Improving California’s Criminal Fine and Fee System

Improving California’s Criminal Fine and Fee System MAC TAYLOR • L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T • JANUARY 2016 AN LAO REPORT 2 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California’s Criminal Fine and Fee System. Upon conviction of a criminal offense (including traffic violations), individuals are typically required by the court to pay various fines and fees as part of their punishment. Collection programs—operated by both courts and counties—collect payments from individuals and then distribute them to numerous funds to support various state and local government programs and services. Distribution occurs in accordance to a very complex process dictated by state law. Key Problems With Existing Fine and Fee System. Based on our analysis of the state’s existing fine and fee system, we identified four major problems with the system. • Difficult for Legislature to Control Use of Fine and Fee Revenues. The existing system distributes fine and fee revenue based on various statutory formulas, making it difficult for the Legislature to control how such revenue is used. This is because the current formula- based system limits the information available to guide legislative decisions, makes it difficult for the Legislature to reprioritize the use of revenue, and allows administering entities to maintain significant control over the use of funds. • Revenue Distributions Generally Not Based on Need. The existing system distributes revenue in a manner that is generally not based on program need—thereby resulting in programs receiving more or less funding than needed. • Difficult to Distribute Revenue Accurately. The complexity of the existing system makes it difficult for collection programs to accurately distribute fine and fee revenue. • Lack of Complete and Accurate Data on Collections and Distributions. A lack of complete and accurate data on fine and fee collections and distributions makes it difficult for the Legislature to conduct fiscal oversight. LAO Recommendations. To address the above problems, we make recommendations to improve the state’s fine and fee system. First, we recommend that the Legislature reevaluate the overall structure of the fine and fee system to ensure the system is consistent with its goals. As part of this process, the Legislature will want to determine the specific goals of the system, whether ability to pay should be incorporated into the system, what should be the consequences for failing to pay, and whether fines and fees should be regularly adjusted. Second, we recommend increasing legislative control over the use of criminal fine and fee revenue to ensure that its uses are in line with legislative priorities by (1) requiring that most criminal fine and fee revenue be deposited in the state General Fund, (2) consolidating most fines and fees into a single, statewide charge, (3) evaluating the existing programs supported by fine and fee revenues, and (4) mitigating the impacts of potential changes to the fine and fee system on local governments. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 3 AN LAO REPORT 4 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT INTRODUCTION Individuals convicted of criminal offenses, state’s existing fine and fee system on a temporary including traffic violations, are often required to pay a basis, there are opportunities for the Legislature to number of fines and fees as part of their punishment. make ongoing improvements. The revenue from these payments are deposited In this report, we: (1) provide background in specific funds to support various state and local information on California’s criminal fine and fee government programs and services. In recent years, system, including how fines and fees are calculated a number of these funds have faced operational and distributed; (2) identify problems with the shortfalls due to a decline in fine and fee revenue. At existing system; and (3) make recommendations the same time, the Legislature has expressed concern to improve the system. In preparing this report, with the level of the state’s fines and fees and their we spoke with Judicial Council staff, trial court impact on low-income individuals. In order to help administrators and judges, and county staff address both of these issues, the Legislature recently throughout the state in order to gain an in-depth took steps to (1) temporarily redirect monies to understanding of how fines and fees are calculated, specific state funds experiencing shortfalls in fine distributed, and used. We also analyzed various and fee revenue and (2) provide onetime relief to reports and data compiled by the judicial branch individuals who were unable to pay the fines and and the State Controller’s Office. Finally, we talked fees for certain traffic violations. While these actions to officials from other states regarding their fine address some of the concerns and challenges with the and fee systems. CALIFORNIA’S CRIMINAL FINE AND FEE SYSTEM What Are Criminal Fines and Fees? total amount of fines and fees owed by individuals upon their conviction for a criminal offense. This During court proceedings, trial courts typically calculation begins with a base fine that is set in levy fines and fees upon individuals convicted of state law for each criminal offense. For example, as criminal offenses (including traffic violations). shown in Figure 1 (see next page), the base fine for As we discuss below, the total amount owed by the infraction of a stop sign violation is $35, while an individual consists of a base fine, as well as the base fine for the misdemeanor of driving under various additional charges (such as other fines, the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs is $390. fees, forfeitures, penalty surcharges, assessments, State law then requires the court to add certain and restitution orders). Collectively, these various charges to the base fine, which can significantly fines and fees are often referred to as court-ordered increase the total amount owed. Some of these debt, which is the focus of this report. (Parking additional charges are calculated using the base violations are not considered court-ordered debt as fine. For example, the state penalty assessment state trial courts do not administer such violations.) consists of adding $10 for every $10 portion of the How Are Criminal Fine and Fee Levels Set? base fine. Others are flat charges, such as the court operations assessment of $40 per conviction. On Trial Courts Determine Total Amount Owed. a limited basis, state law also authorizes counties Trial courts are responsible for determining the www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 5 AN LAO REPORT and courts to levy additional charges depending the seriousness of the crime. Others were enacted on the specific violation and other factors. Some of to generate revenue to fund specific activities. For these additional charges require the county board example, two DNA penalty assessments support the of supervisors to approve a resolution before it Department of Justice’s DNA Laboratory and other may be imposed. Finally, statute gives judges some local DNA-related activities. Finally, some fines and discretion to reduce the total amount owed by fees were enacted to help offset state or local costs waiving or reducing certain charges. As shown in for providing particular services to individuals the figure, the total payment owed by an individual paying the specific charge. For example, the night can be many times greater than the base fine. court fee is used to offset facility costs for trial courts Fine and Fee Levels Set to Serve Multiple that choose to conduct night or weekend sessions Purposes. The state has enacted various fines and for traffic offenses. The fee may not be charged fees for a variety of purposes. Some, such as the base if such sessions are not conducted. Over the past fine and the restitution fine, are generally tied to decade, the number and size of charges added to the Figure 1 Various Fines and Fees Substantially Add to Base Fines As of September 1, 2015 Stop Sign Violation DUI of Alcohol/Drugs How Charge Is Calculated (Infraction) (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 and $30 35 30 per felony or misdemeanor conviction Night Court Fee $1 per fine and fee imposed 1 1 Restitution Fine $150 minimum per misdemeanor — 150 conviction and $300 minimum per felony conviction Subtotals ($238) ($1,824) Examples of Additional Fines and Fees That Could Apply DUI Lab Test Penalty Assessment Actual costs up to $50 for specific — $50 violations Alcohol Education Penalty Assessment Up to $50 — 50 County Alcohol and Drug Program Penalty Up to $100 — 100 Assessment 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 stop sign violation is rounded up to $40. DUI = Driving Under Influence; EMS = Emergency Medical Services; and EMAT = Emergency Medical Air Transportation. 