HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 11042019 - PPC Agenda Pkt
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
November 4, 2019
10:30 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor John Gioia, Chair
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. APPROVE Record of Action from the September 30, 2019 meeting. (Page 3)
4. CONSIDER accepting an update on the implementation of the moratorium on the
collection of certain criminal justice fees assessed by the County and provide direction
to staff regarding next steps. (Paul Reyes, Committee Staff) (Page 6)
5.The next meeting is currently scheduled for December 2, 2019.
6.Adjourn
The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person
listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than
96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor,
during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Paul Reyes, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1096, Fax (925) 646-1353
paul.reyes@cao.cccounty.us
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:11/04/2019
Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - September 30, 2019
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - September 30, 2019
Presenter: Paul Reyes, Committee Staff Contact: Paul Reyes, (925) 335-1096
Referral History:
County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the
record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the
meeting.
Referral Update:
Attached for the Committee's consideration is the Record of Action for the Committee's
September 30, 2019 meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE Record of Action from the September 30, 2019 meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact. This item is informational only.
Attachments
Record of Action - September 30, 2019
Page 3 of 42
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
RECORD OF ACTION FOR
September 30, 2019
Supervisor John Gioia, Chair
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair
1.Introductions
Convene - 9:01 am
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on
this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
No public comment.
3.APPROVE Record of Action from the July 1, 2019 meeting.
Approved as presented.
4.CONSIDER applications submitted to the Clerk of the Board for the vacant
seats on the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC).
1.
INTERVIEW applicants for the two (2) vacant seats on the JJCC: Nonprofit
Community-Based Organization Seats #1 and #2.
2.
CONSIDER making nominations to the Board of Supervisors at their
October 8, 2019 meeting to fill the two vacancies on the JJCC in the
Nonprofit Community-Based Organizations Seats #1 and #2.
3.
PROVIDE any additional direction to staff regarding the establishment of
the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council.
4.
Approved as presented, with staff directed to forward to the Board of Supervisors the
recommendation to appoint Rebecca Oriol and Claire Bromberry to the nonprofit
community based organization seats of the Juvenile Justice Cooridinating Council.
5.ACCEPT an update on the implementation of a moratorium on the
collection and assessment of certain criminal justice fees assessed by the
County; and
1.
PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps.2.
Approved as presented, with the following direction provided to staff:
Page 4 of 42
Approved as presented, with the following direction provided to staff:
1. County Administrator's Office (CAO) to assemble a small workgroup of
justice system partners to look into the available data.
2. Staff will return to the PPC with additional information on criminal
justice fee processes and relevent data.
6.PROVIDE direction to staff regarding the recruitment process for a victims’
representative seat on the Contra Costa County Community Corrections
Partnership (CCP).
The Committee directed staff to proceed with the 6-week application
period timeline.
7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for November 4, 2019.
8.Adjourn
Adjourned.
For Additional Information Contact:
Paul Reyes, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1096, Fax (925) 646-1353
paul.reyes@cao.cccounty.us
Page 5 of 42
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:11/04/2019
Subject:Criminal Justice Fees
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: Criminal Justice Fees
Presenter: Paul Reyes, Committee Staff Contact: Paul Reyes, 925-335-1096
Referral History:
On February 26, 2019, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Public Protection Committee the topic of criminal
justice system fees charged to individuals and a review the current programs, policies and practices related to
criminal justice fees. A copy of the referral is included as Attachment A.
On April 1, 2019, the Public Protection Committee considered an introductory report on the issue of criminal justice
fees assessed in the County. During that meeting, it was noted that momentum to end criminal fees is growing in the
state and individual counties have begun to view criminal justice fees as ineffective and have taken steps to
eliminate them. In 2017, the County of Los Angeles eliminated its public defender registration fee. In May 2018,
San Francisco eliminated all criminal administrative fees under its control, freeing over 21,000 people of more than
$32,000,000 in outstanding criminal administrative fees and surcharges. Most recently, in December 2018, the
Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to eliminate a host of county-imposed criminal fees. The board voted
to eliminate $26,000,000 in fees for tens of thousands of Alameda County residents. A copy of the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors approved ordiance is included as Attachment B.
With the passage of Senate Bill 190 in 2017, the State of California eliminated juvenile justice fees in all counties. In
January 2019, Senate Bill (SB) 144 was introduced by Sen. Holly Mitchell and would state the intent of the
Legislature to enact legislation to eliminate the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized
to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system, and to eliminate all outstanding debt incurred as a result of
the imposition of administrative fees. At the time of the April PPC meeting there had been discussion at the state
level about the proposed elimination of specific fees – the probation fee, the public defender fee, and work furlough
fee.
Also during the April PPC, general arguments in favor or against continuing criminal justice fees were discussed. It
was also noted that analysis of adult criminal justice fees had proven to be complicated. State law dictates a very
complex process for the distribution of fine and fee revenue. Per a recent Legislative Analyst’s Office report, state
law currently contains at least 215 distinct code sections specifying how individual fines and fees are to be
distributed to state and local funds, including additional requirements for when payments are not made in full.
The report provided at the April PPC meeting focused on those fees that had been positively identified as being
local and discretionary fees (i.e. not mandated by California law), specifically Probation Fees, Public Defender
Fees, and Sheriff Custody Alternative Facility Fees. Further research and analysis will be needed on other fines and
fees collected by the Contra Costa Superior Court of California (Court) and remitted to the County.
The April staff report included the following infomation on Probation, Public Defender, and work furlough fees:
Probation Fees
Page 6 of 42
Probation Report Fee - In 2009, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 2009-28 authorizing the Probation
Department to charge a fee of $176 for the cost of generating a probation report to the Court. This is one-time fee.
Cost of Probation Fee - In 2010, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2010/262 to increase the monthly
Cost of Probation Fee from $50 per month to $75 per month (average daily cost of $2.50).
Probation Drug Testing Fee – The Probation Department currently charges $10 per month (average daily cost of
$0.33) for drug testing.
Probation Dept. Drug Diversion Fee – The Probation Department currently receives approximately $1,000 per year
from this fee.
All adults that have been ordered to formal Probation, which includes mandatory supervision, and ordered to pay
Probation fees, drug testing fees and/or the cost of their court report shall be assessed for their ability to pay said
fees. The ability-to-pay determination is sent to the Court. The Court will order the amount the probationer is
required to pay and refer the probationer to the Court Collections Unit for collection.
The following table illustrates the total amount of probation fees a probationer could hypothetically be charged. This
is assuming the probation is placed on 3 years of probation and requires monthly drug testing. Over 3 years, a
probationer could be charged up to $3,236 for probation.
Example Probationer Cost # of Months Total
Supervision $75/month 36 2,700
Drug Testing $10/month 36 360
Report Fee $176 one-time n/a 176
Total Cost of Probation 3,236
Cost of Collection and Revenue
The following table shows the actual and estimated cost of collection and revenue for FY 17/18 and FY 18/19, respectively. The
Probation fee revenue is used to offset the salaries of adult Deputy Probation Officers.
Fee
FY 17/18 Estimated FY 18/19
Collection
Cost Revenue Collection
Cost Revenue
Probation Dept. Drug Diversion
Fee (PC 1001.9)143 1,249 10 1,000
Cost of Probation Fee 91,957 475,573 82,000 444,000
Probation Cost of Drug Test Fee
(PC 1203.1(ab))12,332 60,638 12,000 61,000
Probation Report Fee (PC
1203.1(b))4,554 27,333 5,000 30,000
Total 108,986 564,793 99,010 536,000
Public Defender Fees
Penal Code 987.81 authorizes the Court to consider and make a determination of the defendant’s ability to pay all or a portion
of the costs of legal assistance provided through the public defender or private counsel appointed by the court and may order
the defendant to pay all or a part of the cost.
Adults charged with capital or homicide cases may have to pay fees ordered by the court at the conclusion of the case to
reimburse the County for the cost of outside counsel. The defendant is referred to the Contra Costa Superior Court Collections
Unit by the judge who orders the amount to be paid. The Court makes a determination as to how much, if any, of the ordered
amount the person can afford to pay. This determination is made on a sliding scale based upon the person's financial resources.
The Office of the Public Defender is not involved in the determination of, or collection of fees.
