Safer communities start with smarter responses. Join RFA's free 2025 Solutions Sprint to bring evidence-based diversion to your community.
Learn more and apply.
Fines and fees are a barrier to economic mobility: Policies to reform government-levied fines and fees are rooted in a recognition that fines and fees are an inefficient source of revenue, have been found to overly burden low-income residents and people of color, and can present significant barriers to economic mobility. While discussed together, fines are different from fees. Fines are monetary penalties imposed on individuals after an offence is committed. Fees are charges for government services or actions and used to help cover the cost of government operations. Fines and fees are typically imposed uniformly, without consideration of ability to pay. Experts advise that governments should rethink their reliance on user fees to fund services and that fines should not be used to generate revenue. Instead, fines, when they are appropriate, should only be imposed at a level proportionate to the offence.
Reform fine and fees levels and address racial and economic disparities: While the compounding financial penalties and consequences of fines and fees can harm all residents, the negative effects are disproportionately experienced by residents with low incomes and communities of color. Failure or inability to pay fines and fees can spiral into serious consequences for individuals subject to them. In some jurisdictions, driver's licenses are suspended for non-payment of fines and fees or missed court appointments. Outstanding government debts can be sent to collections and wages garnished. Individuals with suspended driver's licenses often struggle to get to work, and outstanding government debt can reduce individuals' credit scores. As a result, fines and fees policies can make it more difficult for workers to remain employed, hurt the local economy by diminishing spending power, and limit the ability of families to find housing. Research has documented the concentrated impacts of these penalties, which motivate efforts to focus reforms on the fines and fees that disproportionately harm marginalized residents.
Waiving existing debt: Reform initiatives to fine and fee levels should include large-scale waiving of existing debt, which can enable the restoration of voting rights, driver's licenses, library membership, and more. In many jurisdictions, the residents most impacted by fines and fees lack the financial ability to pay them. This can mean the costs associated with collecting fine and fee debt can outstrip the amount that can be recovered. Though altering fine and fees structure will help future populations, waiving existing debt is critical to assisting those already harmed by historic policies.
Expunging minor offenses, waiving or reducing fines, and considering alternatives to fines: As part of broader fines and fees reform, some jurisdictions help residents expunge their criminal records for past offenses; similarly, ongoing cases may be dismissed. Other avenues include reducing or eliminating financial penalties for minor offenses, such as parking tickets, overdue fees at libraries, or "quality of life" offenses, like loitering. Jurisdictions can also consider alternative approaches to achieving policy goals without relying first on fines. For example, communities might invest in safer street infrastructure and traffic calming measures instead of exclusively relying on speed cameras to shift driving behavior.
Reconsider how core government functions are funded: More broadly, jurisdictions should reconsider how heavily certain functions are reliant on fines and user fees for revenues, especially if these costs fall disproportionately on low-income or marginalized residents. This tends to be particularly prevalent in the criminal justice system. After assessment, some jurisdictions have eliminated certain user fees and reduced fines, having identified general revenue sources.
Analysis produced by the Urban Institute found that 17 percent of nonelderly adults incurred fines and fees in 2023. Fines and fees—particularly court or incarceration-related fines—strain the well-being of families already experiencing financial instability and widen income and racial disparities.
A 2023 nationally representative survey of the impacts of fines and fees that the Fines and Fees Justice Center conducted with the Wilson Center at Duke Law School found that over the last 10 years, 1 in 3 Americans has owed fines and fees and more than half were forced to forego at least one essential need (e.g. housing, food, medicine) in order to pay.
Internal evaluations from San Francisco’s Financial Justice Project found the initiative waived $32 million in criminal justice debt for 21,000 residents, while also lifting holds on 88,000 driver's licenses and renewing access to 17,000 library cards.
An internal evaluation of the Durham DEAR program increased criminal record expunction by 59 percent, waived $2.7 million in traffic-related fines and fees debt for 11,000+ residents, and dismissed charges for minor offenses for 35,000 residents.
Before making investments in this strategy, city and county leaders should ensure this strategy addresses local needs.