6 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT base fine have increased Figure 2 significantly—resulting Total Fine and Fee Level for Stop Sign Violation Has in increases in the Increased Significantly Since 2005a total amount owed by Stop Sign Violation (Infraction) individuals convicted of 2005 2015 Change criminal offenses. For Base Fine $35 $35 example, as shown in State Penalty Assessment 40 40 — Figure 2, the total fine and County Penalty Assessment 28 28 — fee level for a stop sign Court Construction Penalty Assessment 20 20 — Proposition 69 DNA Penalty Assessment 4 4 — violation has increased DNA Identification Fund Penalty — 16 $16 significantly since 2005. Assessment EMS Penalty Assessment — 8 8 (As discussed in the nearby EMAT Penalty Assessment — 4 4 box, fine and fee levels in State Surcharge 7 7 — California for criminal Court Operations Fee 20 40 20 Conviction Assessment Fee — 35 35 violations generally appear Night Court Fee 1 1 — to be high relative to other Totals $155 $238 $83 states.) 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. How Are Criminal Fines and Fees Collected? may be operated by both courts and counties. Individuals who plead guilty or are convicted of a Counties and Courts Involved in Collection criminal offense must either provide full payment Process. While trial courts are responsible for immediately or set up installment payment plans determining the amount of fines and fees owed by with the collection program. If an offender does not individuals, counties are statutorily responsible pay on time, the amount owed becomes delinquent. for collecting fine and fee payments. However, State law authorizes the collection program some collection duties are often delegated back to to use a variety of tools or sanctions (such as the trial courts. As a result, collection programs Certain Criminal Fines and Fees Appear Higher Than Certain Other States Currently, comprehensive information is not available on the criminal fine and fee levels of other states. However, in order to compare California’s fine and fee levels to the rest of the nation, we surveyed other states. Specifically, we surveyed one large jurisdiction in each of 33 states (including many states similar to California) for the fines and fees associated with the two offenses: a stop sign violation and speeding at 20 miles per hour over the limit. We found that California’s fines and fees associated with these common traffic offenses are relatively high. For example, the total fines and fees for a stop sign violation in California is $238, which was higher than 28 of the surveyed states (about 85 percent). The total in other surveyed states ranged from $58 to $277, and averaged $157. The total fines and fees for speeding at 20 miles per hour over the limit in California was $367, which was higher than all of states we surveyed. The total in other surveyed states ranged from $73 to $350, and averaged $203. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 7 AN LAO REPORT wage garnishments or the suspension of a driver’s be collectable as the costs of collection could outweigh license) to motivate offenders to pay their debt. the amount that would actually be collected. Additionally, in lieu of issuing an arrest warrant, How Are Criminal Fines and Fees Distributed? state law authorizes collection programs to impose a civil assessment of up to $300 against As shown in Figure 4, over 50 state funds—in any offender who fails to either make payment or addition to many local funds throughout the state— appear in court without good cause. Finally, state are eligible to receive fine and fee revenue. However, law permits collection programs that meet specified some of these funds receive very little revenue, such criteria to recover most operating costs related as those that only receive revenue from fines and to the collection of delinquent payments prior to fees for specific offenses that occur infrequently. For distribution to various state and local funds. (Please example, the state Voter Intimidation Restitution see our November 2014 report, Restructuring the Fund only receives revenue when an individual is Court-Ordered Debt Collection Process, for more convicted of voter intimidation. In order to comply detailed information regarding the debt collection with the numerous state laws dictating which funds Graphic Sign Off process.) Since 2009-10, programs reported receive fine and fee revenue, collection programs must collecting a total of roughly $1.8 billion in fine and carefully track, distribute, and record the revenue Secretary fee revenue annually. However, this amount may they collect. Programs submit this information, along Analyst be understated due to incomplete reporting by with the revenue, to the county for (1) distribution to MPA collection programs. county funds and (2) transfer to the State Controller’s Deputy Amount of Outstanding Debt Increasing. Office (SCO) for distribution to state funds. Every year, the courts estimate the total outstanding State law dictates a very complex process for the balance of debt owed by individuals. This balance distribution of fine and fee revenue. As we discuss may decrease when individuals make payments or below, state law specifies how individual fine and debt is resolved in an alternative manner, such as when a portion Figure 3 of a debt is dismissed because Outstanding Balance of Unresolved Fines and Fees Continues to Grow the individual performs community service in lieu of (In Billions) payment. However, this amount $12 generally grows each year as some amount of newly imposed 10 court-ordered debt goes unpaid 8 and is added to the amount of unresolved debt accumulated 6 from prior years. As shown in Figure 3, an estimated 4 $11.2 billion in criminal fines and fees remained outstanding 2 at the end of 2013-14. We would note, however, that a large 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 portion of this balance may not 8 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov ARTWORK #150328 Template_LAOReport_mid.ait AN LAO REPORT Figure 4 Numerous State and Local Funds Receive Fine and Fee Revenue State Administered Funds State General Fund Oil Pollution Response and Restoration Subaccount Abalone and Restoration and Preservation Account Osteopathic Medical Board of California Contingent Fund Abandoned Watercraft Abatement Fund Peace Officers’ Training Fund California Beverage Container Recycling Fund Pharmacy Board Contingent Fund California Fire and Arson Training Fund Private Security Services Fund California Motorcyclist Safety Fund Restitution Fund Cigarette and Tobacco Products Compliance Fund Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Fund Cigarette Tax Fund Secret Witness Program Clandestine Drug Lab Clean-Up Account State Children’s Trust Fund Contingent Fund of the Medical Board of California State Court Facilities Construction Fund Corrections Training Fund State Dentistry Fund Court Facilities Trust Fund State Fire Marshal Fireworks Enforcement and Disposal Fund