Page 7 of 42
Cost of Collection and Revenue
The following table shows the actual and estimated cost of collection and revenue for FY 17/18 and FY 18/19, respectively. The
Public Defender Fee revenue is used to offset cost of County trial court function, specifically costs associated with capital cases.
Fee
FY 17/18 Projected FY 18/19
Collection
Cost Revenue Collection
Cost Revenue
Public Defender
Fee 1,849 26,100 - 121,000
Sheriff Office Custody Alternative Facility Program Fees
In 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved Resolution No. 2009/435 setting the fees for the Office of the Sheriff custody
alternative programs. The current fees for the Custody Alternative Facility programs are provided below.
Fee Cost
Electronic Home Detention and Alcohol
Monitoring:
Application fee $125.00 one-time
Electronic Home Monitoring Only $20.00 per day
Alcohol Monitoring Only $20.00 per day
Electronic Home Monitoring and Alcohol Monitoring $23.50 per day
Urinalysis Test $6.00 per test
Work Alternative Program:
Application fee $125.00 one-time
Daily Fee $16.00 per day
Ability to Pay Process
The current Custody Alternative Facility (CAF) procedure provides for the CAF participant to be completely enrolled in a CAF
program prior to discussing fees or ability to pay. Participants review and complete the personal budget with their assigned CAF
Specialist. The participant will then request a reduction/waiver of fees based on their stated ability to pay. A CAF Sergeant will
review and approve the Personal Budget form. A participant's inability to pay all or a portion of any fee(s) will not preclude
them from being enrolled or completing any program offered by the Custody Alternative Facility.
Process of Collections
CAF fees are collected after the participant is enrolled in a CAF program. Fees can be paid in the manner which is most
appropriate for the participant. Participants can pay their total program fees at one time or over a pre-determined length of time.
There is no process established to collect payment from participants who complete the program, but do not pay. A participant's
ability to successfully complete a CAF programs is not impacted by lack of payment.
Future Plan for CAF Electronic Home Detention and Work Alternative Prog rams
CAF is currently working with representatives from the Office of Re-Entry and Justice, the Public Defender’s Office, and
Reentry Solutions Group to present updated Ability to Pay forms.
Revenue
The following table shows the actual and estimated revenue for FY 17/18 and FY 18/19, respectively. The CAF Fee revenue is
used to offset program costs.
Program FY 17/18 Projected FY 18/19
Work Alternative Program 443,055 423,000
Electronic Home Detention 568,541 12,000
Page 8 of 42
Total 1,011,596 435,000
The PPC accepted the introductory report and directed staff to perform further research on other fees that are collected or
remitted to the County and to report back to the Committee with staff's findings.
On July 1, 2019, the Public Protection Committee accepted an a follow-up report on this issue which included a review of a
wider range of criminal justice fees, including those that are mandated by state legislation. This update included the following
information on criminal justice fees and SB 144.
Criminal Justice Fees
The Legistlative Analyst's Office (LAO) provided a report titled "Overview of State Criminal Fines and Fees and Probation
Fees. The report provide background information regarding both cirminal fines and fees and probation fees. This includes an
explanation of how cimrinal fines and fees are assessed. A copy of the LAO report is included as Attachment C.
Upon the request of the Committee, the analysis of the County's criminal justice fees was expanded beyond the fees charged
for Probation, indigent defense, and alternatives-to-incarceration fees. Attachment D summaries the fee analysis performed by
staff which includes: fee description, relevant code section, authority, ability-to-pay provision, funded County program or
function, and revenue collected.
Senate Bill 144
As of July 1, 2019, SB 144 had passed through the California Senate and was in the California Assembly. SB 144 is set to be
heard on July 9th in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. SB 144 is currently opposed by Calfiornia State Association of
Counties, Urban Counties of California, Rural County Representatives of California, and the Chief Probation Officers of
California. These organizations’ opposition is not based on the underlying policy conversation regarding lessening the financial
burden associated with fines and fees levied on adults in the criminal justice system, but is based on the fiscal implications and
the request for the addition of a sustainable funding source to ensure this does not inadvertently impact the core services,
programs and efforts to promote the rehabilitation of offenders. A copy of the amended SB 144 can be found here:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB144&version=20190SB14497AMD
During the July meeting, the Public Protection Committee considered a number of concerns revolving around adult criminal
justice fees, including significant concern brought up regarding the ability-to-pay process. The majority of criminal fees include
provisions that allow for either a waiver or reduction of the fee based on one’s ability to pay. The Public Protection Committee
voted unanimously to refer to the full Board of Supervisors a temporary moratorium on the assessment and collection of
criminal justice fees currently authorized by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.
On September 17, 2019, the Board of Supervisors considered adopting Resolution No. 2019/522 to place a moratorium on the
assessment and collection of certain criminal justice fees. The Board of Supervisors approved the moratorium and directed the
Public Protection Committee to gather additiional data about criminal justice fees in Contra Costa County and to return to the
Board of Supervisors before the end of the year. A copy of the Resolution is attached for reference (Attachment E).
Following the adoption of the moratorium by the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator's Office had notified the
Sheriff's Office, the Probation Department, and the Superior Court of this moratorium on the assessment and collection of the
applicable criminal justice fees.
Referral Update:
On September 30, 2019, the Public Protection Committee accepted an update on the implementation of the moratorium on the
collection of adult criminal justice fee. The Committee directed staff to assemble a small work group to identify and provide to
the Committee any additional available and relevant data.
A workgroup was assembled and met twice in October 2019. As a result of the work performed by this workgroup and staff, an
update on criminal justice fees has been compiled and attached (See Attachment F). This update includes information on the
San Francisco Financial Justice Project, the abiltity-to-pay process of Probation and the Sheriff's Office, local data on
race/income, pending data collection efforts, and an update on the Superior Court implementation of the moratorium.
Additionally, Reentry Solutions Group has provided a Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa which provides
additional information on the San Francisco Financial Justice Project, the local research process, and local/national research
(see Attachment G).
Page 9 of 42
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT an update on the implementation of a moratorium on the collection and assessment of certain
criminal justice fees assessed by the County; and
1.
PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps.2.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No immediate fiscal impact.
Attachments
Attachment A - BOS Referral - Criminal Justice Fees
Attachment B - Alameda County Ordinance Eliminating Fees
Attachment C - LAO Report
Attachment D - Adult Fee Analysis
Attachment E - Resolution No. 2019/522
Attachment F - Update on Criminal Justice Fees
Attachment G - RSG Report on CJ Fees In Contra Costa
Page 10 of 42
RECOMMENDATION(S):
REFER to the Public Protection Committee the issue of criminal justice system fees charged to individuals.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact. This action refers the issue of justice system fees to the Public Protection Committee.
BACKGROUND:
Existing law allows the County to impose various criminal justice fees for the cost of administering the
criminal justice system. This referral is being requested to review the current programs, policies and
practices related to criminal justice fees.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
The issue will not be referred to the Public Protection Committee for review.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 02/26/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
ABSENT:Diane Burgis, District III
Supervisor
Contact: Paul Reyes,
925-335-1096
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors
on the date shown.
ATTESTED: February 26, 2019
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
C. 83
To:Board of Supervisors
From:PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Date:February 26, 2019
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Criminal Justice Fees
Page 11 of 42
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-67 --
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.42.190 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO
ELIMINATE PROBATION FEES; REPEALING RESOLUTION 2011-142 REGARDING PUBLIC
DEFENDER/CONFLICT COUNSEL FEES FOR REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENT ADULTS;
AND ELIMINATING SHERIFF'S WORK ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE AND
ATTENDANCE FEES.