The Urban Institute and Mathematica have developed indicator frameworks to help local leaders assess conditions related to upward mobility, identify barriers, and guide investments to address these challenges. These indicator frameworks can serve as a starting point for self-assessment, not as a comprehensive evaluation, and should be complemented by other forms of local knowledge.
The Urban Institute's Upward Mobility Framework identifies a set of key local conditions that shape communities’ ability to advance upward mobility and racial equity. Local leaders can use the Upward Mobility Framework to better understand the factors that improve upward mobility and prioritize areas of focus. Data reports for cities and counties can be created here.
One indicator in the Upward Mobility Framework may be improved with investments in government-levied fines and fees reform. To measure this indicator and determine if investments in these interventions could help, examine the following:
Financial security: Share of households with debt in collections. These data are available from the Urban Institute’s Debt in America website.
Mathematica's Education-to-Workforce (E-W) Indicator Framework helps local leaders identify the data that matter most in helping students and young adults succeed. Local leaders can use the E-W framework to better understand education and workforce conditions in their communities and to identify strategies that can improve outcomes in these areas.
Several indicators in the E-W Framework may be improved with investments in this strategy. To measure these indicators and determine if investments in this strategy could help, examine the following:
Economic security: Percentage of individuals who reach median levels of wealth 10, 15, 20, and 30 years after completing their highest degree or leaving education (high school, workforce training, or postsecondary education).
Economic mobility: Percentage of individuals who reach the level of earnings needed to enter the fourth (60th to 80th percentile) income quintile in their state or above 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15 years after completing their highest degree or leaving education (high school or postsecondary)
Use community input to target efforts. Begin a fines and fees reform effort with a community listening tour, gathering information on which fines and fees are most burdensome to community members. This is useful in developing a reform coalition and ensuring you are targeting policy changes that will have a constituency behind them.
Data-driven decision making and fines & fees scan: Establish baseline data on who is affected by fines and fees, how much revenue is generated, where the revenue is allocated, costs of collection, consequences of late payment or nonpayment, percentage of fines and fees paid on time, and percentage of fines and fees ultimately collected. Furthermore, identify the agencies or third-party contractors in charge of debt collection. Gathering this data is important to have a common set of facts and elevate the significance of the problem in the community.
Local ordinances and budgetary process: Local ordinances or budgets can be used to eliminate local fees and surcharges, as well as identify alternative revenue options as replacements. The budget process is a good opportunity to shed light on these issues and advocate for reform. Additionally, jurisdictions can pass local ordinances to reduce fine amounts, bar fees from being charged for certain governmental operations, and authorize fine and fee debt relief.
Court orders, rules of procedure, and fee waiver rules: Court systems can take steps to eliminate or decline to impose fees and surcharges throughout the adult and juvenile justice systems. For instance, a court system can institute a court order to enshrine that it will no longer levy discretionary fines. In some cases, individual judges may retain the authority to levy discretionary fines, meaning there must be intentional effort and outreach to bring them all on board. Lastly, it is important to determine whether these efforts are constrained by state laws.
Consider the individual’s ability to pay fines: Many fines are imposed without any consideration that those impacted may simply lack the financial resources to pay them, meaning they end up heavily burdened by debt. In addition to eliminating or reducing certain fines, some jurisdictions use a sliding scale based on income or waivers to reduce the fine cost burden. Other approaches include “fix-it tickets” for vehicle fines, which allow a fine to be waived if an individual addresses the mechanical problem at fault, such as a broken taillight.
Debt relief: In addition to halting fees and modifying fines going forward, jurisdictions should provide debt relief for existing accumulated debts. Since a substantial amount of the debt may, in fact, be uncollectable due to the low incomes of impacted residents, the budgetary impacts of debt relief may be substantially smaller than the top-line numbers suggest. Political leadership and advocates rooted in the community that can help share personal stories on how debt holds residents back are both important.
Lived experience: Ensure that reform efforts include residents who have been directly impacted by fines and fees as key stakeholders. Organizations that work closely with impacted individuals are also important partners that can provide additional guidance.
Administrative burden: When implementing fines and fees reforms, reduce administrative burdens for participants, such as by making policy changes automatic or requiring as little paperwork as possible.
