FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLECTION OF COURT ORDERED FINES AND FEES:
An Analysis of Options
AN ACTION REPORT SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF THE COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
REUBIN O’D. ASKEW SCHOOL
OF
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY
BY
RADU DODEA
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
APRIL 2004
Radu H. Dodea 1809 Meriadoc Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303 (954) 608-0909 C
April 8, 2004 James E. King Senate President, State of Florida Suite 409, The Capitol 404 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dear Senate President King: It is my honor to submit to you “The Collection of Court Ordered Fines and Fees: An Analysis of Options.” This report is the product of extensive research and policy analysis over the fall months of 2003-2004. In consideration of the concern over funding of the clerks of the court with collected court fines and fees, this Action Report provides an analysis of collection mechanisms and a policy recommendation. After examining several alternative policies, my recommendation is that Florida should encourage clerks of the court to establish in-house collection programs that best fit their needs. This policy is recommended based on the use of three evaluative criteria: transferability, additional employees and effectiveness. In-house collection programs scored the highest out of all. Additional employees and effectiveness scored highest since clerks of the court modify their current collection program to meet the needs of the jurisdiction. Transferability scored in the middle range since the needs of one jurisdiction are different from another’s. This recommendation has the potential of increasing the collection of court ordered fines and fees, therefore funding the clerks of the court and their operations. Florida needs to collect on outstanding court ordered fines and fees in order to prevent the State from paying out additional monies to fund the court system. Increased participation from all branches of state government will save the state and its citizen additional monies in the long run. Respectfully, Radu Dodea
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL II
LIST OF TABLES IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V
Chapter
I. PROBLEM STATEMENT 1
II. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW 3
Background 3 Literature Review 8
III. METHODOLOGY AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 12
Methodology 12 Evaluation Criteria 13 IV. MANAGEMENT POLICY OPTIONS 14
In-House Collection Programs 14 Collection Courts 18 Private Collection Agencies 21
V. CONCLUSIONS 24
REFERENCES 27
ABOUT THE AUTHOR 29
III
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Summary of Alternatives and Evaluative Criteria 24
IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recent amendments to the Florida Constitution have raised concerns over the
funding of the clerks of the court as well as the Judicial Branch itself. Because of their
dependence on collected court fines and fees, new mechanisms that would improve
collections have been sought to alleviate the state’s burden of having to pay the additional
costs. While steps have been taken to identify the responsibilities of the clerks of the
court as well as judges, measures for collecting court ordered fines and fees have not
been taken.
In the background section, the use of fines as punishment, the Florida Judicial
system, implications of Revision 7 and collection practices are four key components that
are discussed in detail. Current literature addresses the use of fees to fund the court
system, incentives for clerks to collect and judges to assess and determining a defendant’s
ability to pay.
Information for this report was collected using several methods. First, popular
media and academic literature were analyzed to provide background information and
insight into current collection practices. Second, applicable laws and standards were
reviewed to determine the limitations on collection practices. Third, structured personal
interviews with clerks of the court in various circuit and county courts, judges, the
Florida Legislature’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability
and Auditor General were conducted to discuss the transferability of these programs,
additional personnel necessary to operate and effectiveness.
This report presents three policy options for increasing the collection of court
fines and fees: In-House Collection Programs, Collection Courts and Private Collection
V
Agencies. Each option is evaluated against three criteria: transferability, additional
employees and effectiveness.
Based on assessment of the various policy alternatives using the three evaluative
criteria, the option of in-house collection programs is recommended. It requires few
additional employees and it is effective at collecting fines and fees, therefore allowing
individual circuits and counties to develop solutions to their own unique problems. The
other two options would require additional employees to operate and would not be as
effective as the recommended option. In-house collection programs are the most realistic
and best capable alternative for addressing the unique necessities of the clerks of the
court in different areas of the state.
VI
I. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Collecting court fines and fees is an integral part of the judicial system. It
provides restitution for victims of crimes and acts as a means of punishment for
individuals that have broken the law. Additionally, collected court fines and fees are
used to fund the clerks of the court and other court operations in each state. According to
the United States Attorneys’ Office (USAO), the balance of outstanding federal criminal
debt has grown from $260 million in 1985, to over $13 billion (United States Attorneys’
Office, 2001). Clerks that operate in circuit and county courts depend on these fines and
fees for their operations. Each state, under their state constitution, establishes different
funding formulas for the clerks of the court. Some states have required local and county
governments to share the burden of funding clerks of the court and other court operations
in case revenues fall short, while other states are solely responsible.