Department of Justice DNA Testing Fund State Highway Account Department of Justice Sexual Habitual Offender Fund State Optometry Fund Domestic Violence Restraining Order Reimbursement Fund State Penalty Fund Domestic Violence Training and Education Fund State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund Toxic Substances Control Account Emergency Medical Air Transportation Act Fund Traumatic Brain Injury Fund Environmental Enforcement and Training Account Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund Farmworker Remedial Account Trial Court Operations Fund Fish and Game Preservation Fund Trial Court Trust Fund Hazardous Materials Administration Subaccount Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Home Care Penalties Subaccount Veterinary Medical Board Contingent Fund Illegal Drug Lab Cleanup Account Victim-Witness Assistance Fund Immediate and Critical Needs Account Voter Intimidation Restitution Fund Local Public Prosecutors and Public Defenders Fund Waste Discharge Permit Fund Missing Persons DNA Data Base Fund Winter Recreation Fund Motor Vehicle Account Worker’s Compensation Fraud Account Oil Pollution Administration Subaccount Various unspecified funds to support specific activities County Administered Funds (Per County) County General Fund Drug Program Fund Alcohol Abuse and Prevention Fund Fish and Game Propagation Fund Automated County Warrant Fund Forensic Laboratory Fund Automated Fingerprint Identification and Digital Image Inmate Welfare Fund Photographic Suspect Booking Identification System Fund Children’s Trust Fund Juvenile Justice Construction Fund (Kern and Ventura Counties) Courthouse Construction Fund Maddy Emergency Services Fund Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund Night Court Session Fund Criminal Justice Investigation Fund (Imperial County) Rabies Treatment and Eradication Fund Criminalistics Laboratory Fund Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund County Jail Fund (Orange and Solano Counties) Special Purpose Funds DNA Identification Fund Transportation District, Commission, or Authority General Fund Domestic Violence Programs Special Fund Various unspecified funds to support specific activities City Administered Funds (Per City) City General Fund Various unspecified funds to support specific activities www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 9 AN LAO REPORT fee payments are to be distributed to state and local for distributions of certain fines and fees. For funds, including additional requirements for when example, state penalty assessments are deposited payments are not made in full (such as under an into the State Penalty Fund (SPF) for subsequent installment plan). Currently, state law contains at least distribution to nine other state funds (such as the 215 distinct code sections related to these processes. Victim-Witness Assistance Fund). Statute also Distribution Among State and Local Funds. requires that a portion of certain fines and fees be State law (and county board of supervisor allocated to specific purposes (such as to support resolutions for certain local charges) specifies cost-recovery and the Trial Court Improvement how payments made to resolve individual and Modernization Fund) prior to distributing fines and fees are distributed among state and revenue to various state and local funds. Second, local funds. First, state law includes formulas state law authorizes local governments to determine Figure 5 Examples of Distributions to State and Local Funds Stop Sign Violation DUI Violation Fine and Fee/Recipient Fund (Infraction) (Misdemeanor) Base Fine County and/or City General Fund $34.30 $264.60 Restitution Fund—DUI Additional Restitution Allocation — 19.60 Local DUI Lab Test Special Account — 49.00 Local DUI Alcohol Program Special Account — 49.00 Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund 0.70 7.80 State Penalty Assessment State Penalty Fund (subsequently distributed to 9 other state funds) $27.44 $267.54 County General Fund 11.76 114.66 Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund 0.80 7.80 County Penalty Assessment Courthouse Construction Funda $8.82 $86.00 Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Funda 8.82 86.00 Maddy EMS Funda 3.92 38.22 DNA Identification Funda 1.96 19.11 Automated Fingerprint Identification Fund and Digital Image Photographic Suspect 3.92 38.22 Identification Funda Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund 0.56 5.46 Court Construction Penalty Assessment Immediate and Critical Needs Accounta $7.84 $76.44 State Court Facilities Construction Funda 11.76 114.66 Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund 0.40 3.90 Proposition 69 DNA Penalty Assessment County or State DNA Identification Fund $3.92 $38.22 Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund 0.08 0.78 DNA Identification Fund Penalty Assessment DNA Identification Fund $15.68 $152.88 Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund 0.32 3.12 (Continued) 10 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT how certain fines or fees are to be distributed Fund, as well as in the county and/or city General among various local funds. For example, individual Fund, depending on where the offense occurs and counties choose how payments made to address the which law enforcement entity cited the offense. In county penalty assessment are deposited among contrast, payments to satisfy the base fine of a DUI several local funds. Finally, state law includes some violation are deposited into three additional funds distributions that vary by criminal offense. Figure 5 and must be distributed in a particular order under provides an example of the distribution of fines state law. As shown in the figure, these various and fees for a stop sign violation and DUI violation. distribution requirements result in a complex series As shown in the figure, payments to satisfy the of deposits into numerous state and local funds. base fine for a stop sign violation are deposited in Distribution of Debt Not Paid in Full. the Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Further complicating the distribution of fine and Figure 5 Examples of Distributions to State and Local Funds (Continued) Stop Sign Violation DUI Violation Fine and Fee/Recipient Fund (Infraction) (Misdemeanor) EMS Penalty Assessment Maddy EMS Fund $7.84 $76.44 Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund 0.16 1.56 EMAT Penalty Assessment EMAT Act Fund $3.92 $3.92 Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund 0.08 0.08 State Surcharge State General Fund $7.00 $78.00 Court Operations Assessment Trial Court Trust Fund $40.00 $40.00 Conviction Assessment Fee Immediate and Critical Needs Account $35.00 $30.00 Night Court Fee Court Facilities Trust Fund (State) and Night Court Session Fund (County) $1.00 $1.00 Restitution Fine State Restitution Fund — $147.00 Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund — 3.00 DUI Lab Test Penalty Assessment County Special Account — $49.00 Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund — 1.00 Alcohol Education Penalty Assessment Alcohol Abuse and Prevention Fund — $49.00 Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund — 1.00 County Alcohol and Drug Program Penalty Assessment County Special Account and General Fund — $100.00 Totals $238.00 $2,024.00 a Acutal deposits can vary by county. DUI = Driving Under Influence of alcohol/drugs; EMS = Emergency Medical Services; and EMAT = Emergency Medical Air Transportation. