Trial Courts Collection of Increased Monthly Administrative Probation Fees
May 23, 2011 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
Published May 23, 2011 Audit covers July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“One in four courts – 18 of 70 – (25.7%) did not fully comply with the law on existing cases, which resulted in an estimated $1,223,620 in unrealized potential revenue.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a statewide review of whether Massachusetts district courts properly applied a 2009 increase in the monthly administrative probation fee.
“The Office of the State Auditor conducted a survey of the implementation of the increased administrative probation fee at 61 District Courts including the eight divisions of the Boston Municipal Court for administrative probation cases active as of June 30, 2009.”
The Auditor looked into this because earlier court audits found the fee increase was not being handled consistently.
“The survey was initiated after the results of audits at nine District Courts4 identified that administrative probation fees were not always being properly or consistently assessed to individuals on administrative probation as of June 30, 2009 at three of the nine courts.”
Different courts treated people differently under the same fee law, which made the system unfair.
“Moreover, the lack of uniformity in application of the law resulted in an inequitable administration of justice.”
If you were on administrative probation then, what you owed could depend on which court handled your case, not just on the law itself.
“For example, probationers in neighboring towns could pay two different fees based solely on which court had jurisdiction over their case.”
The Auditor’s position is that courts had to follow the fee increase once it became law, even if local officials had concerns.
“Once the fee became law, the courts were obligated to implement it.”
The report recommends clearer probation contracts and more careful planning if future fee increases affect people already on probation.
“The Office of the Commissioner of Probation (OCP) should consider modifying the language in the probation contract to clearly spell out that future increases of probation fees are possible.”
The issue involved tens of thousands of active cases and millions of dollars in possible fee assessments.
“The number of active administrative probation cases on June 30, 2009 was 39,407, which would account for a total of $6.6 million in increased fee assessments.”
Administrative probation is a lower-supervision setup mainly used to track payments such as fees, fines, restitution, and similar obligations.
“This represents the level of restriction/accountability that is typically associated with administrative probation.”
What the Auditor checked
- Partially Determine whether the increased administrative probation fee was being properly assessed at District Courts statewide.
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: The noncompliance resulted in an estimated $1,223,620 in unrealized potential revenue and inequitable treatment of probationers depending on which court had jurisdiction over their case.
Standard: Chapter 27, Sections 99 and 100, of the Acts of 2009, amended Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276, Section 87A, and guidance from the Administrative Office of the District Court and Office of the Commissioner of Probation. ( Chapter 27, Sections 99 and 100, of the Acts of 2009; Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276, Section 87A )
2 recommendations
- The Office of the Commissioner of Probation should consider modifying probation contract language to clearly state that future probation fee increases are possible.
- Future fee increases should consider whether the increase will apply to existing probationers.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Officials at courts that did not fully implement the increased fee gave various reasons."
Auditor: "Once the fee became law, the courts were obligated to implement it."
Verified dollar findings
Funds recovered or repaid to the Commonwealth.
Estimated or sample-projected amounts - shown separately because they are not a hard-identified dollar figure.
Prior findings revisited
"The survey was initiated after the results of audits at nine District Courts4 identified that administrative probation fees were not always being properly or consistently assessed to individuals on administrative probation as of June 30, 2009 at three of the nine courts."