The Florida judicial system is highly decentralized. This system consists of 20
judicial districts and 67 county systems that act independently of one another and have
established different collections programs (OPPAGA, 2004). The lack of collections of
court fines and fees in the 67 county programs has required counties to allocate more
funds to the courts (Constitutional Revision Commission, 1998). Due to increased
operations costs, Revision 7 to Article V of the Constitution was approved by Florida
voters in 1998 which designated the state as the primary funding source for the court
system. This revision requires the clerks of the court to establish a collections program in
each county, and to be funded by collected fines, filing fees, and service charges
(Constitutional Revision Commission, 1998). Any costs that are not covered by collected
1
fines, fees, and service charges are to be covered by the state. Currently, a portion of the
collected fines and fees are going to the county governments. The shift in costs to the
state by Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005, would mean an additional expense of
approximately $320 million if no revenue was offset through a transfer of collected fines
and fees currently going to local governments (Legislative Committee on
Intergovernmental Relations, 1998). Furthermore, the Florida Trial Court Budget
Commission was established in December 2000 to review what trial courts are doing in
regards to the assessment and collection of court ordered fines and fees and make
recommendations for the improvement of court collection programs before the July 1,
2004 implementation deadline (Subcommittee on Revenue and Revenue Enhancement
Final Report, 2002).
Under chapter 2000-237, Laws of Florida, clerks are to be funded by fines, fees
and service charges that are collected in each county (Laws of Florida, 2000). Therefore,
both chambers of the Legislature have asked the Auditor General and the Office of
Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) to examine the
different collection programs throughout the state, and determine whether or not these
collected fines and fees will cover all the expenses of the clerks (OPPAGA, 2004).
Furthermore, best practices for the collection of court fines and fees are to be identified
(Auditor General, 2003).
A complete overhaul of the court collections system is needed in order to
determine the best alternative to collecting court ordered fines and fees. The purpose of
this Action Report is to examine alternative options regarding how Florida should deal
with the collection of court fines and fees.
2
II. BACKGROUND & LITERATURE REVIEW Background In order to understand the importance of court fines and fees to the judicial
system, it is necessary to analyze four key areas: (1) the use of fines as a punishment, (2)
the Florida Judicial System, (3) implications of Revision 7 to the Florida Constitution,
and (4) the collection practices of court fines and fees.
Fines as Punishment
First, there are various sanctions that a judge can impose on an individual
convicted of a crime. The fine has been the oldest and most used type of sanction that
judges have imposed (Hillsman et al., 1984). Other sanctions, such as community
service, restitution, probation, jail, and prison, are imposed by trial court judges when the
defendant claims to be indigent. When a fine is imposed, the offender is obligated to pay
the established costs to the court, along with the court costs that are attached for the use
of the court. The Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) (1986) has divided
court costs levied by the court into three categories: fees, miscellaneous charges, and
surcharges. According to COSCA, fees are the amounts charged for the performance of a
particular court service which are disbursed to a governmental entity. These fees are
specified by an authority at a fixed amount (examples of fees are: access to the court or
filing fee, motion fee, answer fee, certificate fee and jury fee). Fees and miscellaneous
charges represent legitimate assessments to offset in part the expense associated with the
increased governmental activities required to provide a forum for the disposition of a
private dispute (COSCA, 1986). For the purposes of this report, service charges, and
3
miscellaneous charges will be classified under fees. Each state has different fines and
fees established by the legislature. Obtaining guidance and support from the courts and
feedback from the public through legislative hearings, the legislature is able to define the
appropriate fines and fees which will enable the clerks of the court to function.
Florida Judicial System
Second, the problem with collecting court fines and fees stems from several
problems. In particular, Florida has a highly decentralized judicial system with no form
of control. Until 1973, Florida was the second highest state with the most trial courts in
the nation (Florida Supreme Court, 2002). Since then, the state has simplified the trial
courts into a simple two-tier court system of circuit courts and county courts. Presently,
there are 67 county courts and twenty circuit courts. The Supreme Court is responsible
for supervising the State Courts System. Circuit courts have jurisdiction over civil
disputes that involve more than $15,000, criminal prosecutions for all felonies, and tax
disputes. County courts, on the other hand, have jurisdiction over civil disputes that
involve less than $15,000 (Florida Supreme Court, 2002). Most of their work includes
citizen disputes, such as traffic offenses, less serious criminal matters, and small
monetary disputes (Florida Supreme Court, 2002). Clerks of the court, established by the
Constitution of 1838, are the public trustees for the county. The Clerk provides the
checks and balances in county government by acting in their capacity as Clerk to the
Board, Clerk to the Court, Keeper of the Public Records, Comptroller and Internal
Auditor of county funds (Florida Association of Court Clerks & Comptroller, 2001).
Article V, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution state the following:
4
Clerks of the circuit courts.--There shall be in each county a clerk of the circuit court who shall be selected pursuant to the provisions of Article VIII section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the constitution, the duties of the clerk of the circuit court may be divided by special or general law between two officers, one serving as clerk of court and one serving as ex officio clerk of the board of county commissioners, auditor, recorder, and custodian of all county funds. There may be a clerk of the county court if authorized by general or special law.
History.--S.J.R. 52-D, 1971; adopted 1972.
As custodian of county funds, the clerk of the Circuit Court maintains all legal and
accounting records related to court activities including collecting, accounting for, and
remitting fines and fees assessed by the court (Auditor General, 1992). Until recently,
clerks of the court were funded by several sources. Collected fines and fees, county
funds, and additional revenues covered the costs of operation. Due to the recent
amendment to the Florida Constitution, clerks of the court must use collected fines and
fees to fund their operations.
