The Cessation of the Use of Supervision Fees: Pathways to Ending Criminalizing Poverty in Mass Supervision

Background: The use of fees in community supervision is an increasingly examined topic as more evidence supports the extending impacts of mass supervision. Research supports that the fees disproportionately impact black and brown individuals. The collection of fees can result in an additional mechanism for criminalizing poverty and even resulting in further entrenchment in the criminal legal system through revocations. In the last decade, many states have made efforts to reduce their reliance on fees as a piece of the community supervision organizational budgets, yet there is not complete picture on how this process at a national level. This study provides an examination on the pathways and perspectives surrounding the end of fee collection within supervision entities.

Methods: Interviews were conducted with probation executives in states that do not currently collect supervision fees. As a supplement to a larger, national study, contacts were recruited through snowball sampling. The research team conducted interviews (N=) and reviewed agency documents and state legislation. A qualitative analysis of the interviews is focused on the processes for moving away from fee collection, the barriers and benefits to doing so, and the funding mechanisms used by agencies that do not collect fees. In the first phase of analysis, an inductive, open approach will be used to develop coding categories based on emergent themes. Open coding will involve immersion and multiple readings of the data to establish the salient themes. In the second phase of analysis, a deductive coding strategy will be utilized to organize the established codes developed a priori.

Results: Of all 50 states included in the sample, 17.6% (n = 9) do not collect fees. Of these, 56% of states (n = 5) removed states due to institutional reasons (e.g. driven by legislative decisions, etc.). 45% of states (n = 4) stopped the collection of fines and fees as a result of an advocacy related initiative. Themes include the 1) Impact of fee removal on officers responsibilities and scope of work; 2) Impact that the removal of fees had on funding structure and stability; and 3) Conceptualization of fees impacting treatment engagement.

Conclusions and Implications: Results provide additional context for the process and logistical considerations to agency funding formulas that do not rely on fees. Participants spoke to the positive impacts that removing fees has on them on capacity and on their ability to engage in meaningful treatment with clients. Additionally, the results provide a pathway to examining successful approaches to removing fees from state funding formulas through both policy and advocacy. These results support exploring avenues to lessening the far reaching impact of mass supervision on system involved individuals.