Emphasize outreach to vulnerable populations: Prioritize outreach to vulnerable populations, partnering with local non-profits to ensure impacted populations are made aware of the policy changes.
Government officials: There is a strong need for public leadership to elevate and advocate for fines and fees reform. While this can come from the executive, legislative, or judicial branch, the ability to cross-convene and project manage is needed for successful policy change and institutionalization across local government.
Impacted community members: Residents who have been directly affected by fines and fees provide essential insights into how these policies function in practice and where reforms are most needed. For example, a reform might not have the effect anticipated by policymakers, and directly impacted community members can provide useful feedback during the implementation process.
Community-based non-profits and service providers: Local non-profits and service providers are well-positioned to understand how fines and fees impact the members of their community. They can also be important partners for outreach and community engagement efforts related to fines and fees reforms. An example would be publicizing fine and fee debt relief and the subsequent restoration of driver's license privileges.
Procurement officers: Sometimes third-party agencies are responsible for fee collection, and this requires the involvement of procurement officers to unwind or modify those contractual arrangements. Examples include the contracts for third-party entities that charge fees for jail phone calls or private debt collectors.
Corporation counsel and legal experts: Legal stakeholders are important to assist with the various questions that may arise in the course of interpreting the laws governing fines and fees. This includes discerning which fines and fees are discretionary or mandatory, as well as which governmental entity has the authority to revise them. Often, state laws must be consulted to determine how much agency local actors have.
Criminal justice system actors: Given that many fines and fees are imposed throughout the criminal justice system, actors such as district attorneys, public defender offices, legal aid, municipal and county courts, and sheriff’s offices are important members of any coalition.
Finance and budgetary officials: Finance and budget leaders are critical to assessing where fines and fees revenues flow and projecting the budgetary impacts of reducing or eliminating fines and fees.
State policymakers and agencies: Some fines and fees reforms may require changes to state law or coordination with state-administered systems, such as state departments of motor vehicles for drivers license restorations.
Cultivate cross-agency buy-in: Successful reforms often require multiple agencies within and across jurisdictions (i.e., a county district attorney’s office and a city treasurer’s office). From the early stages of initiative design, reform champions should prioritize convening all agencies that could be involved in the implementation process to establish core responsibilities, build trust, and leverage all available capabilities.
Address administrative burdens hindering reform implementation: Some reforms require significant administrative capacity, such as restoring driver's licenses or waiving debt. Invest in additional staff and software (such as automated tools to flag eligible individuals) to reduce government-side barriers to implementation.
Deep engagement with community members: Building trust with those harmed by government-levied fines and fees can be a significant challenge. One-on-one engagement, robust listening sessions, and ongoing partnerships with community members and local non-profit organizations can ensure that community experiences and concerns inform how initiatives take shape. Engagement is also critical throughout implementation, as impacted community members are the best placed to uplift any unforeseen challenges that arise during implementation.
Build the case for reform with existing data: In many cases, analyzing data and communicating findings to the public can help build a sense of urgency for reform. For instance, publicizing the number of residents with suspended driver's licenses, outstanding warrants, or wage garnishment due to outstanding fines and fees can demonstrate the scale of the challenge and persuade policymakers that reforms are needed.
Dedicate resources to communication and storytelling: Tailor the messaging of fines and fees reforms to local audiences, whether elevating the financial inefficiency of pursuing uncollectable fees, racial disparities in collections, or the barriers fines and fees create for employment or successful re-entry post-incarceration. Effective communication of reforms to those impacted is critical, such as when fines and fees debt is automatically waived or driver’s license holds are revoked.
Number and amount of fines and fees eliminated or modified: A key way to communicate the scope of a fines a fees reform is to calculate the dollar amount of fines and fees waived or no longer being imposed. This can also be framed as the amount of money remaining in the community and supporting families or the local economy.
The number of individuals impacted or rights restored: Counting the number of people impacted by fines and fees reforms is useful in demonstrating the large-scale impact these policies can have. Some examples are the number of driver's licenses restored, warrants for arrest dismissed, or the number of persons whose wages are no longer garnished. After implementing ability to pay reforms for fines, agencies can also track if the percentage of people who successfully make fine payments changes.