Revision 7 Implications
Third, Revision 7 to Article V of the Florida Constitution has several implications
that relate to the emergence of the problem of collecting court fines and fees. Entitled,
Local Options for Selection of Judges and Funding of State Courts, Revision 7 outlines
the responsibility of the state to be solely responsible for funding the state’s court system,
state attorneys’ offices, public defenders’ offices, and court-appointed counsel (Florida
Senate, 1998). Furthermore, the clerks of the circuit and county courts are to be funded
by filing fees and service charges set by law, but, the state is responsible for any
reasonable court-related costs of the clerks not fully funded by such fees and charges
(Florida Senate, 1998). The shift from county-based funding, to state-based funding must
be effective by July 1, 2004. Specifically, Chapter 2003-402, Laws of Florida (2003),
5
specifies that judges are responsible for assessing and enforcing court fines and fees,
while court clerks are responsible for collecting them. Additionally, the law also permits
the clerks to retain two-thirds of the funds they collect to fund their services. The state,
not knowing if clerks can cover all their expenses by collected court fines and fees, has
asked the Auditor General, OPPAGA, and the Office of State Courts Administrator to
investigate the matter. Furthermore, clerks’ court-related functions are redefined, and
include the following: ministerial assistance to pro se litigants; determination of
indigence for each person applying for the appointment of public defender, private
attorney, or for any court-related services based on indigence, which determination may
be reviewed by the court at the next scheduled hearing. Additional responsibilities given
to the clerks require them to reorganize their operations, as well as train and possibly hire
more personnel. Under Revision 7, judges will no longer be permitted to waive filing
fees and other court costs, except where a defendant is found not guilty (Florida Supreme
Court, 2003). The clerks are directed to establish payment programs for defendants or
other court users unable to pay and to pursue recovery of all unpaid fines and fees.
However, the state has not identified best practices that clerks of circuit and county courts
can implement to increase the current collection rates. According to the National Center
for State Courts (NCSC) (2002), effective practices in statewide collection programs take
the form of support and coordination of local collections. Additionally, enforcement
tools, available for clerks to use in the collection process must also be identified.
Collection Practices
Fourth, collecting court fines and fees is a national issue that plagued the judicial
system for many years (United States General Accounting Office, 2001). In Florida, as
6
well as throughout the country, clerks have been allowed to experiment with different
collection programs. All of these programs fall under one of the general categories that
the Auditor General (2003) has identified: collection courts, private collection agencies,
or other in-house collection programs.
There are many types of collection courts that are established. These courts hold
defendants accountable to the court. If the defendant fails to pay the fines and fees, he or
she must appear before a judge to explain why or risk going to jail (OPPAGA, 2004).
Judges are the final authority in deciding punishment of persons who default on fine and
fee payments (Auditor General, 1992). Besides incarceration, the judge can place a lien
on the person’s real or personal property, suspend drivers’ licenses and garnish wages.
Private collection agencies are seldom used as an alternative to collecting court
fines and fees. Clerks utilize their services as a last resort to collecting any amount that is
due. Clerks have not had to pay for private collection agency services because under
statute 938.35, Florida Statutes, the agency was authorized to add a fee of up to 40% of
the total fine and fee amount (OPPAGA, 2004).
Other in-house collection practices refer to a broad category of collection
techniques established by the clerks of the court in each county or circuit. Collection
programs that fall under this category use hybrid techniques, often building on existing
programs to accommodate their needs. Other successful collection programs identified
by the Florida Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) (2001) include the
Colorado Collections Investigator program, the New Jersey Comprehensive Enforcement
Program, Miami-Dade County Court Executive Development Program (CEDP), and
Mesa, Arizona’s county collection program. Successful elements of an alternative in-
7
house program, identified by OSCA include the following: commitment to the collection
of fines and fees, quick collection of fines and fees, as well as the establishment of
limited time frames for collecting assessments, establishment of internal controls and
adequate documentation of collections, and the development of effective sanctions for
noncompliance.
The lack of collecting court fines and fees denies revenues to a jurisdiction and,
more important, calls into question the authority and efficacy of the court and the justice
system (Matthias, et al., 1995). Revision 7 to the Florida Constitution redefines the roles
of the clerks of the court, as well as judges, and delineates their responsibilities. In
summary, the use of a fine as a punishment, the reorganization of the Florida judicial
system, the availability of different collection practices, along with the appropriate
collection efforts by the clerks of the court will define an effective and efficient
collections program.
Literature Review
After reviewing the relevant literature, it is apparent that there is a lack of
academic work in this area. However, three themes are addressed in the available
literature: (1) the use of fees to fund the court system, (2) incentives for clerks to collect
and judges to assess, (3) and determining a defendant’s ability to pay.
The first theme discusses the use of collected court fees to fund the court system.
