Approximately 1 in every 75 people are under probation or parole supervision in the U.S. In most states, people on probation or parole are required to pay supervision fees that can range from hundreds to thousands of dollars. People also pay additional programming fees for mandatory mental health counseling, electronic monitoring, and drug testing. Nationwide, two of every three people on probation make less than $20,000 per year. Nearly 40% of those making less than $10,000 annually.

Electronic monitoring fees can be imposed as a condition of probation, parole, diversion, or some other community-based sentence — or even as a condition of pretrial release for those who have not been found guilty of anything. From 2005 to 2015, the number of individuals on electronic monitors increased by nearly 140%, from 53,000 to over 125,000. Since then, this number is believed to have dramatically increased. Electronic monitoring fees can include a one-time set-up fee and a monthly, weekly, or even daily monitoring fee. 

A bench warrant is a legal mechanism courts can use to secure the arrest of someone who has allegedly violated a court order. A bench warrant is not proof of a violation, but rather authorization by the court to take a person into custody so they may be brought before the court. They are often related to nonpayment of a fine or fee in the criminal legal or traffic court systems. States across the country impose fees for issuing, processing, executing, or even recalling warrants. There are at least 5.7 million open warrants in the U.S, 96% of which are for minor, nonviolent, or non-criminal offenses. In many states, courts impose warrant fees, regardless of whether the person was ultimately arrested or convicted.

In the US, defendants who cannot afford to hire a lawyer have a constitutional right to have one appointed to represent them at government’s expense. However, 42 states & D.C. have laws that authorize courts to impose public defense system fees — both upfront application or administrative fees, as well as fees recouping the cost of counsel — on people who are represented by court-appointed attorneys. Unpaid counsel fees can lead to civil and criminal consequences such as creditworthiness, license suspension, employment eligibility, and prolonged involvement in the criminal justice system.

A criminal record can make it hard to get a job, support a family, secure housing, vote, and ultimately pay off fines and fees. Despite efforts by numerous states to provide a path to record clearing, monetary barriers — such as the cost to apply and the requirement to satisfy all outstanding court debt — keep relief out of reach.

Local jails and prisons charge incarcerated people and their families exorbitant phone call fees to stay connected. As of 2019, most state prisons charge over 1.50 per per minute for one 15-minute call in-state. Phone calls from jail cost over three times more than phone calls from state prisons. For example, a call from a Michigan jail can go as high as $22 for 15 minutes. A recent survey demonstrated that 1 in 3 families will go into debt in order to stay connected to their loved ones, and that 87% of those carrying the financial burden phone call fees are women.

In most states, people incarcerated in prisons and jails pay medical co-pays for physician visits, medications, dental treatment, and other health services. Charging incarcerated people exorbitant co-pays is particularly harmful due to the fact that most people in prison or jails are not working or working for extremely low wages. Nevada, for example, charges the highest copay in the country ($8), over twice the national average. For a person earning prison wages, an 8 dollar co-pay is the equivalent of a $400 co-pay for a person who earns $50,000.

The majority of states across the country impose fees on youth—and their families—when they become involved in the justice system. At every point in the system, a young person and their parents or guardians can be charged fees for an electronic ankle monitor, detention, probation supervision, a public defender, incarceration, and more. The young people and their families who cannot afford to pay these fees, face extended probation, additional court visits, the loss of or inability to obtain a driver’s license, and even incarceration. As these youth enter adulthood with fee debt, they also risk civil judgments, tax and wage garnishment, liens on property, and bankruptcy.

In most states, people can lose their drivers’ licenses for nonpayment of court-based fines and fees or for failing to attend a hearing about them. Some states will also suspend licenses related to unpaid civil court judgments or child support. After paying off the court debt, getting your license back can be a very costly experience — every state charges a license reinstatement fee if a license is suspended due to unpaid court debt. Reinstatement fees can vary from $5 – $500, depending on the state.

Nearly one-third of states use fines and fees as a way to punish incarcerated people for infractions that occur behind bars. These costs are administrative punishments doled out by the prisons, not by courts, and become part of their overall pay-to-stay obligations. These fines can sometimes be in the hundreds of dollars, which are crippling for those dependent on prison wages. And because prisons maintain commissary trust accounts, in many states they can deduct directly from these accounts without the individual’s permission.

Diversion programs have been proven to produce good results for individuals and their communities: reducing recidivism, promoting accountability, and helping prosecutors and courts alleviate large caseloads. ​ However, when participation in a diversion program requires a fee, it creates a two-tiered justice system. Diversion program fees can disproportionately burden working-class and low-income individuals and contribute to racial disparities within the criminal legal system. The Fines and Fees Justice Center examined legislative authorization and statewide court rules in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to determine whether statutory provisions explicitly authorize or permit diversion program fees and, if so, whether they establish guidance or limits on what may be charged.  FFJC also conducted an in-depth examination of local diversion programs in over twenty states to contextualize state-level statutory authorizations.