WHEREAS, criminal justice financial obligations like probation supervision and investigation fees,
indigent defense fees, and fees associated with work release programs, can have long-term
effects that can undermine successful societal reentry goals of the formerly-incarcerated, such as
attaining stable housing, transportation, and employment; and
WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors recognizes that criminal justice debt levied against low-
income or indigent adults compromises key principles of fairness in the administration of justice
in a democratic society and engenders deep distrust of the criminal justice system among those
overburdened by such debt; and
WHEREAS, California Penal Code section 1203 .1 b authorizes but does not require a county to
recover the actual costs for probation services in lieu of incarceration; and
WHEREAS, County of Alameda Administrative Code section 2.42.190 establishes probation
department fees; and
WHEREAS, California Penal Code sections 987 .5 and 987.8 authorizes but does not require the
assessment of fees to cover the costs of appointed counsel; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors most recently authorized Indigent Defense Fees in
Resolution 2011-142; and
WHEREAS, California Penal Code section 4024.2 authorizes but does not require a board of
supervisors to assess an administrative fee on inmates of the county jail for costs associated with
a county 's work release program; and
WHEREAS , the Board of Supervisors has approved the Alameda County Sheriff's Office Sheriff
Work Alternative Program (SWAP) and set administrative and attendance fees for participation in
that Program ; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that it is in the best interest of the County, justice-
involved adults , and the larger community to repeal the above-named adult fees; and
WHEREAS, it is also in the best interests of the County and the community that the Auditor-
Controller be authorized to write-off all accounts receivable balances and close the associated
fee accounts;
Page 12 of 42
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda ordains as follows:
SECTION I
Section 2.42.190 of the County of Alameda Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as
follows :
2.42.190 Probation Department fees.
Notwithstanding any prior County ordinance or resolution of the Board of Supervisors to permit
assessment of probation fees and costs under California Penal Code section 1203.1 b, neither
the Probation Department nor any other County agency shall assess fees for probation
services , or any other fees or costs authorized by Penal Code section 1203.1 b.
SECTION II
The Public Defender schedule of fees authorized by this Board in Resolution No. 2011-142 on
May 1 0, 2011 is hereby repealed.
SECTION Ill
The Sheriff's Office Alternative Work Program (SWAP) administrat ive fee and attendance fee ,
authorized by this Board by resolution as permitted by Penal Code section 4024.2 is repealed .
Neither the Sheriff's Office or any other County agency shall assess SWAP administration or
attendance fees.
SECTION IV
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of passage
and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage it shall be published once with the
~
names of the members voting for and against the same in the Inter-City Express , a newspaper
published in the County of Alameda.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda , State of California , on the 4th
day of December ,· 2018 , by the following called vote :
AYES : Su pervisors Carson, Haggerty, Miley & Preside n t Ch a n
NOES : None
EXCUSED : Su pervisor V a l le
' ~~/2--
President of the Board of Supervisors
ATTEST :
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ,
Page 13 of 42
\)~ By:. __ ~~~~~~~~-----------
Deputy Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DONNA R. ZIEGLER, COUNTY COUNSEL
By:
Assistant County Counsel
I -Page 14 of 42
Assembly Committee on Public Safety
Hon. Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr.
PRESENTED TO:
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
Overview of State
Criminal Fines and Fees and
Probation Fees
FEBRUARY 5, 2019
Page 15 of 42
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 1
Introduction
In this handout, we provide background information responding to common
questions regarding both criminal fines and fees and probation fees.
Criminal Fines and Fees. During court proceedings, trial courts
typically levy fines and fees upon individuals convicted of criminal
offenses (including traffic violations).
Probation Fees. State law authorizes counties to levy fees on
probationers to cover probation-related costs. For example, a
probationer who is subject to electronic monitoring—such as being
required to wear a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit on his or her
ankle—can be charged for its costs.
Page 16 of 42
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2
How Are Criminal Fines and Fees Assessed?
The total amount owed by an individual begins with a base fine set in state law
for each criminal offense. State law then requires courts to add certain charges
to this fine. On a limited basis, counties and courts can levy additional charges
depending on the specific violations and other factors. Statute gives judges
some discretion to reduce the total amount owed by waiving or reducing
certain charges.
Various Fines and Fees Substantially Add to Base Fines
As of January 1, 2019
How Charge is Calculated
Stop Sign Violation
(Infraction)
DUI of Alcohol/Drugs
(Misdemeanor)
Standard Fines and Fees
Base Fine Depends on violation $35 $390
State Penalty Assessment $10 for every $10 of a base finea 40 390
County Penalty Assessment $7 for every $10 of a base finea 28 273
Court Construction Penalty Assessment $5 for every $10 of a base finea 20 195
Proposition 69 DNA Penalty Assessment $1 for every $10 of a base finea 4 39
DNA Identification Fund Penalty Assessment $4 for every $10 of a base finea 16 156
EMS Penalty Assessment $2 for every $10 of a base finea 8 78
EMAT Penalty Assessment $4 per conviction 4 4
State Surcharge 20% of base fine 7 78
Court Operations Assessment $40 per conviction 40 40
Conviction Assessment Fee $35 per infraction conviction and
$30 per felony or misdemeanor
conviction
35 30
Night Court Fee $1 per fine and fee imposed 1 1
Restitution Fine $150 minimum per misdemeanor
conviction and $300 minimum
per felony conviction
—150
Subtotals ($238)($1,824)
Examples of Additional Fines and Fees That Could Apply
DUI Lab Test Penalty Assessment Actual costs up to $50 for specif-
ic violations
—$50
Alcohol Education Penalty Assessment Up to $50 —50
County Alcohol and Drug Program Penalty
Assessment
Up to $100 —100
Subtotals (—)($200)
Totals $238 $2,024
a The base fine is rounded up to the nearest $10 to calculate these additional charges. For example, the $35 base fine for a failure to stop would be rounded up to $40.
DUI = Driving Under Influence; EMS = Emergency Medical Services; and EMAT = Emergency Medical Air Transportation.
Page 17 of 42
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 3
How Have Fine and Fee Levels
Changed Over Time?
Total Fine and Fee Levels Have Increased Significantly. Since 2005,
the number and size of charges added to the base fine have increased
significantly—resulting in increases in the total amount owed by individuals
convicted of criminal offenses. As shown in the above figure, the total penalty
for a stop sign violation has increased by 54 percent since 2005.
Fine and Fee Levels Set to Serve Multiple Purposes. The state has enacted
various fines and fees for various purposes. Some (such as the base fine)
are generally tied to the seriousness of the crime. Others (such as the DNA
assessments) were enacted to generate revenue to fund specific activities.
Finally, some fines and fees were enacted to help offset state or local costs for
providing particular services to individuals paying the specific charge.
Total Fine and Fee Level for Stop Sign Violation Has Increased
Significantly Since 2005a
Stop Sign Violation(Infraction)
2005 2019 Change
Base Fine $35 $35
State Penalty Assessment 40 40 —
County Penalty Assessment 28 28 —
Court Construction Penalty Assessment 20 20 —
Proposition 69 DNA Penalty Assessment 4 4 —
DNA Identification Fund Penalty Assessment —16 $16
EMS Penalty Assessment —8 8
EMAT Penalty Assessment —4 4
State Surcharge 7 7 —
Court Operations Fee 20 40 20
Conviction Assessment Fee —35 35
Night Court Fee 1 1 —
Totals $155 $238 $83
a Depending on the specific violation and other factors, additional county or state assessments may apply.
EMS = Emergency Medical Services and EMAT = Emergency Medical Air Transportation
Page 18 of 42
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 4
How Is Fine and Fee Revenue Distributed?
Numerous Funds Eligible to Receive Fine and Fee Revenue. Over 50 state
funds—in addition to many local funds throughout the state—are eligible
to receive fine and fee revenue. However, some of these funds receive very
little revenue, such as those that only receive revenue from fines and fees for
specific offenses that occur infrequently.
Complex Process for Distributing Fine and Fee Revenue. State law (and
county resolutions for certain local charges) dictate a very complex process
for the distribution of fine and fee revenue. State law currently contains at least
215 distinct code sections specifying how individual fines and fees are to be
distributed to state and local funds, including additional requirements for when
payments are not made in full. In order to comply with these requirements,
collection programs must carefully track, distribute, and record the revenue
they collect.
Page 19 of 42
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 5
Who Benefits From Fine and Fee Revenue?
State Receives Majority of Revenue. According to available data compiled
by the State Controller’s Office and the judicial branch, we estimate that a
total of $1.7 billion in fine and fee revenue was distributed to state and local
governments in 2015-16. (This is the most recent data that we have analyzed.)
As shown in the figure, the state received $881 million (or roughly half) of
this revenue. Of this amount, roughly 60 percent went to support trial court
operations and construction.