Florida Statutes authorizes judges in circuit, county, and traffic courts to assess various
fines and fees to person’s convicted of a crime. Furthermore, fines are assessed as a
penalty for violating the law, while fees recover a portion of the costs. The amount of
8
fees assessed varies from court to court and depends on the offense (Auditor General,
1992). COSCA (1986) advises that fees and miscellaneous charges should not preclude
access to the courts and should not be an alternate form of taxation. The competing
interests of the need for governmental revenues must be carefully counterbalanced with
the public’s access to the courts. By increasing the financial burden of using the courts,
excessive fees or miscellaneous charges tend to exclude citizens who have neither the
monetary resources available to the wealthy, nor the governmental subsidies and
legislative enactments providing waiver of fees to the poor (COSCA, 1986). However,
setting up a collections program often requires the hiring of additional staff and
equipment which will increase the costs of operation (OSCA, 2001). OSCA also pointed
out that new and creative methods using fees and miscellaneous charges have been
developed to offset the severe financial problems that some entities have experienced.
The reliance on revenues from collected fees rather than through normal appropriation
processes places the judiciary in a difficult position. On one side, receiving the assistance
necessary to provide essential judicial services, while on the other, assuring the citizenry
of access to the courts (COSCA, 1986). These competing views describe the dilemma of
having the state taking over the funding of the clerks of the court. Specifically, requiring
clerks of the court to set-up a collection system in each court will likely increase
collections; however, increased operating costs will obligate the state to increase fees.
The second theme discusses the role of incentives in assessing and collecting
court fines and fees. Clerks of the court are authorized to retain two-thirds of the funds
they collect to cover their operating costs (Florida Association of Court Clerks (FACC),
1999). Judges, on the other hand, are not given any incentives when they assess
9
additional fines and fees, rather, clerks are required to record deviations from the
maximum amount in a range of fines as waivers (OPPAGA, 2004). This will lead to
tensions between the two sides. An important aspect of a successful collection program
requires the collaboration between the court and clerks of the court (Montanaro, 2001).
Establishing competing interests between the two parties that are responsible for
assessing and collecting court fines and fees will lead to ineffectiveness and inefficiency
in the long run.
The last theme discusses a defendant’s ability to pay. The Florida Constitution
prohibits imprisonment for unpaid debt, therefore a collection system that recognizes a
defendant’s ability to pay is essential (OPPAGA, 2004). However, the clerk’s level of
service generally depends, in large part, on available financial resources (FACC, 1999).
Developing a collections program that is able to identify an offender’s ability to pay will
require additional staff and equipment (OSCA, 2001). OPPAGA (2004) further analyzed
this topic by comparing it with the high collection rates in traffic courts. Specifically,
criminal defendants often have limited financial resources, whereas traffic offenders have
the ability to pay his or her fines and fees because they are employed or have the chance
to become employed, thereby increasing their ability to pay (OPPAGA, 2004). Florida
Statutes authorize judges to assess fines and fees against defendants who are found guilty.
However, judges assert that assessing fines and fees against defendants who clearly
cannot pay results in misleading data about the potential revenues that could be collected
and consumes both the court’s and clerk’s time without financial benefit (OPPAGA,
2004). This theme describes the necessity of a system that can define an offender’s
ability to pay without infringing on his or her rights to equal access of the courts.
10
However, clerks are required to keep track of fees waived by judges, which in turn could
have negative impacts on their courts.
In summary, the three major themes of the literature concerning the topic of
collecting court fines and fees involve the dispute among legislative analysts, clerks of
the court and judges. Their differences are in regards to whether collected fees should be
used to fund the clerks of the court, lack of fairness and equality when it comes to
incentives for both sides, as well as viable ways to determine a defendant’s ability to pay
without infringing on the rights of others. This action report is intended to contribute to
the current literature by providing a clear analysis and evaluation of available policy
options to address the issue of collecting court fines and fees.
11
III. METHODOLOGY & EVALUATION CRITERIA
Methodology Information for this report was collected using the following methods:
! Analysis of academic literature utilizing library databases including Web Luis 1990-to date, Lexis Nexis 1997-to date, and Academic Index and Full text 1980 to date, as well as popular media;
! Review of both federal and state legislation, revision 7 to the Florida
Constitution, and publications produced by the Florida Auditor General, Florida Office of Courts Administrator, Florida Association of Court Clerks, and OPPAGA;
! Structured personal interviews (n=nine) with clerks of the court in various
circuit and county courts, judges, OPPAGA and the Auditor General. These individuals were sought because they represent the judicial and legislative parts of government.
Much of the research gathered comes from academic literature, professional
legislative oversight agencies, and popular media. Professional analysis conducted by the
legislative oversight agencies provided further insight into the background and scope of
the problem. Reviewing the state and federal legislation surrounding the issue is also
necessary in order to evaluate what strides have been made and the shortfalls that still
exist. Revision 7 to the Florida Constitution clarified the responsibilities of the state and
other parties involved.
Interviews of people associated with different levels of government are essential
to understanding the different viewpoints regarding the matter. Clerks of the court and
judges have different viewpoints and alternatives that must be considered. Additional
interviews conducted with staff from the legislative oversight agencies are also important
because the supplementary work they carry out depicts another perspective of the
12
situation. These structured interviews are expected to last approximately one hour. The
interviewees will be contacted for follow up communications and clarifications when
necessary.
