Fines and fees make up a small share of state and local revenue overall, but they can be devastating for low-income residents, especially Black, Latine, and Native American households, who are disproportionately affected by criminal legal systems. These penalties, such as traffic tickets and court costs, also create harmful incentives for police departments and courts.
States flush with budget surpluses and fiscal recovery funds could use this opportunity to reform fines and fees—and help their localities do the same. Cities and towns tend to rely more on these revenues than state governments do. Some have few other revenue options, making reforms challenging.
Wiping away fines and fees for even just one year, and backfilling that revenue with state funds, could take a heavy burden off some residents and give local policymakers and administrators the fiscal flexibility to explore more equitable and reliable revenue sources. This feature shows what it would take for states to do just that.
In 2019, state and local governments raised $14.8 billion from fines and fees, with $5.6 billion from states and $9.2 billion from localities. But this did not account for all fines and fees assessed because many go unpaid. Court debt across the nation totals tens of billions, and those who are charged but unable to pay can face surcharge fees, license suspensions, loss of voting rights, and incarceration.
But reforms are underway in some places. In California, for example, the Families over Fees Act and subsequent legislation permanently repealed 40 administrative fees, backfilled $65 million in lost local revenues with a state appropriation, and discharged an estimated $16 billion in fee debt that was considered largely uncollectible. And in Colorado, Louisiana, Texas, and other states, many juvenile fines and fees have recently been eliminated.
With record budget surpluses and federal funds, many states have the fiscal resources to pursue these and other types of fines and fees reforms.
Want to Know More
- States Can Help Reduce the Burdens of Harmful Fines and Fees. Here’s How.
- State and Local Backgrounders: Fines, Fees, and Forfeitures
- Public Safety or Speed Traps? The Conflicts of Interest Behind Fines and Fees
- Fines and Forfeitures and Racial Disparities
- Ferguson City Finances: Not the New Normal
- FFJC Policy Guidance: Eliminating Criminal Legal System Fees and Discharging Debt
- Step One to an Antiracist State Revenue Policy: Eliminate Criminal Justice Fees and Reform Fines
- The High Price of Using Justice Fines and Fees to Fund Government
- The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines
- A Pound of Flesh: Monetary Sanctions as Punishment for the Poor
- As Court Fees Rise, the Poor Are Paying the Price
- Fee Abolition and the Promise of Debt Free Justice for Young People and Their Families in California
ABOUT THE DATA
We use the term “fines and fees” to refer to fines and forfeits (Code U30) as defined by the US Census Bureau. This broadly includes financial penalties imposed for violations of the law, such as parking tickets and speeding tickets (including those from traffic cameras), court-imposed fees used to cover administrative costs and fund special initiatives, other criminal legal-related charges and penalties, and civil asset forfeitures, such as police seizures of property believed to be connected to a crime. The dataset excludes library fines, sales of confiscated property, and any penalties relating to tax delinquency. And we cannot separate revenue amounts by fines versus fees versus forfeitures in the data.
Census publishes the Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances for states and local governments (in the aggregate) every year; the latest available data set on local fines and fees revenue by state is for fiscal year 2020. We choose to show the fiscal year 2019 data, last revised in June 2022 because those revenue amounts were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. (State and local totals for fines and fees revenue tend to be relatively stable as a share of general revenue, ranging around 0.5 percent annually.) We do not present information for the District of Columbia, which raised $202 million in fines and fees revenue (or $288 per capita) in 2019, because it is a single government unit (that is, state and local government activities are combined).
For information on individual localities, we use the Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances’ fiscal year 2017 data because Census collects comprehensive individual local government (county, city, township, school district, and special district) data for fiscal years ending in two and seven. Data for fiscal year 2017 were released in 2019 and revised in June 2022. Per Census, general revenue refers to tax revenues, charges, and intergovernmental transfers and excludes revenue from utilities and government-administered liquor stores and insurance trusts. We do not present information on localities that did not have any general revenue in 2017, and we do not present information on individual school districts and special districts, though some do have fines and fees revenues (included in local aggregates).
State general fund revenue and budget surplus data are for fiscal year 2022 from the National Association of State Budget Officers’ Fiscal Survey of States: Spring 2022, released in June 2022. General fund revenues typically refer to revenues accruing to the state from taxes, fees, interest earnings, and other sources that can be used for the general operation of state government. The inclusion of separate special funds in general fund reporting, such as K-12 funds, can vary by state. State-by-state general fund revenue data are current estimates for fiscal year 2022’s general fund revenue collections, whereas the budget surplus data are the differences between current estimates and original estimates (both from table 16). If a state’s budget surplus is less than 0.5 percent of its general fund revenue, we present it as “N/A.”
Fiscal recovery funds data are for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds program, passed under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which included $195.3 billion for states and the District of Columbia. Total allocations data are from the US Department of the Treasury, and available funds data are as analyzed by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Fiscal Recovery Fund Spending by States, U.S. Territoriesfeature and reflect state funds unappropriated as of August 31, 2022. When newer data are available on each state’s appropriated and unappropriated fiscal recovery funds, we will update this feature accordingly. If a state’s available funds are less than 5 percent of the state’s total allocation, we present it as “N/A.”
We use the term “Latine” to refer to people of Hispanic or Latino origin. We recognize that this term may not be the preferred identifier for many, and we remain committed to using inclusive language whenever possible.
For further information, please contact Aravind Boddupalli at [email protected].
PROJECT CREDITS
This feature was funded by Arnold Ventures. We are grateful to them and to all our funders, who make it possible for the Tax Policy Center to advance its mission. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, the Brookings Institution, their trustees, or their funders. Funders do not determine research findings or the insights and recommendations of Tax Policy Center experts. More information on the Tax Policy Center’s funding principles is available here. Read Urban’s terms of service here.
We would like to thank Stephanie Campos-Bui, Sarah Couture, Lisa Foster, David Gateley, Jesse Jannetta, Cybele Kotonias, Michael Leachman, Matthew Mizel, Cortney Sanders, Devan Shea, Richard Auxier, and Tracy Gordon for their insights.
RESEARCH:
Aravind Boddupalli, Kim S. Rueben, and Paul Odu
DESIGN:
Christina Baird
DEVELOPMENT:
Jill Hubley (https://jillhubley.com/)
EDITING:
Alex Dallman
WRITING:
Serena Lei