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 11 AN LAO REPORT fee revenue, state law specifies the order in which Who Benefits From payments that are less than the full amount owed Criminal Fine and Fee Revenues? are used to satisfy the fines and fees individuals Below, we discuss our best estimate of the total are charged. For example, state law requires that amount of revenue distributed to state and local installment payments be credited in a particular governments and how it is divided between them. order. As shown in Figure 6, all fines and fees fall As we discuss later in this report, due to various within one of five distribution categories. The fines data limitations, actual revenue amounts could be and fees in each category must be fully satisfied higher or lower than our estimates. before payments may be credited to the next Total Revenue Distributed to State and Local category. This means that state and local funds Governments Declining. According to available in the lower distribution priorities fail to receive data compiled by the SCO and the judicial branch, full allocations or receive delayed allocations if the total amount of fine and fee revenue distributed payments are not made in full or are delinquent. to state and local governments annually has For partial payments that are not part of an declined since 2010-11. Specifically, the amount installment payment plan, collection programs can has declined by approximately $200 million—from either prorate the payments across (1) all charges nearly $2.2 billion in 2010-11 to nearly $2 billion equally or (2) any remaining charges after fulfilling in 2013-14. (As we discuss in more detail later in those that are set amounts (such as the $40 per this report, this amount does not reconcile with conviction court operations assessment). Figure 6 State Law Specifies How Installment Payments Must Be Distributed Number of Applicable Distribution Priority Category Major Beneficiaries Code Sectionsc 1 Victim Restitution Victim and State 6 Cost Recovery of Collection Program 1 2 Delinquent Collection Costs (court or county) 3 State Surcharge State 1 Fines and Penalty Assessmentsa 4 State, Court, and County 156 (prorated across category) Fees and Reimbursementsb 5 Court and County 48 (prorated across category) a Example of fines and penalty assessments include the base fine and the State Penalty Assessment. b Examples of fees and reimbursements include the Parole/Probation Supervision Fee and the Traffic Violator School Fee. c Additional statutes may apply (such as fees for services). 12 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT the above $1.8 billion that collections programs Collection Programs Receive Share report collecting in fine and fee revenue annually.) of Revenue. Collection programs received Most state and local funds receiving fine and fee $114 million (or 6 percent) of fine and revenue revenue have also experienced a decline in the distributed in 2013-14 for their operational costs amount distributed to them. For example, the SPF related to the collection of delinquent payments. received nearly $30 million less in 2013-14 than in These funds are split between state trial courts and 2010-11—about a 25 percent decline in revenue. counties depending on which entity incurred the The cause of such declines is unknown but could be costs. due to a variety of factors—including the number Remaining Revenue Distributed to Local of citations issued by law enforcement, individuals’ Governments. We estimate that local governments willingness to make payments, and the amount received $820 million (or 42 percent) of the collected by collection programs. For example, total amount of fine and fee revenue distributed Graphic Sign Off the total number of criminal infraction and in 2013-14. Of this amount, $657 million (or Secretary misdemeanor filings steadily declined by nearly 80 percent) went to the counties. We would note, Analyst 1.6 million total filings since 2010-11—a decline of however, that counties often use their share of MPA about 22 percent. (A more detailed breakdown of fine and fee revenue to meet their maintenance- Deputy deposits into specific state and local funds can be of-effort (MOE) obligations to the state. These found in the Appendix on page 24.) MOE obligations—or requirements for counties Half of Revenue Distributed to State. The to continue to provide some financial support for state received a little over $1 billion of the total trial courts—were established in 1997 when the amount of fine and fee revenue distributed in 2013-14. As Figure 7 shown in Figure 7, this Half of Fine and Fee Revenue Distributed to the State represents roughly half of 2013-14 all distributed revenue. Of State Trial Court Counties this amount, a little less than Operations two-thirds went to support Total: $2 Billion trial court operations and construction. The remainder supported various other state programs such as victim- State Trial Court Construction witness assistance, peace officer training, and the state’s DNA laboratory. Of the amount allocated to trial courts, Cities roughly half funded statewide Other State Programs Collection trial court construction, and Programsa the other half supported trial court operations. a Split between courts (state government) and counties (local government) depending on who is actually collecting delinquent payments. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 13 ARTWORK #150328 Template_LAOReport_mid.ait AN LAO REPORT Legislature shifted primary responsibility for trial date, annual county MOE obligations to the state court funding from the counties to the state. To for trial court operations total about $660 million. KEY PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING FINE AND FEE SYSTEM Based on our analysis of California’s existing • Limited Information to Guide Legislative fine and fee system, we identified four major Decisions. Because the current statutory problems with the system. Specifically, we find that formulas effectively guarantee certain the existing system (1) makes it difficult for the programs funding, these programs Legislature to control how fine and fee revenue is are generally not required to regularly used, (2) distributes revenue in a manner that is provide the Legislature with information generally not based on program need, (3) makes on program expenditures and outcomes. it difficult for collection programs to accurately This makes it difficult for the Legislature distribute such revenue, and (4) lacks complete to regularly evaluate how effectively these and accurate data on fine and fee collections and programs are using the funds they are distributions. Figure 8 provides a summary of our provided. Although some programmatic findings, which we discuss in more detail below. information is typically provided when programs require additional funding Difficult for Legislature to (such as due to insufficient revenue), the Control Use of Fine and Fee Revenue Legislature is often informed of these As discussed earlier, the state’s existing fine challenges late in the process when there and fee system includes a complex distribution are few viable options that would not cause method that disburses monies to funds based on major impacts to program operations. various statutory formulas. These formulas ensure • Difficult for Legislature to Reprioritize certain programs receive funding annually, which Use of Revenue. Because the existing often makes it difficult for the Legislature to control distribution formulas effectively lock the use of fine and fee revenue. This is because in the uses of fine and fee revenue on the statutory distribution formulas often have the an ongoing basis, it is difficult for the following effects: Legislature to reprioritize the use of these funds Figure 8 based on changing needs Problems With California’s Fine and Fee System and priorities (such as 9 increasing the amount Difficult for Legislature to control use of fine and fee revenue. of revenue allocated to 9 Revenue distributions generally not based on need. some programs or using 9 these funds to support Difficult to distribute revenue accurately. 