Evaluation Criteria
Three criteria will be evaluated in a decision matrix with a ranking scale ranging
from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). The scores will be evaluated by the following criteria:
# Transferability measures the likelihood of each alternative being duplicated in another county. Transferring the success of one program to another circuit or county saves the state additional time and monies that would be spent on figuring out a solution. These data will be obtained from structured interviews with the Auditor General and clerks, as well as academic literature.
# Additional employees measures the extent to which the different
circuit and county courts can provide the human resources and employee support necessary for the implementation of the alternative. These data will be obtained from interviews with clerks, as well as academic literature.
# Effectiveness measures the probability of each alternative increasing
the amount of collected fines and fees. These data will be obtained from interviews and academic literature.
These criteria were selected to best measure each policy option. Other criteria such as
political desirability, public support, and best practices were also considered. However,
due to inadequate data sources these criteria could not be included in this report.
Due to the short time frame, a small, representative sample is examined. By
reviewing all counties and circuits, as opposed to just a selected few, one could gain a
better understanding of the scope, as well as a more statistically significant assessment of
the necessities of each. An additional limitation is the lack of accurate cost information.
13
However, the selected clerks of the court and judges will represent small and large
counties and circuits.
14
IV. MANAGEMENT POLICY OPTIONS
Section IV explains three of the most promising alternatives to the collection of
court fines and fees: in-house collection programs, collection courts and private
collection agencies. Each alternative is evaluated using the three previously defined
criteria: salaries, additional employees and effectiveness. Other policy alternatives (such
as contracting out with the Department of Revenue and allowing the Department of
Children and Families to collect from offenders on parole) were considered. However,
the options mentioned above were chosen because they will assist the state and the
judicial branch to determine the most effective and efficient method.
Option One: In-house Collection Programs As fines and fees become an important part of funding the operations of the clerks
of the court, new and innovative techniques are being designed to increase collections.
There are 67 county and 20 circuit courts in Florida. Each court maintains its autonomy
in regards to choosing the type of collection system desired. This option proposes that
individual courts develop and tailor their collection system according to their needs.
Examples of such initiatives are the Dallas County Financial Management Counseling
Project, Mesa Municipal Court Executive Development Program, Colorado Investigators
Program and New Jersey’s Comprehensive Enforcement Program. Some of the
collection systems take an in-house approach, while others use innovative techniques to
collect court fines and fees.
15
Transferability: It makes sense that when an in-house collection mechanism works in
one place, then that program should be duplicated in another. However, duplicating the
success in another circuit or county depends on several factors such as size and
demographics. In-house collection mechanisms can be duplicated in other circuit or
counties if the populations that are served are similar (D. Brock, personal
communication, December, 2, 2003). For example, if a large, urban county such as
Miami-Dade develops a successful program then that program will have the highest
chances of success in counties such as Broward, Palm Beach and Orange. In addition,
clerks also prefer this alternative since it allows them to develop their own mechanism
using the available resources (J. Stott, personal communication, March, 15, 2004).
The research suggests that in-house collections programs can be duplicated in
other circuits or counties (State Justice Institute, 2002). The Dallas County Financial
Management Counseling Pilot Project that began in 1993 has now been duplicated in
other circuits, counties as well as other states. Other programs, such as the New Jersey
Comprehensive Enforcement Program (CEP) has been transferred to all circuits and
courts throughout New Jersey (New Jersey State Courts, 1999). Therefore, this option
scores in the high range for transferability.
Additional Employees: It is difficult to assess how many additional employees would be
needed for a specific program. However, interviews suggest that the size of the county or
circuit play an important role. In-house programs take a proactive approach to collecting
court fines and fees, and are focused on maximizing collections. Since the program is
different in each jurisdiction, determining how many additional employees are needed is
an important part of developing the program (H. Allen, personal communication,
16
December 2, 2003). Furthermore, it must be noted that the most prevalent type of
infractions in the jurisdiction also play an important role. Data shows that a majority of
traffic fines and fees are paid at the due date, thus requiring fewer employees to manage
the program (J. Dew, personal communication, September 25, 2003). But traffic fines
and fees are only a portion of the overall collections. Fines and fees for other crimes,
such as misdemeanor and felony, an in-house collection mechanism will require
additional employees that can track delinquent offenders (S. Schaefer, personal
communication, October 1, 2003). One thing certain is that the number of additional
employees needed varies in each program.
From the perspective of the clerks of the court, this option would also yield a high
return in the investment. Paying for the additional employees will lead to long-term
benefits. In addition, having extra employees will allow the clerks to pursue other means
of collections. Take for instance Mesa Municipal Court Development Program, where
clerks of the court were able to automate their processes, and hire additional staff to
identify delinquents (Montanaro, 2001). Furthermore, these employees were able to
generate the warrants for arrest in misdemeanor cases, improving the overall accuracy
and timeliness of collections. In the case of Mesa Municipal Court, there were five
additional employees needed. The Dallas County Financial Management Counseling
Program required the hiring of a financial management counselor that could evaluate an
offender’s financial situation and work directly or indirectly with his/her personal
creditors to delay or reduce monthly payments while the offender participated in the
program (State Justice Institute, 2002). As such, option one can effectively manage itself
17
with none or few additional employees, and therefore receives a high ranking in this
criterion.
