Fitchburg Division of the District Court Department-Review of Probation Supervision Fees: Transactions and Monitoring of Fulfillment by Probationers
February 22, 2016 · Fitchburg Division of the District Court Department · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
Published February 22, 2016 Audit covers July 1, 2012 – December 31, 2013 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“FDC allows some probationers to pay PSFs—even if they have been assigned community service instead—without the required judge’s order.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a state audit of how Fitchburg District Court handled probation supervision fees from July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013.
“This report presents the results of our audit testing at FDC specifically.”
The Auditor reviewed whether probation fees were properly assessed, documented, collected, waived, and monitored.
“The scope of that audit includes an assessment of the process the Trial Court has established for PSFs and whether court divisions are adequately recording, monitoring, and fulfilling court-ordered assessments of PSFs at 16 selected district-court locations, which together account for $7.5 million (23%) of the $32.8 million in PSF collections transmitted to the state for the 18 months covered by the audit.”
If the court does not follow the rules, the state may lose money, community service may not get done, and probationers may be treated inconsistently.
“As a result, the Commonwealth may be forgoing PSFs that probationers would have been able to pay, and some probationers might appear to be receiving preferential treatment by not being penalized with monthly community service.”
The court needed better documentation, judge approval for changes, and a clearer way to track community service.
“The Probation Office does not have a centralized method to effectively track hours of community service performed.”
The audit recommended that the court flag community-service orders, make judges approve changes, document waivers, and track community service centrally.
“FDC should establish a centralized method of tracking community service performed.”
The findings point to weak oversight: some waivers lacked required documentation, some people paid when they were ordered to do service, and the court could not easily see the full status of community-service obligations.
“Additionally, allowing the probationer to substitute payment when s/he has been ordered to perform monthly community service is contrary to the Trial Court’s policy requiring changes to be brought back before the court and “modified by judicial order.””
A probation supervision fee is a monthly fee that someone on probation usually has to pay, unless a judge properly waives it and orders 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: This may waste Probation Office staff resources and deprive nonprofit and public-service agencies of expected community service.
Standard: Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws and Section 5 of the Trial Court’s Fiscal Systems Manual require community service in lieu of waived fees and require judicial approval to change fiscal obligations. ( Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws; Section 5 of the Trial Court’s Fiscal Systems Manual )
2 recommendations
- FDC should flag community-service orders in MassCourts to ensure that court personnel do not accept payments from probationers who have been assigned community service instead.agency: disagreed
- When a probationer can no longer comply with the judge’s order of community service, FDC should ensure that the decision of whether to change the type of penalty is made by a judge, not by other court employees.agency: disagreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Permitting the probationer to pay the probation supervision fee instead of performing the required hours of community work service enables the probationer to take advantage of employment opportunities that he or she might be required to forgo if they could not change their court obligations from community work service to a cash payment."
Auditor: "We therefore stand by our finding and recommendations."
Why it matters: The Commonwealth may forgo fees that probationers could have paid, and some probationers may appear to receive preferential treatment.
Standard: Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the General Laws and a September 1, 2006 memorandum from the Chief Justice of the District Court Department require documented findings and use of the mandatory assessment or waiver form. ( Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the General Laws; September 1, 2006 memorandum from the Chief Justice of the District Court Department )
1 recommendation
- FDC should comply with the requirements of Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the General Laws for the imposition and waiving of PSFs and the restitution made for nonpayment. Specifically, it should make sure that it documents whether a finding of fact has been held to allow the fee to be waived and community service performed instead.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "However, I intend forthwith to ask all of the judges assigned to sit in the Fitchburg 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 (reiterating to all judges assigned to FDC the Trial Court’s process of holding and documenting findings of fact on PSF waivers) were responsive to our concerns and should help address this matter."
Why it matters: The court cannot readily determine how many community-service hours are owed, their dollar value, or whether offenders will complete court-ordered requirements on schedule.
Standard: Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the General Laws requires Probation Office monitoring of community service, and adequate monitoring requires accurate records. ( Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the General Laws )
2 recommendations
- FDC should establish a centralized method of tracking community service performed.agency: disagreed
- The Probation Office should promptly report all hours of community service performed by each probationer, regularly throughout the probation term, to the Clerk-Magistrate’s Office for recording in MassCourts so that both offices can readily determine the status of probationers’ accounts.agency: partially agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The Probation Office in the Fitchburg District Court has a centralized method of effectively tracking all hours of community service assigned, performed and owed."
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."