Local Governments Receive Most of Remaining Revenue. We estimate that
local governments received $707 million (or 42 percent) of the total amount
distributed in 2015-16. Of this amount, about 80 percent went to the counties.
Majority of Fine and Fee Revenue Distributed to the State
2015-16
a Split between courts (state government) and counties (local government) depending on who is actually collecting the delinquent
payments.
State Trial Court Operations
State Trial
Court Construction
Other State Programs
Collection Programsa
Cities
Counties
Total: $1.7 billion
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
DeputyARTWORK #170127
Template_LAOReport_mid.ait
Page 20 of 42
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 6
(Continued)
Collection Programs Receive Share of Revenue. Collection programs
received $114 million (or 7 percent) of the total amount distributed in 2015-16
for their operational costs related to the collection of delinquent payments.
These funds are split between state trial courts and counties depending on
which entity incurred the costs.
Who Benefits From Fine and Fee Revenue?
Page 21 of 42
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 7
How Are Probation Fees Assessed?
Fee Levels Vary Between and Within Counties. The above figure shows
certain probation fees charged by three selected counties. As shown, the
number, type, and level of probation fees varies significantly by county and
the specific fee levied. We note that in addition to probation fees, probationers
could also be required to pay other government fines and fees, such as the
criminal fines and fees assessed by trial courts.
Ability to Pay Can Impact Fees Levied. Some probation fees can be adjusted
based on a probationer’s ability to pay. In addition, some counties have policies
stating that inability to pay shall not prevent a probationer from receiving
services such as supervision and electronic monitoring.
Examples of Probation Fees for Selected Counties
Fee
San Luis Obispo
County
San Diego
County
Butte
County
GPS monitoring (daily)$12 $9 $5 to $7
Supervision fees (monthly)$76 $17 to $176 $164
Installment fee (one time)a $75 $75 —
Transfer between counties (one time)$148 —$392
Court mandated reports (per report)—Up to $1,433 Up to $1,077
Drug testing fee (per test)$55 —$32
Probation violation (per event)——$109
a Fee charged in exchange for allowing probationers to pay their other fees on an installment plan
GPS = Global Position System.
Page 22 of 42
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 8
What Is the Total Amount of Probation Fees
That Probationers Are Charged?
Fees Owed Can Vary Substantially Between Probationers. The figure
above provides hypothetical examples of the total probation fees that two
probationers might be charged over a three-year period. These examples are
intended to demonstrate the magnitude of (1) the fees a probationer can owe
and (2) the difference between fee levels for similar probationers in different
counties.
Level of Supervision Significantly Impacts Fee Amounts. A probationer
on low-level supervision (such as someone convicted for a misdemeanor)
is generally charged fewer fees compared to a probationer on high-level
supervision (such as someone convicted of a felony) who must also follow
certain other requirements (such as being on GPS monitoring and receiving
random drug tests on a regular basis).
Hypothetical Examples of Probation Fees Charged for Three Selected Counties
Estimates Over a Three-Year Period
Probationer
San Luis Obispo
County
San Diego
County
Butte
County
Low supervision and feesa $3,000 $2,000 $1,000
High supervision and feesb 18,000 18,000 16,000
a On probation for a misdemeanor, has one pre-sentence report, is on the lowest level of active supervision, and is on an installment plan, which allows the
probationer to pay fees on an installment basisb On probation for a felony, has one pre-sentence report, is on the highest level of active supervision, is on GPS monitoring, receives random drug testing
once a month, committed one felony probation violation, and is on an installment plan
Page 23 of 42
Contra Costa County Attachment D
Crminal Justice Fee Analysis
Court Collected Fees:
Court Fee Description Code Section Authority Ability to Pay Written in Statute Funded Program FY 17/18 Revenue FY 18/19 Est. Revenue
Alcohol Prevention Fee APPA PC 1463.25 State None specified. Alcohol & Other Drugs - SB920 Alcohol Education Program 78,328$ 73,800$
10% Fee PC 1203.1 (l)County None specified. Trial Court Programs 75,246$ 82,800$
California Fingerprint ID Penalty GC 76102 County None specified. Automated Fingerprint ID 170,986$ 174,300$
Domestic Violence Fee PC 1203.097(a)5 State Ability to pay determination by the court. Domestice Violence Victim Assistance 32,269$ 40,200$
Booking Fee GC 29550.1 County None specified. Sheriff Central Admin 39,464$ 42,300$
Adult DA Diversion Fee PC 1001.16 State Ability to pay determination by the court. Trial Court Programs
Drug Diversion Fee PC 1211(c)(3)County Fee exemptions available.Trial Court Programs
Alcohol Test Fee PC 1463.14 County Ability to pay determination required.Sheriff - General Lab
C.A.P. Fee PC 1463.16 County None specified. Combined with Alchohol Test Fee
B&P 7028.2 (Compliants Against Unlicensed Contractors)BPC 7028.2 State None specified. SLESF-Criminal Prosecution 373$ 900$
DNA Penalty Fee GC 76104.6 State Hardship determination by the court.DNA Identification Fund 235,130$ 237,400$
CITE Fee PC 1463.07 State Ability to pay determination by the court. Trial Court Programs *
Own Recognizance Fee PC 1463.07 State Ability to pay determination by the court.Trial Court Programs
Drug Program Fee H&S 11372.7 State Ability to pay determination by the court.Criminalistics Lab Fund 15,314$ 14,000$
Probation Drug Diversion Fee PC 1001.9 N/A N/A Probation - Adult 1,273$ 1,200$
Probation Supervision Fee PC 1203.1b County Ability to pay determination by the court.Probation - Adult 488,374$ 452,600$
Probation Drug Test Fee PC 1203.1ab County Ability to pay determination required.Probation - Adult 65,921$ 61,400$
Probation Report Fee PC PC 1203.1b County Ability to pay determination by the court.Probation - Adult 27,995$ 28,700$
Alcohol/Drug Assessment Fee PC 1463.13 County Ability to pay determination by the court.Alchohol & Other Drugs - SB921 Drug Abuse Ed 207,529$ 194,300$
Public Defense Fee PC 987.81 County Ability to pay determination by the court.Trial Court Programs 28,499$ 118,200$
Total 2,166,517$ 2,225,100$
* Revenue amounts for CITE and OR Fees are combined with Traffic School Fees (VC 42007) when remitted from the Court.
Sheriff Collected Fees:
CAF Fee Code Section Authority Ability to Pay Written in Statute Funded Program FY 17/18 Revenue FY 18/19 Est. Revenue
Work Alternative PC 4024.2 County Ability to pay program admin. fee.Custody Alternative Facility 443,055 363,000
Electronic Home Detention/Alcohol Monitoring PC 1203.016 County Ability to pay program admin. fee pay.Custody Alternative Facility 568,541 38,000
Total 1,011,596 401,000
111,085$ 117,400$
462,000$ 458,755.86$
129,975$ 123,600$
Page 24 of 42
Page 25 of 42
Page 26 of 42
Contra Costa County
Public Protection Committee
Update on Criminal Justice Fees
Page 1 of 8
November 4th Update on Criminal Justice Fees
1. Introduction
In September 2019, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Board) voted to impose a moratorium on
the use of locally imposed criminal justice fees, becoming only the third county in the nation to end or
suspend such fees. The Board also referred the matter of criminal justice fees to the Public Protection
Committee (PPC), requesting that the PPC attempt to identify and provide to the Board additional
available and relevant data.
On September 30, 2019, the Public Protection Committee accepted an update on the implementation of
the moratorium on the collection of adult criminal justice fee. The PPC directed staff to assemble a small
work group to identify and provide to the PPC any additional available and relevant data.
2. San Francisco Financial Justice Project
In late 2016, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors called for the creation of the Financial Justice
Project within the Office of The Treasurer and Tax Collector to assess and reform how fines and fees
impact low-income San Franciscans and people of color. The Board of Supervisors also initiated a Fines
and Fees Task Force, composed of staff from city and county departments and community organization
representatives. The Task Force was directed to study the impact of fines, fees, tickets, and various
financial penalties that disproportionately impact low-income San Franciscans, and propose reforms.
The Board of Supervisors directed the newly-created Financial Justice Project to staff the Task Force.
Since its creation, the Financial Justice Project has had two full-time staff members, including a Director
and a Program Manager.