Effectiveness: Option one has the potential to increase collections in struggling circuit
and county courts. According to D. Isabelle (personal communication, March 16, 2004)
and H. Allen (personal communication, December 2, 2003), an in-house collection
program will definitely increase collections. Since each one is different from the rest, the
increase in collections depends on how much research is put into the development stage
before it is implemented (D. Isabelle, personal communication, March 16, 2004).
Furthermore, this alternative has the potential to increase collections because it will serve
the needs of the users. Designing a mechanism that will allow partial payment plans,
credit card and online payments, as well as other innovative techniques will definitely
please offenders (H. Allen, personal communication, December 2, 2003).
The literature strongly indicated that getting feedback from users, as well as
clerks and judges is very important. The highly effective collections program in New
Jersey uses only 25% of collected fines and fees to operate (New Jersey State Courts,
1999). Other circuits and counties also show a significant increase in collections after the
implementation of the in-house collection programs. Since this option has the highest
potential for increasing collections, it is given a high ranking in effectiveness.
In summary, in-house collection programs score high for transferability. Because
each program is designed to meet the needs of the users in a particular jurisdiction, it can
be entirely duplicated somewhere else as long as the population and demographics are
similar. In regards to additional employees, in-house collection programs score high.
Due to innovative techniques for collecting court ordered fines and fees, it is not
18
necessary to hire additional staff. In-house collection programs score very high when it
comes to effectiveness. . Therefore, in-house collection programs are given an overall
score of high.
Option Two: Collection Courts Summoning delinquent offenders to appear before a judge or an appointed master
shows promise in collecting court fines and fees (J. Stott, personal communication,
March 15, 2004). This alternative proposes that clerks would be best served if a court
would be implemented to increase collections. There are several components necessary
for the operation of a collection court. Either a judge or another appointed master is
necessary to make the final ruling. In addition, extra personnel that could handle the
paperwork are also needed. Finally, a location where trials could be held is also needed.
If space allows, the court will be most effective if it were held within the courthouse (D.
Brock, personal communication, December, 2, 2003).
Transferability: Like the previously mentioned alternative, collection courts rely upon
the population that is served (H. Allen, personal communication, December 2, 2003).
Furthermore, misdemeanor or other criminal acts are the most likely crimes. Transferring
a collection court to another circuit or county requires the same financial commitment. In
addition, the collection court relies upon the support of judges and other personnel
involved. J. Stott (personal communication, March 15, 2004) and H. Allen (personal
communication, December 2, 2003) have mentioned that it is highly unlikely for this
collection mechanism to be duplicated in other circuits or counties. The main reason for
not transferring a collection court, such as the one in Palm Beach County, which has been
19
successfully operating for several years, is the high cost of operation (D. Brock, personal
communication, December, 2, 2003). In short, transferring a collection court ranks in the
low range for transferability.
Additional Employees: Initiating a collection court would create a burden for clerks in
circuit and county courts. It would create the need for additional personnel who would be
responsible for carrying out the collaborative task of tracking delinquent offenders and
summoning them to court. This option also requires the presence of a judge or another
appointed official that can conduct the hearings. In most cases, a judge, two clerks, and
an officer would be required for setup (J. Stott, personal communication, March 15,
2004). Taking staff away from their current responsibilities and training them for
collection court is not viable, since the cost savings are minimal. The creation of
additional funds to offset the implementation costs of a collections court would also be
difficult to access, since the state does not wish to pay additional moneys for collection
mechanisms. Furthermore, the funds would need to be obtained for several years until
the collection court can sustain itself.
From the perspective of clerks, collection courts could have minimal influence on
offenders that are incarcerated. As mentioned earlier, a majority of offenders have
committed misdemeanor or felony crimes, to which they are either incarcerated or have
not been arrested yet. In addition, hiring additional employees to track down offenders
could hurt victims that await compensation or restitution for the suffering of the crime
(Montanaro, 2001). As such, option two is given a medium ranking in additional
employees.
20
Effectiveness: Ignoring the additional revenues that can be collected from delinquent
offenders could hurt the state and the judicial system in the long run. Going back to the
collection techniques that were used in early courts is an effective method of collecting
fines and fees. Collection courts have the potential to be highly effective because
summoning delinquent offenders to appear before a judge intimidates them as well as lets
them know of the importance of paying fines and fees (J. Dwyer, personal
communication, March 16, 2004). Not only would this option increase collection rates
for clerks, but the impact of the court could have a lasting effect on the offender not to
commit another crime (S. Schaefer, personal communication, October 1, 2003).
The literature and interviews have all indicated that collection courts would be
highly effective in increasing the amount of collections in circuit and county courts.
However, several counties with fewer resources are concerned that the costs would
exceed the amount of revenue that would be generated (OPPAGA, 2004). But these costs
can be covered by the additional revenues that are collected. As such, collection courts
score high when it comes to effectiveness.
In summary, Option Two was given a low score for transferability, a moderate
score for additional employees, and a high ranking for effectiveness. Collection courts
would definitely increase collections; however, the high costs of hiring additional
employees, and the inability to transfer it to another circuit or county, make it a less
viable option. Therefore, it is given an overall ranking of moderate.
