the LFOs imposed by the courts. Insofar as these records include all Washington State Superior Court cases sentenced in this time period, the results of the quantitative analysis pertain to the state as a whole. The study also draws upon interviews with fifty Washington State residents who were assessed LFOs in at least one of four selected Washington State counties, as well as interviews with Department of Corrections (DOC) personnel, county clerks, defense attorneys, and others with particular expertise regarding LFOs. These interviews provide important information about collection processes and the consequences of LFOs for the reintegration process. However, because these interviews were conducted in four counties, the results may not capture dynamics across the state as a whole. The results of the study indicate that the assessment of LFOs is characterized by a high degree of variability that cannot be attributed solely to the seriousness of the offense or the offender. The dollar value of assessed fees and fines varies a great deal, from a low of $500 to a high of $21,110 per felony conviction. If restitution is included, the maximum LFO assessed for a single felony conviction was $256,257. A very small percentage of these debts had been collected three years post-sentencing. As a result of high rates of non-payment and the accrual of interest, the legal debt of most of those sentenced in 2004 had grown rather than shrunk by 2007. The analysis of court records also indicates that defendant, case and county characteristics significantly influence LFO assessment even after the seriousness of the offense and offender are taken into account. Specifically, convictions involving Hispanic defendants are associated with significantly higher fees and fines than those involving white defendants, even after controlling for relevant legal factors. Drug convictions are associated with significantly higher fees and fines than convictions involving violent offense charges. Convictions that result from a trial rather than a guilty plea are also associated with significantly higher fees and fines. Finally, cases involving male defendants are assessed higher fees and fines than cases involving female defendants. The assessment of LFOs also varies by jurisdiction. That is, even among cases involving identical charges and defendants with similar offense histories, there is significant county-level variation in the assessment of fees and fines. Counties characterized by smaller populations, higher drug arrest and violent crime rates, and/or comparatively small proportions of their budgets devoted to law and justice assess significantly higher fees and fines. The evidence thus indicates that defendants with similar criminal histories and charges may accrue very different amounts of legal debt depending upon where they are convicted. In addition, the interview and survey data indicate that LFOs are an important barrier to the reintegration process. Like people living with a criminal conviction across the United States, many of those interviewed for this study reported living on quite limited incomes; over half of those interviewed have incomes that fall under federal poverty guidelines. Most of those interviewed were also parents and were financially supporting minor children at the time of the interview. As a result, many fell behind on their LFOs, which continued to grow as the result of the accrual of interest. Their legal debt not only potentially limits their income, but their credit ratings as well, which in turn limits their ability to secure stable housing. Some respondents also reported that the threat of lost wages and garnishment created an incentive for them to avoid work. Given evidence that employment, adequate income and stable housing reduce recidivism among persons with criminal histories, it is quite possible that by reducing income and employment, and rendering the search for stable housing more difficult, LFOs encourage repeat offending. The long term nature of the legal debt also prevents many with LFOs from applying to have their criminal record sealed, which in turn perpetuates their economic disadvantage. Some respondents were so overwhelmed by their legal debt that they ceased making payments altogether. In some of these cases, warrants were issued for failure to pay. The issuance of an arrest warrant has many adverse consequences. Persons with warrants stemming from violation of a felony sentence are considered "fleeing felons", and thus are ineligible for federal benefits including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Social Security Insurance (SSI), public or federally assisted housing, and food stamps. In addition, respondents in two of the four counties in which interviews were conducted reported being arrested and re-incarcerated as a result of their failure to make regular LFO payments. The threat of criminal justice intervention created an incentive for those who had not made regular LFO payments to hide from the authorities, but nonetheless made it difficult for those same persons to disentangle themselves from the criminal justice system. In short, the interview findings suggest that LFOs exacerbate the many difficulties associated with the re-entry process. Even without legal debt, research indicates that people living with a criminal conviction have a difficult time securing stable housing and employment as a result of their criminal record. Our interview data indicate that LFOs added to these difficulties by: reducing income and worsening credit ratings, both of which make it more difficult to secure stable housing; hindering efforts to obtain employment, education and occupational training; reducing eligibility for federal benefits; creating incentives to avoid work and/or hide from the authorities; ensnaring some in the criminal justice system; and making it more difficult to secure a certificate of discharge, which in turn prevents people from restoring their civil rights and applying to seal one's criminal record. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Minority and Justice Commission, 2008. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2018 at: http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2009/05/study_LFOimpact.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2009/05/study_LFOimpact.pdf Shelf Number: 149656 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCourt CostsCriminal DebtFees and FinesRestitution |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Title: Modern-Day Debtors' Prisons: The Ways Courts-Imposed Debts Punish People for Being Poor Summary: Persons charged with and convicted of crimes are overwhelmingly poor. According to the Washington Office of Public Defense, 80-90% of people charged with felonies are found to be indigent by the courts. The majority of people who are incarcerated lack a high school diploma, have below-average literacy levels, and have few job opportunities. So it is not surprising that up to 60 percent of former inmates remain unemployed one year after release from prison. Without adequate education and employment, persons with criminal convictions often struggle to pay for even the most basic of necessities - food, rent, utilities, childcare, and transportation. In Washington state, these individuals may be pushed deeper into poverty by court-imposed debt. For people with criminal convictions, government practices should seek to increase the likelihood of their successfully re-entering the community. Yet court-imposed debt presents a major barrier. Nearly every person convicted in a Washington court receives a bill for Legal Financial Obligations at sentencing. Known more commonly as LFOs, these include the fees, fines, costs, and restitution imposed by the court on top of a criminal sentence. The average amount of LFOs imposed in a felony case is $2540. After imposition, LFOs increase rapidly due to a high interest rate and other ongoing costs. Those who cannot afford to pay often face a demoralizing cycle of court hearings, contempt charges, and arrest warrants. The result of imposing excessive LFOs is a counterproductive system that punishes people for their poverty and harms lives yet brings little benefit to government or society. Washington's policies for imposing and collecting LFOs even result in some poor people being locked up in jail because they cannot afford to pay debts - a modern version of the despised debtors' prison. Regardless of the rationale behind imposing LFOs on persons convicted of crimes, in practice this system places severe, long-lasting burdens on persons living in poverty. Furthermore, there are few checks and balances in place to protect indigent defendants and debtors from unfair collection and enforcement practices that fail to take into account an individual's current financial situation, as required by law. Under these circumstances, no one wins. Impoverished persons suffer because LFOs keep them tied to the criminal justice system, often obstructing housing and employment opportunities and preventing them from rebuilding their lives. Children may be separated from their mothers and fathers who are jailed for nonpayment, and households break up. The public does not benefit, as there are significant costs incurred in collecting and sanctioning persons who are too poor to pay LFOs. And incarcerating indigent defendants neither deters crime nor serves a rehabilitative purpose. The funds used to jail people for non-payment would be better used on alternatives to incarceration, community outreach and education, and antipoverty efforts. Details: Seattle, Washington: American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, 2014. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2019 at: http://www.columbialegal.org/sites/default/files/ModernDayDebtorsPrison.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.columbialegal.org/modern-day-debtors%E2%80%99-prisons-ways-court-imposed-debts-punish-people-being-poor Shelf Number: 155142 Keywords: Court Imposed Debt Debtor Prison Debts Fees Fines Indigent Legal Financial Obligation Restitution |