For approximately one year, the Fines and Fees Task Force held seven meetings researching and
discussing the impact of fines and fees on the San Francisco community. The Fines and Fees Task Force
was supported by funding partners, including the Citi Community Development and the Walter & Elise
Haas Fund. In October of 2017, the Financial Justice Project released a report on the Task Force’s
findings. The report proposed several recommendations including implementing an ability to pay system
for court fees, reducing reliance on quality of life crime fines, and decreasing the rate of suspending
driver’s licenses.
On February 6, 2018, the SF Board of Supervisors President London Breed announced she was
introducing legislation to eliminate all criminal justice administrative fees authorized by local
government. In April of 2018, the Financial Justice Project released a report detailing the impact of
criminal justice administrative fees on the community, which it states was part of a yearlong
collaborative process.
In the report, the Financial Justice Project found that there was approximately $32.7 million in
outstanding debt, owed by around 21,000 people. The majority of outstanding debt was for Probation-
related fees. The report estimated that the elimination of fees would result in at least $1 million in
decreased annual revenue. An evaluation of the Public Defender’s Clean Slate Program was conducted,
which showed most of their clients were living in extreme poverty. The preparation of the Criminal
Page 27 of 42
Attachment F
Contra Costa County
Public Protection Committee
Update on Criminal Justice Fees
Page 2 of 8
Justice Administrative Fees analysis report was supported by multiple funding partners, including The
San Francisco Foundation, the Lauren and John Arnold Foundation, and the Walter & Elise Haas Fund.
In June of 2018, legislation eliminating the local administered fees was unanimously passed with support
from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the Chief of Probation, District Attorney, Public Defender,
and the Sheriff. The ordinance was scheduled to become effective and operative 30 days later on July 1,
2018.
While the fees included in the legislation are authorized by the county, they are collected by the San
Francisco Superior Court. Because the courts are independently governed, the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors does not have the authority to direct the court to clear judgments they have issued in the
past. To resolve this issue, the Public Defender’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Financial
Justice Project worked to submit a petition to the court to clear all of the debt associated with the fees
included in the legislation, along with a list of associated account numbers. The UC Berkeley Law School
Public Advocacy Clinic assisted with the process of collecting information on outstanding debt. Two
months later, in August of 2018, the San Francisco Superior Court announced they eliminated more than
$32.7 million in outstanding debt stemming from these fees.
3. Contra Costa County Processes
Each agency that assesses and/or collects adult criminal justice fees– the Probation Department, the
Office of the Sheriff, and the Superior Court- is governed by a different set of internal policies and
practices. Each of these will be laid out in the following sections: (1) Probation Department, (2) Sheriff’s
Office, and (3) the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa (Court).
a. Probation Department
In January 2018, the Probation Department updated their ability-to-pay determination process. All
adults that have been ordered to formal Probation, which includes mandatory supervision, and ordered
to pay Probation fees, drug testing fees and/or the cost of their court report are assessed for their ability
to pay said fees.
Below is an outline of the Probation’s Department’s fee assessment process:
1. Once the probationer has been out of custody for three (3) months, or if the probationer was
sentenced from out of custody, the Deputy Probation Officer (DPO) will provide him or her with
the Application for Financial Evaluation.
2. The probationer is instructed to complete the evaluation form and return it to the DPO within
20 business days or sooner. If the probationer fails to return the completed evaluation or
returns an incomplete evaluation form, the DPO will give the probationer a warning that the
evaluation needs to be completed within 10 business days or the amount of fees will be set at
the maximum allowed.
3. Once the probationer returns the completed the application, the DPO will send the application
and the order for Probation to the Probation Account Clerk who will review the application and
determine the probationer's ability to pay based on net income and Probation’s Fee Reduction
schedule.
Page 28 of 42
Attachment F
Contra Costa County
Public Protection Committee
Update on Criminal Justice Fees
Page 3 of 8
4. Once this determination has been made, the Probation Account Clerk will respond to the DPO
with the total amount the probationer is able to pay over the duration of their time on
Probation.
5. Upon receipt of the determination of the probationer's ability to pay, the DPO reviews the
ability to pay determination with the probationer and the probationer has the option to agree
to the amount, or requesting a hearing.
6. If the probationer agrees to the determined amount, the DPO prepares and sends the
Determination of Ability to Pay memo to the Court along with a copy of the Ability to Pay
Determination/Waiver/Instructions. The DPO also informs the probationer that in the event of
changed financial circumstances, the probationer may request an updated Ability to Pay review
or may request that the Court modify or vacate an existing court judgement for payment of
fees.
7. If the probationer disagrees with the amount determined by the Probation Department. The
DPO will contact the court clerk and calendar a hearing. The DPO will notify the probationer of
the hearing date, time and location. The Defense Attorney and the District Attorney shall be
notified and provided copies of all documents provided to the Court, including the
Determination of Ability to Pay Memo, the Application for Financial Evaluation, the Ability to Pay
Determination/Waiver/ Instructions and any other supporting documentation.
b. Office of the Sheriff
The Office of the Sheriff is responsible for the administration of Custody Alternative Facility (CAF)
programs, which includes Work Alternative Program (WAP), Electronic Home Detention (EHD)/Alcohol
Monitoring (SCRAM), and County Parole. Assessment and collection of fees is the responsibility of the
Office of the Sheriff. With respect to WAP, PC 4024.2(c) authorizes the county’s board of supervisors to
“prescribe reasonable rules and regulations under which a work release program is operated.” With
respect to EHD, PC 1203.016(d)(1) specifies that the rules, regulations, and administrative policy of the
Electronic Home Detention Program shall be written and reviewed on an annual basis by the County
Board of Supervisors and the Correctional Administrator. The Board of Supervisors last conducted an
annual review of the policies and procedures of the Custody Alternative Facilities programs in 2010.
Ability to Pay Process:
The CAF procedure provides for the CAF participant to be completely enrolled in a CAF program prior to
discussing fees or ability to pay. Participants review and complete the personal budget form with their
assigned CAF Specialist. The participant will then request a reduction/waiver of fees based on their
stated ability to pay. A CAF Sergeant will review and approve the Personal Budget form. A participant's
inability to pay all or a portion of any fee(s) will not preclude them from being enrolled or completing
any program offered by the Custody Alternative Facility.
Process of Collections:
CAF fees are collected after the participant is enrolled in a CAF program. Fees can be paid in the manner
which is most appropriate for the participant. Participants can pay their total program fees at one time
or over a pre-determined length of time. There is no process established to collect payment from
Page 29 of 42
Attachment F
Contra Costa County
Public Protection Committee
Update on Criminal Justice Fees
Page 4 of 8
participants who complete the program, but do not pay. A participant's ability to successfully complete a
CAF programs is not impacted by lack of payment.
Percentage of participants who pay fees:
It is difficult to approximate the percentage of individuals who pay fees because we do not maintain
statistics. Approximately 50% of CAF participants pay all or some of their assessed fees.
CAF Workgroup:
The Office of the Sheriff has worked with representatives from the Office of Reentry and Justice, the
Public Defender’s Office, and Reentry Solutions Group to review the CAF policies and procedures,
including updating the Ability-to-Pay forms.
Work Alternative Program Fees by County:
In September 2018, Alameda Sheriff’s Office provided a presentation on their Sheriff’s Work Alternative
Program1. Included in that presentation was a cost comparison of Work Alternative Programs amongst
twelve different counties (see Figure 1). Contra Costa County
Figure 1. Work Alternative Cost Comparison
1 Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program (SWAP) Presentation, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, September 13, 2018
Page 30 of 42
Attachment F
Contra Costa County
Public Protection Committee
Update on Criminal Justice Fees
Page 5 of 8
c. Superior Court
The Court currently collects and distributes 8 of the 13 fees and assessments identified in the
moratorium. As the Court relies on legacy case management systems to collect and distribute criminal
fines and fees, significant resources and time will be needed to update its legacy systems and
procedures to fully implement the County's moratorium. The Court estimates $63,570 as the
administrative cost to implement the moratorium and waiting for further direction from the County.
Tthe Court has stressed that once these fees are waived or suspended, they cannot later be re-imposed
if the temporary moratorium is lifted. This would require a write-off of existing debt.