9 alternative programs that Lack of complete and accurate data on collections and distributions. it deems to be of higher 14 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT priority). This limits the Legislature’s received more fine and fee revenue than the board ability to ensure that such funds are being needed to make payments to eligible crime victims. used in a manner that is consistent with its This resulted in the Restitution Fund having an priorities. annual balance of over $100 million in unused funds from 2005-06 through 2007-08. • Administering Entities Maintain On the other hand, the distribution formulas Significant Control Over Use of Funds. can result in some programs receiving insufficient The current formula-driven system also funding to fulfill their statutory requirements. For gives certain state and local entities example, over the past decade, the existing formula significant discretion in how they use allocating a specific percentage of SPF fine and fee fine and fee revenue. For example, revenue to the Peace Officers’ Training Fund— statute authorizes the judicial branch to which supports the Commission on Peace Officer determine the specific statewide projects Standards and Training (POST)—has resulted in funded by the Trial Court Improvement POST not having sufficient funding to maintain and Modernization Fund based on the level of training services previously provided, broad guidance outlined in statute. The particularly when there has been a change in the Legislature only receives an annual report amount of revenue collected. Given this shortfall, on expenditures once the fiscal year is the Legislature chose to redirect $14 million complete. In other cases, entities have annually during this time period from another complete discretion over the use of certain SPF fund to support POST, as well as provide a funds. For example, cities have complete one-time $3.2 million General Fund appropriation control on how they use the share of their in 2014-15. The Legislature also approved an fine and fee revenue that is deposited 18-month traffic amnesty program as part of the into their General Funds and are not 2015-16 budget and directed that a portion of the required to report to the Legislature on additional revenues resulting from the program how such monies are used. As a result, support POST in the short run. We would note that the Legislature maintains limited control there are a number of other funds supported by fine over a significant portion of fine and fee and fee revenue that are also nearing or currently revenues. experiencing operational shortfalls. Revenue Distributions Difficult to Distribute Revenue Accurately Generally Not Based on Need The numerous statutory requirements By locking in funding formulas in statute, governing the distribution of fine and fee revenue the existing system preserves the level of funding can also make it difficult for individual courts deemed appropriate when the formulas were and counties to track, distribute, and report established. On the one hand, this can result in such revenue accurately and consistently. This some programs receiving more funding than is because every charge has its own distribution necessary to fulfill their statutory requirements. requirement which can vary based on other For example, in some years, the Restitution factors (such as where the offense occurred). This Fund, the primary funding source for the Victim challenge is further complicated by additional Compensation and Government Claims Board, statutory requirements related to how partial and www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 15 AN LAO REPORT installment payments are to be credited against Lack of Complete and Accurate Data on various charges. This can result in payments for the Collections and Distributions same type of violation being distributed in different Although SCO and the judicial branch ways. Although some courts and counties have both collect information on the collection and automated computer programs to assist them with distribution of fines and fees, each of the various this task, these automated programs can sometimes records they maintain omit pieces of data. This is be difficult to correctly program. Other courts and primarily because such data is often not required to counties do not have such programs and thus still be collected. For example, while counties transmit make these calculations manually. fine and fee revenue and information on how the While courts and counties can be fined by revenue should be distributed among state funds the state for certain errors in their distribution to SCO, the SCO does not receive—and thus does of fine and fee revenue, unintentional errors still not record—the amount kept by counties or cities. occur. Because of the numerous and overlapping Additionally, the judicial branch is only required distribution requirements specified in statute, by state law to report on the amount of delinquent a distribution error can sometimes impact over payments collected by collection programs and 20 state and local funds. This is particularly the thus does not always record and report information case where certain funds receive funding after a on non-delinquent payments. Although the judicial portion of the revenue is allocated to a different branch informally tracks some distribution data, it fund. Since errors may not be corrected for is not required to do so under state law. In view of several years, it can result in the misallocation of the above, the state currently lacks complete data significant sums of money. Distribution errors are on both the collection and distribution of fine and regularly found by the SCO, which is authorized fee revenue. to review whether criminal fines and fees have Compounding the problem regarding the lack been deposited accurately and in a timely manner. of collections and distributions data, it appears In reviews conducted from 2006 through 2014, that there are inconsistencies (1) between similar the SCO identified $63 million in errors made pieces of data collected by the SCO and the judicial between 1998-99 and 2012-13. (We would note that branch and (2) in how collection programs report the number of reviews conducted—and the fiscal data. For example, as shown in Figure 9, SCO years examined—in a given year varies by county and judicial branch reports on collections and and court.) Of this amount, about $48 million was distributions are inconsistent, as they report a related to instances where counties did not remit greater amount being distributed than collected. sufficient revenue to the state. We note that the From our attempts to reconcile the data, it appears total value of errors made between 1998-99 and that programs may differ in what charges and 2012-13 is likely higher than $63 million because distributions they classify as criminal fines and the SCO audits we examined did not evaluate all fees as well as how they report such information— distributions occurring over this time period. impacting both the collections and distributions While the SCO has found that counties and courts data. In addition, it appears that part of the generally resolve the cause of most distribution difference is also attributable to data that is missing errors identified in its reviews, it frequently finds from collections reports. Without complete, new errors in subsequent reviews. consistent, and accurate data, it is difficult for the 16 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov Graphic Sign Off Secretary Analyst MPA Deputy AN LAO REPORT Legislature to conduct fiscal Figure 9 oversight to ensure that funds Inconsistency Between are being allocated accurately Fine and Fee Collection and Distribution Data and used in accordance with its priorities and state law. $2,500 Total Collected It also makes it difficult for Total Distributed the Legislature to determine 2,000 the impacts of enacted or proposed changes to fines 1,500 and fees, which further limits the ability of the Legislature to effectively oversee the 1,000 current system and programs supported by it. 500 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 LAO RECOMMENDATIONS ARTWORK #150328 Template_LAOReport_mid.ait In this report, we reviewed California’s existing Reevaluate Structure of fine and fee