Option Three: Private Collection Agencies
21
The recent drive to privatize many government functions has reached the judicial
branch as well. Private collection agencies have been used in several circuits and
counties to collect outstanding fines and fees (OPPAGA, 2004). In order to cover their
costs of operation, the Legislature has given private collection agencies the authority to
add a fee of up to 40% of the total fine and fee amount (Laws of Florida, 2003).
Collection agencies claim that many clerks lack the background, expertise and staff
necessary to increase their collection efforts. However, due to their limited capabilities,
these agencies will face the same problems other collection mechanisms have. An
example of a private collection agency is ALIANT, which claims that they can increase
collections in any jurisdiction. In addition, the firm also asserts that if they can charge an
additional 40%, then clerks will receive additional monies that they would otherwise not
collect.
Transferability: This option is different from the other two in regards to transferability.
Since clerks are not required to do any work, private collection agencies can be
transferred to any circuit or county (D. Isabelle, personal communication, March 16,
2004). These agencies have innovative and effective techniques that they have used for
many years; however, they only collect outstanding traffic fines and fees (J. Dwyer,
personal communication, March 16, 2004). But the real problem extends beyond the
collection of outstanding traffic fines and fees. Many counties are already collecting
traffic fines and fees; therefore it would not be reasonable to duplicate the work by
having private collection agencies try to collect. In addition, by having a private
collection agency charge the additional 40% on top of the fines and fees issued by the
court, will increase the number of delinquents (J. Stott, personal communication, March
22
15, 2004). Transferring such a collection mechanism could increase collections in
outstanding traffic fines and fees, but that will not solve the overall collection problem.
The literature provides additional findings. ALLIANT works with existing court
case management systems in order to increase collections. User-defined strategies are
then implemented to address the unique challenges and opportunities of the collection
process within each court environment (R. Dolan, personal communication, March 17,
2004). However, collection agencies focus on traffic fines and fees. Thus their ability to
work with any existing collection mechanism and provide innovative solutions to
collections, but only collect on traffic fines and fees, gives it a moderate score in
transferability.
Additional Employees: This option does not require any additional employees on behalf
of the courts. The private collection agencies will have to decide if their personnel can
handle the work or if additional training is needed (J. Dew, personal communication,
September 25, 2003). Furthermore, the additional 40% authorized by Florida Statutes
allows them to cover their costs. However, if the agency decides to collect outstanding
fines and fees outside traffic related cases, then they will need to hire or train personnel
(D. Brock, personal communication, December, 2, 2003). Therefore, Option Three
scores high in regards to additional employees because clerks of the court will not be
affected by private collection agencies.
Effectiveness: As mentioned above, the effectiveness of Option Three depends on the
type of outstanding criminal debt that will be collected. In regards to traffic offenses,
private agencies can refer offenders’ outstanding fines and fees to their credit rating. In
addition, they can notify the Department of Transportation, which can suspend their
23
driver’s license. Traffic offenders that fail to pay their outstanding fines and fees are
easier to collect from, because they worry about their credit rating as well as need a
driver license to operate a vehicle (OPPAGA, 2004). If the private agency collects on
outstanding traffic fines and fees, there is high potential for increasing collections (J.
Dwyer, personal communication, March 16, 2004). However, if the agency attempts to
collect outstanding misdemeanor or felony fines and fees, then it will face challenges that
are beyond their control. Offenders that are charged with a misdemeanor or a felony, and
fail to pay their fines and fees, will most likely face prison or jail sentences. Therefore,
attempting to collect from an offender that is incarcerated is impossible (C. Francis,
personal communication, January, 19, 2004). As such, Option Three can be highly
effective at collecting outstanding traffic fines and fees, however, since it has a low
potential of collecting outstanding misdemeanor or felony fines and fees, it scores in the
middle range.
In summary, Option Three scores in the middle range in regards to transferability.
A private collection agency is highly adaptable to current collection mechanisms;
however, it lacks expertise in collecting outstanding misdemeanor and felony criminal
debt. In regards to additional employees, clerks of the court are not affected by
additional spending private agencies must make for adjustment; therefore, they receive a
high score. The effectiveness of private collection agencies depends upon the types of
outstanding criminal debt they pursue, thus giving them a moderate score.
24
V. CONCLUSIONS
This report presented three policy options that seek to improve the collection of
court ordered fines and fess. Each was assessed using the criteria of transferability,
additional employees and effectiveness. Table 1 summarizes the results.
Table 1 –Summary of Alternatives and Evaluative Criteria
Criteria
Options Transferability Additional Employees Effectiveness SCORES
In-House Collection Programs
5 5 5 15
Collection Courts
1 3 5 9
Private Collection Agencies
3 5 2 10
All three alternatives are viable options in addressing the collection of court
ordered fines and fees. However, one option scored the highest in all three categories
combined. The alternative that rated the highest is the option that Florida should focus on
as far as future policy development.