Below is a summary of further analysis performed by the County Administrator’s Office that was aided
by additional information from the Superior Court (See Figure 2). This summarizes the Courts
responsibility for the imposition and collection of the referenced fees and the level of implementation of
the moratorium.
Figure 2. Summary of Court Fees
Name of
Fee/Assessment
Case
Type(s)
Affected
Court
Imposed
Court
Collected
Continued
Collection
Continued
Imposition
# of
Accounts
Balance
10% Fee Criminal Y Y Pending N
CA Fingerprint ID
Penalty
Criminal &
Traffic
Y Y N/A Y
Booking Fee Criminal Y Y N N 3,684 $901,092
Drug Diversion Fee Criminal Y Y Pending N
Alcohol Test Fee Criminal
(DUI &
Reckless)
N N N/A N/A
CAP Fee Criminal
(DUI &
Reckless)
N N N/A N/A
Probation Drug
Diversion Fee
Criminal Y Y Pending N
Cost of Probation Criminal N Y Pending N
Probation Drug
Test Fee
Criminal N Y Pending N
Probation Report
Fee
Criminal N Y Pending N
Alcohol and Drug
Assessment Fee
Criminal N N N/A N/A
Public Defender
Fee
Criminal N Y Pending N 25,240 $5.54
million
Page 31 of 42
Attachment F
Contra Costa County
Public Protection Committee
Update on Criminal Justice Fees
Page 6 of 8
4. Available Data
In addition to the body of evidence and contra costa county implications, included in Reentry Solutions
Group’s Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa, there was limited data provided by the Sheriff’s
Office and the Probation Departments on race and income levels.
a. Racial Demographics
Based on a snapshot of the demographics of individuals in custody as of October 25, 2019,
approximately 39% were Black (see Figure 3). Within Contra Costa County, approximately 8.5% of the
population is Black or African American.2
Figure 3. Racial Demographic –In-custody Adults as of October 25, 2019
Source: Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff
According to data from the State of California DOJ CJSC, in both 2013 and 2014, Blacks were more likely
to be arrested than individuals from any other racial/ethnic group in every city except one in Contra
Costa County. While the specific rate of the disparity varied by city the disparity tended to be higher in
cities with smaller black populations (see Appendix B for more information). Across the County, Black
adults were more than 3 times more likely to be arrested than adults from any other racial/ethnic group,
2 2018 American Community Survey, ACS DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING ESTIMATES,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=contra%20costa%20&hidePreview=false&table=DP05&tid=ACSDP1Y2018.
DP05&g=0500000US06013&vintage=2018&layer=county&cid=DP05_0001E&lastDisplayedRow=93
Black
39%
Hispanic
25%
Other
7%
White
29%
Page 32 of 42
Attachment F
Contra Costa County
Public Protection Committee
Update on Criminal Justice Fees
Page 7 of 8
and Black youth were more than 7 times more likely to be arrested than youth from any other
racial/ethnic group.3
b. Income Demographics
The Probation Department reviewed 115 cases from March 2018 to March 2018 and found that
approximately 88% had income levels up to 200% of the federal poverty guideline and received a fee
reduction or waiver, whereas approximately 12% were charged the full amount (See Figure 4).
Probation Fee Reduction Schedule has been included below (See Figure 5.) For reference, the estimated
median household income in Contra Costa is approximately $64,300 for nonfamily households and
$114,000 for family households.4
Figure 4. Probation Fee Reduction Sample (March 2018 - March 2019)
3 Racial Justice Task Force Final Report,
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2018/BOS/20180724_1121/34430_FINAL%20CCC-RJTF_BoS-
memo_20180710_STC.pdf
4 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=contra%20costa%20county%20income&hidePreview=false&table=DP03&t
id=ACSDP1Y2018.DP03&t=Income%20and%20Earnings&g=0500000US06013&vintage=2018&layer=county&cid=D
P03_0001E&lastDisplayedRow=105
Accounts % of Total Federal Poverty Level Fee Reduction
79 69%At of Below 100%100%
5 4%Up to 125%80%
3 3%Up to 150%60%
11 10%Up to 175%40%
3 3%Up to 200%20%
14 12%Above 200%0%
115 100%
Page 33 of 42
Attachment F
Contra Costa County
Public Protection Committee
Update on Criminal Justice Fees
Page 8 of 8
Figure 5. Contra Costa County Probation Fee Reduction Schedule
c. Pending Data
The Probation Department is currently reviewing case files to determine what percentage of
probationers were represented by a Public Defender. The Public Defender’s Office is currently
reviewing Clean Slate cases to provide further information on income demographics.
Page 34 of 42
Attachment F
Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County
Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group
Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
11/4/19, page 1 of 8
Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa
Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Member, Contra Costa County Criminal Justice Fees Work Group
Presented to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 4, 2019
Note: All documents referenced in this report are available upon request.
“We found it difficult to access the data we needed to understand the basics of fines and fees
and how they impact individuals, as well as our city and county bottom lines.
After working diligently with various city and county departments
to better understand their fines and fees,
we realized that most cities and counties, including San Francisco, lack answers to basic questions,
such as how many people receive various fines, fees, tickets; collection and delinquency rates,
penalties for nonpayment as well as the cost of collection to the city and county.”1
San Francisco Financial Justice Project
1. Context
In Contra Costa County, attention to the use of administrative fees in the adult criminal justice
system was preceded by the County’s decision to end such fees in the juvenile justice system. In October
2016, the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to impose a moratorium on such fees, which they
followed with another unanimous vote in October 2017, permanently repealing these juvenile fees. 2,3 In
the aftermath of these historic votes, Contra Costa went on to become the first county in the nation to
identify and reimburse families who had been unlawfully charged such fees.4
This interest in juvenile fee reform - both locally and statewide - dovetailed with increasing
public attention to the use of similar fees in the adult criminal justice system. Across California, demand
has been growing to remedy the disproportionately punitive consequences of money-based sanctions.
In July 2018, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco - with the support
of the San Francisco Chief of Probation, District Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, and more than a
dozen community organizations - unanimously passed an ordinance to end its adult criminal justice fees,
thus eliminating more than $32.7 million in outstanding debt levied against more than 21,000 people. In
November 2018, Alameda County also voted to eliminate their county-controlled criminal justice fees.
Page 35 of 42
Attachment G
Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County
Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group
Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
11/4/19, page 2 of 8
In January 2019, Senators Mitchell and Hertzberg introduced Senate Bill 144 (SB144), to
substantially amend or end the use of state and local justice fees; it has been turned into a two-year bill
and will be considered in the 2020 legislative session.
In September 2019, Contra Costa County voted to impose a moratorium on the use of locally
imposed criminal justice fees, becoming only the third county in the nation to end or suspend such fees.
2. San Francisco Financial Justice Project
In late 2016, the City and County of San Francisco established the Financial Justice Project (FJP),
housed in the Office of the Treasurer. San Francisco is the first city in the nation to launch such an entity
to assess and reform fines, fees, and financial penalties that disproportionately impact low-income
people, communities of color, people struggling with homelessness, and people exiting the criminal
justice system.5
The FJP is directed by Anne Stuldreher, MBA, who was previously a Senior Program Manager for
The California Endowment, Senior Policy Fellow for New America, and Senior Policy Advisor for
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The FJP is managed by Christa Brown, who previously served as
Director of the SparkPoint Initiative for the United Way of the Bay Area and who holds a Master’s in
Public Administration from the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley.
Over the course of its first two years, the FJP convened and facilitated the work of a Fines and
Fees Task Force comprised of community members, ten governmental departments, and the courts.
With the support of FJP, the Task Force examined best practices, reviewed evidence related to the use
and impact of monetary sanctions, and received expert testimony, while the FJP worked with the Budget
Office to conduct an audit of San Francisco’s fines and fees. At the conclusion of its work, the Task Force
recommended 40 reforms to both policy and process.6
In late 2018, San Francisco’s Financial Justice Project issued a new report, Criminal Justice
Administrative Fees: High Pain for People, Low Gain for Government.7 Subtitled A Call to Action for
California Counties, the report called on all counties in the state of California to undertake substantial
reforms.