system and identified several problems. Criminal Fine and Fee System To address these problems, we provide several As discussed earlier, the state’s current fine and recommendations to overhaul and improve the fine fee system has evolved from statutes passed over and fee system. First, we recommend reevaluating the course of numerous years. In order to ensure the overall structure of the fine and fee system to that the system effectively meets current legislative ensure the system meets legislative goals. Second, goals and priorities, we recommend that the we recommend increasing legislative control over Legislature reevaluate the overall structure of the the use of criminal fine and fee revenue to ensure system. As part of this evaluation, we recommend that its uses are in line with legislative priorities. Figure 10 Figure 10 provides Summary of LAO Recommendations a summary of our 9 Revaluate structure of criminal fine and fee system. recommendations, which 9 are discussed in greater Increase legislative control of criminal fine and fee expenditures. detail below. • Deposit most criminal fine and fee revenue in the General Fund. • Consolidate most fines and fees. • Evaluate existing programs supported by criminal fine and fee revenues. • Mitigate impacts on local government. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 17 AN LAO REPORT the Legislature consider the following key questions For example, the state’s current system in its deliberations to guide any subsequent changes often requires offenders to compensate to the state’s fine and fee system. their victims for certain losses through What Should Be the Goals of the Criminal restitution orders. The state’s system could Fine and Fee System? A fine and fee system can be modified to offset other costs as well. serve various purposes: For example, revenue could be used to offset costs imposed on the state and local • Deterrence. Fines and fees are used to deter governments by criminal activity, such as criminal activity in several ways. First, they by providing funds for the enforcement can be set to ensure that the fines and fees of specific laws. To achieve this goal, it is for committing an illegal act are greater necessary to collect information on the than the benefit that individuals can obtain costs created by a criminal act and ensure from the act—making it less likely that that some portion of each offender’s individuals commit the illegal activity. payment is used to offset those costs. Deterrence can also be achieved by setting fines and fees high enough to result in a In general, the above goals are not mutually hardship that individuals will seek to avoid. exclusive—meaning a fine and fee system can seek Lastly, the effective enforcement of law to achieve more than one of the goals. For example, and collection of fines and fees could deter fines and fees could be set sufficiently high to deter criminal activity. This is because the more criminal activity with the resulting revenue used likely it is that offenders are caught and to offset the negative effects of criminal activity. required to pay, the less likely it is that they However, in certain circumstances, some of the would violate the law in the future. goals cannot be fully accomplished together. For example, requiring a payment that is high • Proportional Punishment. Fines and fees enough to generate sufficient revenue to fully can be used to provide a punishment that offset all negative effects of a crime may result is proportional to the seriousness of a in a punishment that the Legislature views as crime committed by an offender. This also disproportionate. Accordingly, the Legislature may conveys the seriousness of the offense. To need to determine which of its goals it values most achieve proportional punishment, fines when assessing the state’s fine and fee system. and fees must be large enough to represent Should Ability to Pay Be Incorporated? a reasonable hardship for offenders to The Legislature may also want to consider ensure that they constitute a punishment. whether an individual’s ability to pay should be While the determination of whether the incorporated into its fine and fee system. California fines and fees for a particular offense are has historically incorporated ability to pay by proportional and reasonable is subjective, authorizing judges to waive or reduce certain fines it can be guided by information on how the and fees under certain circumstances. To the extent requirement to pay affects offenders. the Legislature is interested in incorporating ability • Mitigating Effects of Crime. Another goal to pay, there are various ways it can do so. We could be to generate sufficient revenue to would note, however, that some of these options help mitigate the negative effects of crime. would entail one-time or ongoing administrative costs. 18 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT • Calculate Fines Based on Ability to Pay. the use of alternative methods to satisfy One option is to calculate fines and fees fines and fees, such as by allowing offenders in ways that reflect an individual’s ability to completely address their debt through to pay. For example, the Legislature could community service (which is currently not consider a day fine system in which the allowed). total amount owed is calculated based on What Should Be the Consequences for an offender’s daily income. Under such Failing to Pay? The Legislature will want to a system, a low-income earning offender consider what consequences individuals should and a high-income earning offender would face when they fail to pay their fines and fees. pay the same percentage of their income Statute currently authorizes the use of certain as punishment for their offense. However, consequences, including civil sanctions for failures the total amount each pays would differ to pay. The Legislature will want to consider substantially. Alternatively, the total whether to authorize additional sanctions and/ amount owed for each offense can have or continue or modify existing sanctions (such as a statutory maximum and be adjusted wage garnishments, tax liens, or holds on drivers’ downward based on an offender’s income, licenses). For example, under current law, collection either automatically or through judicial programs can only direct the Department of discretion. This is similar to the state’s Motor Vehicles to suspend the driver’s license current system in which judges are given of an offender who fails to pay once. Programs discretion to waive certain fines and fees. tend to leave these suspensions in place until an individual completes payment, as the program is • Implement Alternative Methods for unable to resuspend the license if the individual Addressing Debt. Another option is stops making payments on the debt in the future. offering alternative methods for individuals This can significantly increase the amount of to address their debt. For example, the time that individuals’ licenses are suspended. Legislature could require collection Alternatively, the Legislature could authorize programs to adjust their installment programs to impose a suspension more than once, payment plans to make payment easier in order to allow programs to lift a suspension as for low-income individuals. Currently, soon as a new payment agreement is reached. (This programs vary in how they determine is already permitted in cases where individuals appropriate installment payment amounts. have their licenses suspended for failing to appear The Legislature could set guidelines for in court.) The Legislature could also take action to how programs should calculate installment help prevent offenders from becoming delinquent. payments, such as by specifying how For example, the Legislature could authorize to calculate discretionary income (such programs to offer an incentive (such as a discount) as which household expenses could be if offenders pay their debt in full within a certain deducted) in establishing installment