Orange Division of the District Court Department-Review of Probation Supervision Fees: Transactions and Monitoring of Fulfillment by Probationers
February 22, 2016 · Orange Division of the District Court Department · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
source
“We did not identify any significant deficiencies in the areas related to our objectives.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a Massachusetts State Auditor report about the Orange Division of the District Court Department and how it handled probation supervision fees from July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013.
“This report presents the results of our audit testing at ODC specifically.”
The auditor was reviewing whether the Trial Court properly assessed, documented, collected, waived, and monitored probation supervision fees.
“Our overall audit of the Trial Court’s administration of PSFs (Report No. 2014-5160-3J) included audit testing at 16 district-court locations, including ODC, to assess the process the Trial Court has established for PSFs, determine whether PSF-related transactions were properly documented in court records, and determine whether probationers were adequately monitored to ensure that they were fulfilling the PSF requirement.”
These fees are required by law for many people on probation, unless a judge properly waives them for hardship or restitution reasons.
“When an individual is placed on probation, Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws requires courts to assess the individual a $50 (administrative) or $65 (supervised) monthly probation supervision fee (PSF).”
If you live in or deal with this court’s area, the audit gives some assurance that probation fees and community service waivers were being recorded and monitored properly during the period reviewed.
“The Orange Division of the District Court Department (ODC) presides over civil, criminal, and other matters falling within its territorial jurisdiction: the towns of Athol, Erving, Leverett, New Salem, Orange, Shutesbury, Warwick, and Wendell.”
The Orange court passed the audit tests for the fee-related issues the auditor examined.
“Our review confirmed that, with regard to our objectives, ODC has adequately recorded criminal-case activity to support court orders of monthly PSFs, adequately documented written findings when paying PSFs would constitute an undue hardship for probationers, and required those probationers to perform monthly community service instead.”
This report only covers the Orange court’s testing; the broader Trial Court audit findings were issued separately.
“Audit findings for the entire audit project are presented in a separate report for that project.”
During the 18-month audit period, this court sent $147,282 in probation supervision fee revenue to the state, so the review involved real public money and court oversight.
“ODC accounted for $147,282 in PSF revenue transmitted during those 18 months.”
A probation supervision fee is a monthly payment that many people on probation must pay for as long as their probation lasts.
“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
- Complied 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?
- Complied Is the performance of community service, when allowed by the court in lieu of monthly PSF payments, adequately tracked, promptly reported, and accurately recorded?