An in-house collection program is the strongest option. This is due to the fact that
clerks of the court are given the opportunity to tailor the collection program according to
their needs. In addition, clerks prefer this alternative because it gives them long-term
benefits at minimal costs. It scores in the middle range for transferability because it is
highly unlikely that the same exact program can be duplicated elsewhere. However, in
regards to additional employees and effectiveness, it scores high in both fields. In-house
25
collection programs are able to operate with few additional employees. Furthermore, the
long-term effectiveness of the program is guaranteed, since the likelihood of the
population to change is minimal.
The second option, collection courts, scored the least total points. One reason is
that courts have a low probability of being successfully transferred to another circuit or
county. Each county differs in size and population, therefore, it is hard to transfer the
collection court to another jurisdiction and expect the same results. In addition, this
option also fares moderately when it comes to additional employees. Requiring a judge
or another appointed official to operate the collection court is expensive. However,
option two scores high in regards to effectiveness. The presence of a judge or an
appointed official which has the ability to incarcerate a delinquent offender at the time of
the hearing has significant impact on collections.
The third option, private collection agencies, was more viable than private
collection agencies, but less viable than in-house collection programs. One reason for
this is that private agencies score very high in regards to additional employees. Since a
collection agency is already established and has personnel ready to handle the work, then
the circuit or county will not have to invest any additional monies in personnel.
However, the drawback of having a private agency coming in and taking over collections
is that they only collect outstanding traffic fines and fees, which the clerks do a good job
at the present time. In addition, clerks also rated moderately in regards to effectiveness.
Having no background in the collection of outstanding misdemeanor and felony fines and
fees, it will be hard to determine if their current success rate in traffic fines and fees
would spill over.
26
Assessment of the alternatives using the three evaluative criteria indicates that
option one, in-house collection programs would be the most viable alternative for
addressing the collection of fines and fees in the state of Florida. Therefore, in-house
collection programs are recommended. In-house collection programs scored well in
additional employees and effectiveness, giving it the edge over the other two alternatives.
The other two options did not rate well in at least two of the three categories.
27
REFERENCES
Chapter 2000-237. (2000). Laws of Florida. Retrieved from the World Wide Web:
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/laws/00laws/ch_2000-237.pdf Chapter 2003-402. (2003). Laws of Florida. Retrieved from the World Wide Web:
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/laws/03laws/ch_2003-402.pdf Conference of State Court Administrators. (1986). Standards Relating to Court Costs:
Fees, Miscellaneous Charges and Surcharges. Omaha, NE. Florida Association of Court Clerks & Comptroller. (2001). Article V – Clerk’s Court
Cost and Revenue Survey. Tallahassee, FL. Florida Auditor General. (1992). Performance Audit of the Collection of Fines and Fees
Assessed to Convicted Offenders by the State Courts System in Florida. (Report No. 11780). Tallahassee, FL.
Florida Auditor General. (2003). Assessment, Collection, and Remittance of Court-
Related Fines, Fees, and Service Charges by Clerks of the Circuit Courts. Tallahassee, FL.
Florida Senate. (1998). Improving the Collection of Fines, Fees and Forfeitures. (Report
No. 98-61). Tallahassee, FL. Florida Supreme Court. (2003). Florida’s Court System. Retrieved from the World Wide
Web: http://www.flcourts.org/pubinfo/system2.html Florida Supreme Court. (2003). Full Court Press. Retrieved from the World Wide Web:
http://www.flcourts.org/osca/divisions/fcp2003se.pdf Hillsman, S., Sichel, J., & Mahoney, B. (1984). Fines in Sentencing: A study of the Use of the Fine as a Criminal Sanction. Williamsburg, VA. Matthias, J., Lyford, G., & Gomez P. (1995). Current Practices in Collecting Fines and Fees in State Courts: A Handbook of Collection Issues and Solutions. Williamsburg, VA. Montanaro, L. (2001). The Facts About Collection Practices At The Mesa Municipal Court. Williamsburg, VA. National Center for State Courts. (2002). Enforcement of Monetary Sanctions Imposed by
Courts: Statewide Collection Programs. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncsc.dni.us/research/bestpractices/monetarysanctions.html
28
New Jersey State Courts. (1999). Comprehensive Enforcement Program. Trenton, NJ. Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. (2004). Court Fine
and Fee Collections Can Increase. (Report No. 04-07). Tallahassee, FL. Office of the State Courts Administrator. (2001). Collection of Costs, Fees, and Fines – A
Preliminary Glance. Tallahassee, FL. State Justice Institute. (2002). Improving Quality of Service for Court Users: Dallas
County Financial Management Counseling Pilot Project. Dallas, TX. United States General Accounting Office. (2001). Criminal Debt: Oversight and Actions Needed to Address Deficiencies in Collection Processes. (Report No. GAO-01- 664). Washington, DC.
29
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Radu Dodea (B.S., Public Administration, Florida International University, MPA, Florida
State University) has interned with the Florida Legislature’s Office of Program Policy
Analysis and Government Accountability, as well as worked for Lauderhill Police
Department. Mr. Dodea is interested in international affairs, the political arena and
policy analysis. He is currently working for the Florida Legislature.
30