3. Summary of Local Research Process
In Contra Costa County, much of the original research and analysis into the county’s criminal
justice fees was undertaken by Reentry Solutions Group (RSG), working in primary partnership with the
UC Berkeley School of Law Policy Advocacy Clinic (UCB), along with other local stakeholders.
In December 2017, RSG requested that the Office of the Sheriff establish a work group to
remedy the County’s failure to comply with California state statutes regarding the policies and
procedures for Electronic Monitoring in Lieu of Bail (California Penal Code 1203.018(e)); Home
Detention in Lieu of Confinement (PC 1203.016(b) and 1203.016(d)(1)); and Work Release in Lieu of
Confinement (PC 4024.2(c)).
Page 36 of 42
Attachment G
Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County
Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group
Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
11/4/19, page 3 of 8
In response to this request, in January 2018 the Office of the Sheriff approved a Work Group
proposal submitted by RSG, and a Work Group was formed, comprising representatives of the Sheriff’s
Office along with Donté Blue, Deputy Director of the County’s Office of Reentry and Justice; Ellen
McDonnell, Chief Assistant Public Defender; and Rebecca Brown, Director of RSG.
Over the past 20 months, this Work Group has made incremental progress, and the Sheriff’s
Office has largely suspended the use of application or administrative fees for the programs delegated to
its administration by the Board of Supervisors. However, new policies have not yet been drafted,
reviewed, or approved by the Board of Supervisors, and the County remains out of compliance with
state law.
In October 2018, in partnership with local Contra Costa stakeholders, UCB submitted a Public
Records Act Request to Sharon Anderson, County Counsel for Contra Costa County, seeking information
on “how Contra Costa County assesses and collects fees against adults...in the criminal justice system.”
In response to this request, Contra Costa County provided a seven (7) page document that included, in
its totality, a cover letter, two administrative forms, and one Administrative Bulletin. In the document’s
cover letter, Chief Assistant County Administrator Tim Ewell wrote, “We have reviewed the remainder of
your request,” deemed it “overly broad,” and requested greater specificity.
In November 2018, through a series of emails between UCB and Mr. Ewell, Contra Costa County
provided four web addresses that link to webpages offering summary information and various Fee
Schedules used by the Office of the Sheriff: Civil Unit fees, Records Unit fees, Custody Alternative
Facility fees, and Coroner’s Division fees. It should be noted that three of these web sources do not
pertain to criminal justice fees, and that the one that does - for fees related to the Custody Alternative
Facility (CAF), operated by the Sheriff’s Office as authorized by the Board of Supervisors – the link simply
connects to the CAF handbook, which is substantially out of date.
In sum: Contra Costa County provided no administrative data that would have allowed analysis
of the County’s use of criminal justice fees.
In October 2018, again in partnership with local stakeholders, UCB similarly submitted a Public
Records Act Request for fee-related judicial records to Matthew Kitson, Public Information Officer of the
Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County. In his response of November 2018, Mr. Kitson wrote
that the Court:
• “does not maintain any non-adjudicative ‘records relating to the demographics of adults in the
justice system’” and has “no records responsive” to this request;
• “does not track the aggregate number of adults who are assessed and/or charged fees annually
[and has] no responsive records”;
• “does not track the total amount of adult fees assessed per year, reduced or waived due to
inability to pay per year, and/or total amount currently owed [and] no responsive records exist”;
• has “no aggregated data concerning” adjudicative records pertaining to individual cases
• “keeps no data or records specifically ‘relating to the amount spent on collecting adult fees’
although “the monthly Financial Report spreadsheets may contain relevant information.”
Page 37 of 42
Attachment G
Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County
Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group
Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
11/4/19, page 4 of 8
However, to his response Mr. Kitson attached a 362-page PDF document containing hundreds of
pages of scanned financial accounting and tracking spreadsheets used by the Court in its role as financial
administrator for state and local justice-related fees. It should be noted that these data do not provide
information related to individual cases, and the document contained no individual or identifying
information. Instead, this document provides a month-by-month financial detail of the funds associated
with each criminal justice fee collected by the Court as authorized by either state statutes or local
ordinances.
In November and December 2018, on behalf of a coalition of stakeholders, Rebecca Brown,
Director of RSG, conducted extensive analysis of the data embedded in this document. From it, she
produced a comprehensive, month-by-month, item-by-item categorical report on every criminal justice
fee collected and distributed by the Courts on Contra Costa County’s behalf in each month throughout
from July 2017 through June 2018. Capturing all the Contra Costa County data provided in the Court’s
document, this analysis included line-by-line accounting for each fee type, recording Non-delinquent
Receipts, Delinquent Receipts, and Net Revenue Distribution, among other data.
In December 2018, Ms. Brown, along with Carson Whitelemons from UCB, engaged in a
telephone interview with Mr. Kitson and Fae Li, Financial Services Director for the Superior Court, to
seek additional information about the document provided by the Court. During this interview, Ms. Li
explained various administrative processes as they relate to the tracking, accounting, and distribution of
such fees, and the production of the Court’s financial reports. She also discussed the contract with the
Court’s debt collector, Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP (Linebarger). It may be of interest that
Linebarger is the subject of multiple class action lawsuits across the United States.8,9,10,11
In December 2018, Ms. Brown obtained a copy of, and closely reviewed, Linebarger’s Master
Agreement for Collection Services, which is a contract between Linebarger and the Judicial Council/
Administrative Office of the Courts, effective as of January 1, 2014. Although neither California’s 58
counties nor its 58 Superior Courts is required to enter into this Master Agreement, both Contra Costa
County and the Superior Court of Contra Costa County are named as Participating Entities in this
Agreement.
The Agreement contains provisions for Obligation (Section 2.2), Non-Exclusivity (Section 2.3),
Franchise Tax Board Transfer Services (Section 3.7), Termination for Convenience (Section 4.2), and
Termination for Cause (Section 4.3).
The Statement of Work that accompanies the Master Agreement obligates Linebarger to
provide a “list of old cases...annually, or as specified by the Participating Entity. The Participating Entity
may request a list of cases…[to] determine eligibility for discharge.” Section 1.5.1 requires Linebarger to
“supply an account payment history for each Account on the Participating Entity’s request.”
The Fee Schedule that accompanies the Agreement reveals that the bulk of Linebarger’s
commissions range from 18% to 25% of all debt collected. The commission percentage rises with the age
of the debt, with the maximum percentage charged against debt that is two years old or more.
In February 2019, Ms. Brown disseminated the results of her financial and administrative
analyses of Contra Costa County’s justice fees and the Linebarger contract (along with her analysis of the
Page 38 of 42
Attachment G
Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County
Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group
Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
11/4/19, page 5 of 8
Contra Costa County DA’s civil asset forfeiture practices) at a public meeting of Reentry Solutions Group.
Entitled What the Numbers Tell Us: Money and Justice in Contra Costa County, this public presentation
was also immediately published on RSG’s website.12
In February 2019, the Board of Supervisors formally referred the matter of criminal justice fees
to the Board’s Public Protection Committee (PPC). In its meetings in April and July 2019, the PPC
reviewed information provided by RSG and by staff of the CAO, heard public testimony, and considered
potential options for action. At its July meeting, the PPC determined to recommend to the Board of
Supervisors that it enact a moratorium on adult criminal justice fees heretofore authorized or imposed
by Contra Costa County.
On September 17, 2019, the Board of Supervisors considered this recommendation, voted to
authorize a moratorium, and referred the matter of criminal justice fees to continuing attention by the
PPC, requesting that the PPC attempt to identify and provide to the BOS additional available and
relevant data. In response to the September 2019 request by the BOS, Rebecca Brown has drafted this
report for submission to the PPC to advance its research and for consideration at its meeting on
November 4, 2019. (It is our understanding that the County Administrator’s Office is preparing a
summary report on the policies and administrative practices of relevant Contra Costa agencies; we
encourage the PPC and the Board to review that summary.)
On October 21, 2019, the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa (Court), provided
a letter to the CAO regarding administrative measures related to implementing the moratorium. In the
letter, the Court estimates $63,570 as the administrative cost to implement the moratorium. Although
in the letter the Court acknowledges its difficulties in providing specific dollar amounts related to any of
the outstanding fee amounts, three points of interest are mentioned:
• In terms of public defense fees (which, it should be noted, do not contribute to the budget of
the Public Defender), it has identified 25,240 accounts with a balance of approximately $5.54
million in collections with Linebarger, and it has notified Linebarger to suspend collections on
these accounts.