period of time. payments or by setting limits on how much Should Fines and Fees Be Adjusted? Once of an individual’s income may be taken to the Legislature sets the appropriate fine level for address fine and fee obligations in a given criminal offenses, the Legislature will want to month. The Legislature could also expand decide whether and how such fines are adjusted www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 19 AN LAO REPORT in the future. Under current law, fines and fees by fines and fees. Instead, fluctuations in revenue are set in statute and are only changed through would be addressed at a statewide level across other the enactment of new statute. Such changes have state programs—ensuring that adjustments in generally involved increasing existing charges or funding levels were based on statewide legislative adding new ones. The Legislature could require that priorities. the state regularly adjust fine and fee levels in the Based on our assessment of existing criminal future to ensure that they are set at an appropriate fines and fees, we recommend excluding two level to accomplish its goals for the system. For types of fines and fees from being deposited to the example, the Legislature could choose to reevaluate General Fund—fish and game assessments and levels every five or ten years. Alternatively, the victim restitution orders. This is primarily due to Legislature could require the automatic adjustment certain legal restrictions regarding these particular of fines and fees, such as based on a statewide fines and fees. For example, the State Constitution economic indicator. This could raise or lower requires that money collected under any state law fine levels to conform to movements in the state’s related to the protection or propagation of fish economy—including lowering fines when the state and game be used for related activities. Victim enters a recession. restitution orders for damages should also continue to be paid directly to victims as these are charges Increase Legislative Control of Criminal set by the court to compensate individual victims Fine and Fee Expenditures for losses they incurred. Deposit Most Criminal Fine and Fee Revenue In addition, we note that the Legislature would in the General Fund. We recommend that need to account for certain legal requirements the Legislature require that nearly all fine and and ongoing commitments previously made from fee revenue (including such revenue currently fine and fee revenue. First, Proposition 69 (2004) distributed to local government) be deposited established a DNA assessment of $1 for every $10 into the state General Fund for subsequent portion of the base fine for criminal offenses. appropriation by the Legislature in the annual state The Legislature would want to ensure that the budget. (We would note that this action would not programs supported by this assessment continue impact the Proposition 98 guarantee because fines to receive at least the same level of funding they and fees are not tax revenues.) Depositing all fine would have under the current system, in order to and fee revenue in the General Fund would allow meet the requirements of Proposition 69. Second, the Legislature to ensure that annual funding for the state and local governments have committed state and local programs is based on workload and some of their fine and fee revenue to support its priorities, rather than on the amount of revenue long-term, contractual expenditures. For example, generated by the fine and fee system. Moreover, the State Trial Court Construction Fund and the an annual review of programmatic funding levels local Criminal Justice Facilities Construction would facilitate periodic reviews of programs to Funds commit monies for decades to make debt help ensure that they are operating effectively and service payments to repay bonds sold to finance efficiently. In addition, any fluctuations in the construction. The Legislature would need to ensure collection of fine and fee revenue would no longer that revenue is available to meet such obligations in disproportionately impact programs supported order to avoid litigation or punitive actions. 20 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT Depositing nearly all fine and fee revenue any) for the various programs currently supported into the General Fund could also increase public by fine and fee revenue. In making these funding confidence in the system. Currently, some members decisions, the Legislature might first want to of the public distrust the existing system as they consider whether an individual program should be believe that various state and local entities, such a state responsibility, as well as how it compares to as law enforcement and trial courts, directly other statewide budgetary priorities. benefit from each citation that is issued. Our To assist in its budget deliberations, the recommendation could minimize this perception Legislature would need to acquire information as the Legislature would be responsible for on how fine and fee revenues are currently being allocating all of the revenue based on its General used, such as by requiring state and local programs Fund priorities. to submit reports on current expenditures or Consolidate Most Fines and Fees. We also conducting hearings with various stakeholders. recommend the Legislature consolidate most In addition, the Legislature would need to define fines and fees into a single, statewide charge and its expectations on program service levels and eliminate the ability of trial courts and local determine the funding needed to meet those governments to charge additional fines and fees. expectations. For example, the Legislature could (Based on our above recommendation, fish and direct programs to develop workload or staffing game assessments, as well as victim restitution ratios to establish program funding needs. The orders, would continue to be imposed separately.) Legislature could use this information to evaluate Such consolidation would eliminate the need for the need and cost-effectiveness of each program the existing complex distribution model and make relative to all other programs currently supported it easier for counties and courts to track such by the General Fund. This would help ensure that revenue—thereby improving the accuracy and programs that the Legislature prioritizes most completeness of collection data. receive an appropriate amount of funding, rather Simplifying the calculation of fines and fees than whatever amount happens to be generated could also generate greater public confidence in the by fines and fees. However, we recognize that the system. Currently, individuals are often confused above process would take time to complete, as most about how the total amount they must pay can programs currently have limited data on program increase so significantly from the initial base fine outcomes and expenditures. Accordingly, the or why it can vary by county. This often results Legislature could choose to gradually implement in individuals viewing the existing fine and fee changes to the level of funding provided to system as unfair and overly punitive, which can various state and local programs as it receives such sometimes result in a reluctance to pay. Simplifying information. the calculation of fines and fees can increase Mitigate Impacts on Local Government. As transparency by providing offenders with a clearer discussed previously, local governments currently idea of their punishment. receive about 40 percent of criminal fine and fee Evaluate Existing Programs Supported by revenue—about $820 million in 2013-14—for a Criminal Fine and Fee Revenues. If the Legislature variety of purposes. Under our recommended adopted our recommendation to deposit fine and approach, such fine and fee revenue would instead fee revenue to the General Fund, it would need be deposited in the state General Fund. As part to determine the appropriate level of funding (if of any restructuring of fine and fee