Probation and Parole Fees

Development

States in significant numbers began to turn to charging probation and parole fees in the 1990s. The establishment and expansion of these fees has corresponded to a period of great pressure on correctional systems to maintain programs and services. Community corrections officers have found themselves managing more and more offenders. In addition, many American taxpayers are embracing a “pay your own way” mentality. From this perspective, the cost of punishment should be borne by the offender.

The method of setting and imposing fees varies with jurisdiction. Some programs use a day fee, some use a weekly fee, and some use other intervals, whereby a probationer or parolee makes regular flat-rate payments to an office of community corrections. Others charge by service, sometimes only for specific services and at other times for the whole range. These fees are generally chosen from within a range set by the legislature and often are set as a proportion of the probationer's or parolee's net income. Alternatively, they may be set to be commensurate to the offense involved. Under such a system, a person convicted of a felony pays more than one convicted of a misdemeanor.

Arguments Pro and Con

Proponents of instituting fees for probation and parole argue that fees are an easy way for states to regain revenue spent on correctional programs and services. The average cost of incarceration in the United States is about $23,000 per offender annually (some estimates are even higher), and the average cost of community corrections, between $1,250 and $2,750 per offender annually. By requiring probationers and parolees to pay a fee for services, states can reimburse themselves for services and may thus be able to provide more services or services of better quality and effectiveness.

Community corrections fees may also be easier to obtain than fees for serving prison time. While probationers and parolees may be deterred from not paying by threat of a technical violation of their community corrections conditions, prisoners who fail to pay their fees can be threatened only with further imprisonment, which is less successful as a deterrent. Moreover, states may be encouraged to increase rates of community corrections and, by extension, decrease rates of incarceration. Probation or parole may become more appealing alternatives than incarceration if states can be incentivized to use them as a way of gaining revenue, especially since revenue from prisoner fees is so much harder to obtain.

For some critics of the practice, this is less of a benefit than a drawback. While some see increased reliance on community corrections as positive, others see it as negative, insofar as some offenders who would otherwise have been incarcerated may be released on probation simply as a cost-reducing mechanism, rather than on the merits of that individual's ability to restore himself or herself through community corrections. There is also some worry that probation and parole fees will compete with other forms of revenue charges for offenders: those related to restitution and fines. Restitution for victims, critics argue, is more important to maintain, and the need to pay fees for probation and parole services may divert money away from victims and toward the state. In addition, in some cases fees turn probation officers into reluctant debt collectors, [Page 343]thus limiting their ability to supervise and help offenders.

...