Northampton Division of the District Court Department-Review of Probation Supervision Fees: Transactions and Monitoring of Fulfillment by Probationers
January 29, 2016 · Northampton Division of the District Court Department · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
Published January 29, 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 state audit report about how Northampton District Court handled probation supervision fees and related community service from July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013.
“This report presents the results of our audit testing at NDC specifically.”
The State Auditor reviewed whether courts were properly assessing, recording, monitoring, and enforcing probation supervision fees.
“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 from fees that probationers could have paid, and probationers may be treated inconsistently.
“As a result, the Commonwealth may be forgoing PSFs that probationers would have been able to pay.”
For ordinary residents, this matters because it affects whether court fees are handled fairly, consistently, and according to law.
“Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the General Laws requires the imposition of a designated fee, depending on which type of probation the probationer is placed on.”
The audit found three main problems: fee waivers were not always documented properly, community service was not tracked well enough, and some fees were charged incorrectly.
“Some judges assess PSFs in incorrect amounts or against non-probationers.”
The court said it would remind judges and probation officers to document fee waivers properly, bring changes back to court, and stop using one-time probation supervision fees in ways that conflict with the statute.
“However, I have asked all judges assigned to the Northampton District Court to cease this practice, and if a finding is made that a waiver is warranted, I have requested that the hearing and finding of hardship and waiver be documented on the existing Administrative Office of the District Court form entitled "Assessment or Waiver of Moneys in Criminal Case."”
This was not just a paperwork issue: during the audit period, the court sent nearly $450,000 in probation supervision fees to the State Treasurer, so errors affected real public money.
“During the testing period, NDC collected and transmitted $449,752 of PSFs to the State Treasurer.”
A probation supervision fee is a monthly charge that people on probation usually must pay; if paying would be too hard financially, a judge can waive it and require 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.”
3 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown
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 forgo probation supervision fees that probationers are able to pay, and required nonpayment procedures may be bypassed.
Standard: Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws requires imposition of probation supervision fees and allows waiver only upon court order after a finding of fact. ( Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws )
1 recommendation
- NDC 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.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Auditor: "We believe that the actions taken by the First Justice (reiterating to all judges assigned to NDC 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: NDC could not readily determine how many community-service hours were owed, their dollar value, or whether offenders would fulfill court orders on schedule.
Standard: Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws requires monitoring of community service; best business practices require a centralized tracking system. ( Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws )
2 recommendations
- NDC should establish a centralized method of tracking community service performed.
- 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 response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The Probation Office in the Northampton 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 NDC’s response does not specify the balance owed for each type of fee or the dates when community service was performed."
Why it matters: The Commonwealth forwent probation supervision fees that probationers were able to pay.
Standard: Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws and the Trial Court’s Fiscal Systems Manual require a judicial order to change a monetary assessment to community service. ( Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws; Section 5 of the Trial Court’s Fiscal Systems Manual )
1 recommendation
- NDC should inform its probationers that if the court orders them to pay a PSF, they are not allowed to arrange to perform community service instead.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "It is my understanding that this practice no longer occurs in the Northampton District Court."
Auditor: "We believe that the actions taken by the First Justice (reminding all judges assigned to NDC that such changes must be brought back into court for a documented hearing and waiver) were responsive to our concerns and should help address this matter."
Why it matters: Some individuals paid amounts not required by statute, while others received discounts that resulted in losses to the Commonwealth.
Standard: Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws requires monthly probation supervision fees for probationers and does not authorize those fees for non-probationers. ( Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws; Section 6 of Chapter 280 of the Massachusetts General Laws )
1 recommendation
- Judges should cease ordering one-time PSFs that contradict the statute.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "However, I have asked all judges assigned to the Northampton District Court to cease this practice, and if a finding is made that a waiver is warranted, I have requested that the hearing and finding of hardship and waiver be documented on the existing Administrative Office of the District Court form entitled "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 NDC 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."