Falmouth Division of the District Court Department-Review of Probation Supervision Fees: Transactions and Monitoring of Fulfillment by Probationers
February 19, 2016 · Falmouth Division of the District Court Department · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
Published February 19, 2016 Audit covers July 1, 2012 – December 31, 2013 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“The court does not always waive monthly probation supervision fees as required or effectively track community service.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a Massachusetts State Auditor report about how the Falmouth Division of the District Court handled monthly probation supervision fees and community service for probationers from July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013.
“This report presents the results of our audit testing at FDC specifically.”
The Auditor reviewed whether the court properly assessed, waived, recorded, and monitored probation supervision fees and related community service.
“The objective of our work at each court location was limited to determining the extent to which the court was complying with the responsibilities established by Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the General Laws, as well as guidance issued by the Trial Court; the Office of the Commissioner of Probation (OCP); and the court location itself, if it had issued any.”
If fees are waived without the required court finding, the state may lose money from probationers who could have paid.
“As a result, the Commonwealth may be forgoing PSFs that probationers would have been able to pay.”
For residents, this audit is about whether court-ordered fees and community service are being handled fairly, legally, and with enough recordkeeping to know whether people are meeting their obligations.
“FDC cannot readily determine how many community-service hours are owed, what community service amounts to in dollars, and whether offenders will be able to fulfill the requirements of court orders on schedule.”
The Auditor found two main problems: some fee waivers were not properly documented, and community service hours were not tracked in a centralized way during probation.
“The Probation Office does not have a centralized method to effectively track hours of community service performed.”
The Auditor recommended that the court document whether probationers must pay or have a valid waiver, create centralized tracking for community service, and report hours regularly into MassCourts.
“FDC should establish a centralized method of tracking community service performed.”
This report matters because it shows a court process where small documentation and tracking gaps can affect fairness, collections, and the ability to know whether probationers completed required community service.
“Adequate monitoring requires the maintenance of accurate records.”
A probation supervision fee is a monthly charge for someone on probation; if paying it would be too hard financially and the court documents that, the person may do unpaid community service instead.
“A PSF is a monthly fee that judges are statutorily required to assess for a criminal offender placed on probation (a probationer), to be paid for the length of his or her probation term.”
What the Auditor checked
- Did not comply Are PSFs assessed in the correct amounts, and when a PSF is waived, does the court record include a written finding that the fee would constitute an undue hardship that requires monthly community service instead?
- Complied Are PSF assessments properly recorded by the Clerk-Magistrate’s Office?
- Complied Are probation officers enforcing the requirement that probationers pay PSFs?
- Did not comply Is the performance of community service, when allowed by the court in lieu of monthly PSF payments, adequately tracked, promptly reported, and accurately recorded?
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: The Commonwealth may lose probation supervision fee revenue that probationers could have paid, and required enforcement procedures may be bypassed.
Standard: Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws requires imposition of probation supervision fees and allows waivers only after a court finding of fact establishing inability to pay, with community service required instead. ( Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws )
1 recommendation
- FDC should comply with Section 87A requirements for imposing and waiving PSFs and should document whether a probationer will pay a monthly PSF or whether a finding of fact permits waiver and community service instead.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "However, I intend forthwith to ask all of the judges assigned to sit in the Falmouth District Court to document a finding of fact hearing and the waiver by diligently using the existing Administrative Office of the District Court form on the Assessment or Waiver of Moneys in Criminal Case."
Auditor: "We believe that the actions taken by the First Justice (reminding all judges assigned to FDC to document findings of fact and use the appropriate form) were responsive to our concerns and should help address this matter."
Why it matters: FDC cannot readily determine community service hours owed, their dollar value, or whether probationers will complete court-ordered requirements on schedule.
Standard: The Probation Office is responsible for monitoring community service under Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws, and adequate monitoring requires accurate records. ( Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws )
2 recommendations
- FDC should establish a centralized method of tracking community service performed.
- The Probation Office should promptly report all community service hours to the Clerk-Magistrate's Office for recording in MassCourts throughout the probation term.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Currently the Trial Court is working on a change to its case management system which will permit Probation to report community service hours as they are completed into MassCourts rather than on the spread sheet."
Auditor: "However, the court lacks an efficient means to do this, because the spreadsheet referred to in FDC’s response does not specify the balance owed for each type of fee or the dates when community service was performed."