Changes to debt levels: Following the reforms, measure how much debt still remains and whether it is holding steady or decreasing over time.
Qualitative reflections: Fines and fees can impact individuals, families, and communities in hard-to-quantify ways. Gathering stories from impacted individuals can demonstrate how reforms helped them and their families.
Joanna Weiss is the Co-Founder and Co-Executive Director of the Fines and Fees Justice Center (FFJC). Joanna brought over 20 years of experience across the philanthropic and public sectors to launch, along with Lisa Foster, the first national effort to mobilize and support fines and fees reform across the country. Along with her Co-Executive Director, Joanna is responsible for strategic planning and implementation, fundraising and development, and leading FFJC in its mission to eliminate fines and fees that distort justice and harm the most vulnerable among us. Joanna oversees FFJC’s Research and Policy, Communications, and Operations and Finance divisions. She works collaboratively with these teams to ensure that legislative and policy reforms FFJC pursues are shaped by evidence-based research and policy guidance. Joanna holds a J.D. from the George Washington University Law School, an M.A. from the George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs, and a B.A. in political science from Bryn Mawr College.
Michelle Lau
Michelle Lau is the Acting Director of The Financial Justice Project in the Office of the Treasurer for the City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco is the first city in the nation to launch a Financial Justice Project to assess and reform how fines, fees, and financial penalties impact the city's low-income communities of color. In this role, she conducts research on fine and fee pain points to assess and advance potential reforms locally and statewide in California, designs and implements discounts and alternatives to fine and fees, and amplifies The Financial Justice Project's communications strategy. Prior to her work with the City, Michelle worked as a civic sector consultant where she partnered with government agencies, foundations, and not-for-profit organizations. Michelle holds a Master of Public Policy from UC Berkeley and an undergraduate degree from Princeton University.
Delphia Simpson
Delphia T. Simpson was raised in Ann Arbor, Michigan. She received her BA. in English from Spelman College and then a JD from the University of Maryland School of Law. After admission to the State Bar of Maryland, she served as the Chief Attorney for the Family Law Unit at the Legal Aid Bureau of Maryland until she returned to Michigan. Ms. Simpson joined the Michigan Poverty Law Program as their state-wide family law attorney. While working with MPLP, Ms. Simpson was elected and served two terms on the State Bar of Michigan Family Law Committee. In 2001, she began working with the ACLU of Michigan as their Racial Justice Staff Attorney. In that role, she focused on solving racial profiling issues. In 2017, she was promoted to the Chief Public Defender for Washtenaw County, MI. Ms. Simpson is very active in the community and serves on several non-profit boards, including the Chair of the Michigan Advocacy Program, and the Chair of the Ann Arbor NAACP Legal Redress Committee, and has served on the Board of Directors of the Fair Housing Center since 2000.
Maya Ragsdale
Maya founded Beyond the Bars in 2020, starting small by hosting weekly meetings with women who had loved ones incarcerated in Miami jails and, from there, building the organization into what it is today. She brings to BTB the skills she developed as Chief Counsel at Worth Rises, where she challenged the prison industry through regulatory, procurement, and policy advocacy, and as staff attorney at Dream Defenders, where she provided legal, policy, and strategic support to organizers on campaigns to divest from policing and incarceration. Her perspective is informed by her personal experiences with the carceral system, in addition to her representation of low-wage workers as a public defender and legal aid attorney. She is deeply committed to and connected with the movement community in Miami and nationally, having created and supported bail funds throughout Florida, built legal defense networks to respond to the George Floyd uprisings, and engaged in various other community and movement initiatives.
For her work, she has been supported by fellowships with organizations including the Galaxy Gives, Law for Black Lives, and Justice Catalyst, and was selected for Health Foundation of South Florida’s 2023 Women in Health Award and Miami New Times’s 2020 Best Activist Award. She holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a B.A. from the University of Michigan.
Terrence Williams
Terrence Williams is the Executive Assistant to the Washtenaw County Administrator, and focuses on judicial reform for juveniles and eliminating fines and fees.