• In terms of booking fees, which may be ordered in the amount of $564, it has identified 3,684
accounts with a balance of $901,092, and it has notified Linebarger to suspend collections on
these accounts.
• In terms of probation fees – which, by RSG’s analysis, represent 54% of the revenues generated
by criminal justice fees in Contra Costa in the year studied – the Court has not yet been able to
identify the total amount of unpaid debt and it has not yet suspended collections on such fees,
pending an administrative revision to its vendor data system.
4. A Body of Evidence
Local and national research has widely and consistently shown that criminal justice fees are
harmful, that they undermine successful reentry, and that they increase the chance of recidivism. For
those who are convicted in criminal court, fees for probation supervision, drug and alcohol testing,
representation by a public defender and non-custodial sentencing options are assessed in addition to
Page 39 of 42
Attachment G
Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County
Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group
Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
11/4/19, page 6 of 8
other costs and can quickly add up to thousands of dollars. In Contra Costa County, an individual with a
three-year term of supervised probation is assessed $2,700 in Probation supervision fees alone.
Research shows that the vast majority of people charged such costs cannot afford to pay them
and that counties typically net very little or even lose revenue after accounting for collections
costs.13 Fees make reentry harder, hurting credit scores, making it harder for people to find housing or
open a bank account, and discouraging people from seeking formal employment out of fear that their
wages will be garnished, bank accounts levied, or tax refunds intercepted.”14
National research is unanimous on this point: Given the endemic racial bias present throughout
our justice systems, administrative fees are disproportionately imposed on communities of color, who
are further disproportionately likely to have difficulty paying them. In California, close to half of Black
and Latinx families struggle to put food on the table and pay for housing.15 And research has found that
the burden of such fees is typically felt by family members; in a national survey by the Ella Baker Center
for Human Rights, 63% of respondents reported that family members were primarily responsible for
covering conviction-related costs, and 83% of those paying such costs are women. Nearly half also
reported that their families could not afford to pay these fines and fees, and 1 in 5 families across
income levels reported that they had to take out a loan to cover conviction-related costs.16
It should be noted that a report released in May 2019 by the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System drives home the devastating havoc that can result from costs such as criminal justice
fees. Entitled Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2018, the report found that
“many adults are financially vulnerable and would have difficulty handling an emergency expense as
small as $400.”17 The study found that 17% of adults are forced to leave some bills unpaid each month,
while another 12% said that an additional expense of $400 would leave them unable to meet their basic
needs. A full 42% of people who have no college education would be pushed into financial hardship by
such an expense, with an even higher percentage of African Americans (58%) affected in this way. Even
for African Americans with some college or an associate’s degree find significant harm; 46% report that
they would not be able to pay their monthly bills if hit with an additional $400 expense. And rather than
constituting a one-time expense, criminal justice fees tend to recur - probation fees, drug testing fees,
and partial payment fees all accrue month after month.
5. Contra Costa County Implications
According to the American Bar Association, the vast majority of people accused in criminal
courts are considered indigent, unable to afford their own attorney and eligible therefore for the
constitutional protections for public defense. The ABA estimates that 85 to 95 percent of people
accused of crimes cannot afford their own lawyer;18 however, Contra Costa County collects no local data
on this point.
Data provided by the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff can serve as a sufficient proxy for
the racial implications of our local criminal justice system; according to the Office of the Sheriff, 71% of
people currently incarcerated in our county jails are people of color.19
Page 40 of 42
Attachment G
Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County
Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group
Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
11/4/19, page 7 of 8
In Contra Costa County, the Probation Department, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Courts are
authorized to impose local criminal justice fees. Each of these entities is governed by a different set of
internal policies and practices with regard to the fees in question, and our research suggests that Contra
Costa County has thus far failed to develop consistent, transparent, or equitable practices; has not
engaged in meaningful oversight or analyses of the implementation and impacts of these fees; and
indeed both expanded and increased these fees in the immediate aftermath of the economic recession
of 2007-2009, a time when unemployment was at near record levels and millions of families across the
nation found themselves bankrupt, foreclosed on, evicted, and out of work.20
6. Summary
The policy implications from national and local research are clear: “We should end the practice
of assessing criminal administrative fees. Eliminating administrative fees will allow formerly incarcerated
people to devote their limited resources to critical needs like food, education, housing and health
insurance. Repealing criminal fees will also result in improved employment prospects for formerly
incarcerated people and put more money in the pockets of economically insecure families, aiding
successful reentry and reducing California’s recidivism rate.”21
Contra Costa County is not unique in its past practices with criminal justice fees, and there is a
way forward. By establishing a governmental entity to recognize and begin to redress this endemic
American reality, the Financial Justice Project in San Francisco has been a trailblazer, but the research
conducted in Contra Costa County is equally uncommon; we know of no other county in California in
which non-governmental agencies have undertaken this level of detailed local analysis. And of course, as
the third county in the nation to end or suspend such fees, Contra Costa County now stands as one of
the leading lights committed to such opportunities for change.
1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gUo96d0Idfa6qdFj5QhGY-cdI61MZ_9q/view
2
http://64.166.146.245/agenda_publish.cfm?dsp=agm&seq=27510&rev=0&id=&form_type=AG_MEMO&beg_meet
mth=10&beg_meetyr=2016&end_meetmth=10&end_meetyr=2016&mt=ALL&sstr=juvenile&dept=ALL&hartkeywo
rds=&sortby=f.form_num,%20f.rev_num&fp=ADVSRCH&StartRow=1
3 http://reentrysolutionsgroup.org/meeting_materials/Press_release_and_moratorium_letters_10-28-
16_english_and_spanish.pdf
4 https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/01/07/the-check-is-in-the-mail-for-real
5 https://sftreasurer.org/sites/default/files/2019-
08/Overview%20of%20the%20Financial%20Justice%20Project%2012.11.18.pdf
Page 41 of 42
Attachment G
Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County
Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group
Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
11/4/19, page 8 of 8
6 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gUo96d0Idfa6qdFj5QhGY-cdI61MZ_9q/view, including: Eliminate all criminal
justice administrative fees charged by the City and County of San Francisco. allow lower-income people non-
monetary options to clear their Quality of Life citations, reduce or waive fees related to parking tickets and other
citations for lower-income people, adopt court reforms to substantially reduce the cost of state-imposed traffic
fines and fees for lower-income people, reduce the city’s steep towing and “boot” fees for lower-income San
Franciscans, develop a pilot program to relieve parents of debt paid to the government instead of to child support
payments, reduce use of money bail
7 http://test-sfttx.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/2019-09/Hig%20Pain%20Low%20Gain%20FINAL_04-24-
2019.pdf
8 https://texasmonitor.org/lawsuit-against-collection-firm-raises-questions-on-tax-judgments/
9 http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/debt_collection_law_firm_to_pay_3.4m_to_settle_class_action/
10 https://www.classaction.org/media/guerra-v-miami-dade.pdf
11 http://www.hoysettlement.com/media/2115094/stipulation_of_class_action_settlement.pdf
12 http://reentrysolutionsgroup.org/meeting_materials/2_26_19_RSGFinalV2.pdf
13 East Bay Community Law Center, Pay or Prey (2018); Berkeley Law Public Advocacy Clinic, Making Families Pay
(2017).
14 https://ebclc.org/cadebtjustice/policy-platform/
15 Insight Center for Community Economic Development, Cost of Being Californian (2018).
16 Ella Baker Center, Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families (2015).
17 https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201905.pdf
18 Laurence A . Benner, Eliminating Excessive Public Defender Workloads, 2011 A .B .A, Criminal Justice Vol . 2,
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_magazine/cjsu11_ benner
.authcheckdam .pdf.
19 Assistant Sheriff Mathew Schuler, email communication to Rebecca Brown, October 25, 2019.
20 Contra Costa County Resolutions No. 2010/251, 2010/252, 2010/253, 2010/262. Originally research into
bureaucratic and administrative history in Contra Costa County, produced by Reentry Solutions Group in February
2018, unpublished and available upon request.
21 https://ebclc.org/cadebtjustice/policy-platform/
Page 42 of 42
Attachment G