The High Price Some Families Pay in Fines and Fees

Communities, advocates, and policymakers across the US are pursuing reforms to alleviate the financial burdens of fines and fees and address their adverse consequences.

Fines and fees are used by state and local governments to penalize people who violate the law, recover the costs of administering criminal legal services, and raise government revenues. They include speeding or parking tickets and court- or incarceration-related fines and fees.

However, our analysis shows fines and fees can strain the well-being of families already experiencing financial instability and widen income and racial disparities.

In a new research brief, we use the Urban Institute’s 2023 Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey (WBNS) to explore the share of households with adults ages 18 to 64 facing fines and fees. We also examine the prevalence of different types of fines and fees, which populations are more likely to be affected, and how these costs affect families’ well-being.

Studies have shown fines and fees may not effectively deter and can even increase the likelihood of offenses. To mitigate the harmful impacts fines and fees can have on families’ well-being, we outline how policymakers and other stakeholders could reform their structure and enforcement.

The Most Common Fines and Fees

According to the WBNS, a nationally representative survey, about 17 percent of nonelderly adults reported their household was charged a fine or fee in 2023, largely from traffic and parking tickets.

Court- or incarceration-related fines and fees (3 percent) were less common than traffic and parking tickets (15 percent) in 2023. However, people facing court- or incarceration-related fines and fees in 2023 were charged much higher amounts: more than half of adults were charged $500 or more. In contrast, just 6 percent of adults who only received tickets were charged $500 or more.

Additionally, 6 percent of adults reported currently owing money for unpaid fines and fees from 2023 or before. Of those who had unpaid fines and fees, one in four owed $1,000 or more.

In recent decades, state and local governments have expanded the types of administrative fees they can stack on top of fines incurred for traffic violations or incarceration. These fees fund not just the criminal legal services but also other government functions, such as highways and health care.

Racial Disparities

Our analysis shows that Black and Latino adults reported being charged or owing fines and fees at higher rates (20 percent and 22 percent) than white adults (15 percent).

There is a long history of racial disparities in the criminal legal system. After the Civil War and during the Jim Crow era, Southern carceral systems used fines and fees to oppress Black families.

Across income levels, families faced fines and fees at roughly the same rates. But adults with low incomes were more likely than those with higher incomes to report being charged or owing money for unpaid court- or incarceration-related fines and fees.

Inability to Pay

State and local governments impose various financial and nonfinancial consequences for those who do not pay fines and fees on time.

Many adults who were unable to pay court- or incarceration-related fines and fees on time faced serious consequences: 28 percent reported being charged additional fines and fees, 24 percent reported having their driver’s license suspended, and 19 percent reported serving time in jail. To avoid these consequences, people withdraw savings, borrow from family or friends, take out loans, forgo paying other bills, and take on more credit card debt to pay their fines and fees, potentially jeopardizing their financial stability.

Studies on both tickets and court-related fines and fees suggest financial penalties can trigger or exacerbate hardships. Ours surfaced similar findings: adults charged with or owing money for fines and fees reported significantly higher rates of material hardship than adults who didn’t face any fines or fees.

In particular, people with court- or incarceration-related costs were most likely to report experiencing food insecurity (57 percent), problems paying their medical bills (39 percent), and difficulties paying their rent or mortgage (29 percent) in 2023. These hardships can expand and burden not only individuals but also their families (PDF).

Mitigating Harmful Effects

Used throughout the criminal legal system for a range of violations, fines and fees can place large and disparate burdens on some families. Understanding the ways fines and fees affect the well-being of families who encounter the criminal legal system can help identify opportunities to reform how they’re structured and enforced.

To equitably support all families, state and local policymakers, criminal legal administrators, and advocates could consider the following strategies to mitigate the harmful impacts of fines and fees on families’ well-being:

• Reform traffic enforcement practices. Policymakers could limit law enforcement officials’ ability to conduct pretextual stops and end driver’s license suspensions for unpaid fines or fees.
• Eliminate administrative fees levied by courts, which significantly increase the costs of criminal legal penalties. Like California, other states could clear outstanding debts people owe from these penalties.
• Address racial inequities throughout the criminal legal system. Policymakers, law enforcement officials, judges, and other stakeholders could end the use of both explicitly and implicitly discriminatory practices through drug policy reforms, community-driven violence-interruption programs, and alternatives to jail detention and prison admission.
• Fund criminal legal systems through general revenue instead of earmarked fines and fees. In doing so, state and local policymakers could help separate revenue generation from public safety operations.
• Offer alternatives to fines and fees during court proceedings, such
  as community service. Communities could also offer payment plans to alleviate some of the financial burden.
• Impose fines based on a person’s ability to pay. State and local policymakers and administrators could make amounts proportional to a person's daily income.

Aravind Boddupalli and Susan Nembhard are researchers at the Urban Institute. A version of this article was originally published on Urban Wire, the blog of the Urban Institute. Governing’s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing’s editors or management.