revenues, we www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 21 AN LAO REPORT recommend that the Legislature mitigate the fiscal $660 million (a decrease of nearly 45 percent). This impact this would have on local governments. reduction included eliminating a portion of the For example, one promising mechanism available MOE obligation entirely for 38 counties. to the Legislature for mitigating the impact on The Legislature could also consider taking many counties is through reducing or eliminating other mitigating actions for counties and cities. the MOEs they are currently required to pay For example, given that some fine and fee revenue to the state related to trial court operations. As distributed to local government has been used to discussed previously, counties currently remit meet ongoing obligations (such as facility debt about $660 million annually to the state to meet service), the Legislature could gradually implement these obligations. In 2013-14, counties received any changes in funding provided to local $657 million in fine and fee revenue—nearly the governments. This would give local governments same amount owed to the state. We note that since time to fully address any ongoing obligations the MOEs were first established in 1997-98, the that are currently being paid for with fine and fee state has taken actions to change MOE obligations revenue. It would also provide local governments for trial court operations—reducing the required time to restructure or eliminate programs currently payments from nearly $1.2 billion to about supported by fine and fee revenue. IMPLEMENTING CHANGES TO THE FINE AND FEE SYSTEM As the Legislature considers making changes nearby box for a summary of the findings and to the fine and fee system, it may also want to recommendations made in our November 2014 consider making comprehensive changes across the report on restructuring the court-ordered debt entire system—balancing changes to fine and fee collection process.) This would increase the amount levels, enforcement, collection, and distribution. available for distribution, helping to mitigate any Depending on the Legislature’s goal for the potential loss of fine and fee revenue. Additionally, state’s fine and fee system, the Legislature may after evaluating programs currently supported by ultimately make changes—such as lowering fine fine and fee revenue, the Legislature could decide and fee levels—that could result in a decline in that certain programs currently receiving funding revenue to state and local programs. To mitigate are not legislative priorities or make changes to such revenue losses, the Legislature could make programs so that they operate more cost-effectively. improvements to the collection process—such as Redirecting the resulting funds freed up by such those contained in our November 2014 report—in changes could also help mitigate the impact of a order to help increase the amount of fine and potential loss of fine and fee revenue on state and fee revenue ultimately collected. (Please see the local programs. 22 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT Restructuring the Court-Ordered Debt Collection Process Our November 2014 report, Restructuring the Court-Ordered Debt Collection Process, identified a number of weakness with the current court-ordered debt collection process. First, there is a lack of clear fiscal incentives for collection programs to collect debt in a cost-effective manner or to maximize the total amount of debt they collect. For example, there is almost no direct relationship between a program’s collection effort and the revenue that accrues to it. Second, we found that it is difficult to comprehensively evaluate and compare the performance of existing collection programs due to a lack of complete, consistent, and accurate reporting on how programs collect debt. Finally, we found that the current statutory division of responsibilities between counties and courts can undermine the oversight and modification of collection programs—thereby making it difficult to make improvements. In view of these weaknesses, we recommended a series of improvements to the collection process. First, we recommend that the Legislature shift statutory responsibility for debt collection to the trial courts and pilot a new collections incentive model. This restructured process would: (1) consolidate responsibility with the entity best suited for managing collections, (2) provide courts with greater flexibility in how and when they collect debt, and (3) reward courts for collecting cost-effectively or increasing the total amount collected. Second, we recommend improving data collection and measurements of performance to enable a comprehensive evaluation of court-ordered debt collections. In combination, we believe these recommendations would improve the efficiency of debt collection and increase the total amount of debt revenue collected and distributed to state and local funds. We note that these recommendations related to the collection process complement the recommended changes in this report regarding the overall criminal fine and fee system. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 23 AN LAO REPORT APPENDIX Summary of Fine and Fee Revenue Deposits in State and Local Fundsa (In Millions) 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 State Administered Funds (Non Judicial Branch) State Penalty Fundb $161.2 $153.4 $138.4 $130.5 $124.4 General Fund 80.7 87.8 75.0 69.1 73.0 DNA Identification Fund 27.6 40.7 53.9 62.8 67.9 Motor Vehicle Account 36.1 41.3 42.3 48.3 53.5 Restitution Fund 59.8 60.8 56.4 54.9 52.7 EMAT Act Fund — 0.7 11.7 10.2 10.2 Fish and Game Preservation Fund 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5 Other Funds 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.1 Totals $367.7 $386.6 $379.3 $377.4 $383.3 State Administered Funds (Judicial Branch) Trial Court Trust Fund $253.2 $269.3 $310.6 $302.2 $302.1 Immediate and Critical Needs Account 247.3 263.5 241.5 224.4 217.5 State Court Facilities Construction Fund 99.1 91.6 84.3 76.5 74.0 Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund 75.5 67.1 61.8 58.3 48.2 Court Facilities Trust Fund 2.1 1.9 1.7 5.7 2.3 Totals $677.2 $720.4 $700.1 $667.2 $644.1 Local Government Administered Funds (County) General Fund $466.9 $460.3 $431.7 $415.5 $415.9 Maddy EMS Fund 93.3 92.2 85.0 81.0 86.1 Criminal Justice Facilities Fund 84.4 79.2 71.7 65.3 52.1 Courthouse Construction Fund 51.4 47.3 43.1 40.5 39.0 DNA Identification Fund 25.3 29.4 28.9 28.0 27.5 Alcohol and Drug Related Special Funds (various) 12.2 12.6 12.6 12.2 11.3 Automated Fingerprint Identification Fund and Digital Image 9.7 9.2 9.3 8.3 8.1 Photographic Suspect Identification Fund Laboratory Special Funds (various) 7.7 7.7 7.5 7.2 6.8 Other Funds 13.4 9.6 10.2 10.0 10.0 Totals $764.4 $747.4 $700.0 $668.0 $656.8 Local Government Administered Funds (City) General Fund $214.3 $196.7 $178.1 $170.7 $165.4 Totals $214.3 $196.7 $178.1 $170.7 $165.4 Collection Programs Operating Costs $104.8 $114.9 $120.2 $114.5 $113.6 Totals $104.8 $114.9 $120.2 $114.5 $113.6 Total Amount Distributed $2,128.4 $2,166.0 $2,077.6 $1,997.8 $1,963.2 a Due to certain data limitations, these numbers reflect our best estimate of the amount of fine and fee revenue distributed to state and local funds. Actual amounts could be higher or lower. b State Penalty Fund revenues are allocated to nine other state funds (such as the Peace Officers’ Training Fund and the Restitution Fund) with each receiving a certain percentage specified in state law. EMS = Emergency Medical Services and EMAT = Emergency Medical Air Transportation. 24 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 25 AN LAO REPORT 26 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 27 AN LAO REPORT LAO Publications This report was prepared by Anita Lee and reviewed by Drew Soderborg. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 28 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov