While fines are typically meant to be punitive and deter future unlawful behaviors, fees are imposed solely to offset costs and generate revenue for the government. Failure to make timely payments can lead to additional financial penalties, driver’s license suspension, private collection, warrants for arrest, incarceration, and other sanctions. These practices are ubiquitous in the criminal justice system across states.

Although there is no national data on this issue, numerous examinations of local jurisdictions suggest that racial and ethnic minorities are overrepresented among people who face sanctions for failure to comply.[1] Blacks are over-represented among individuals who do not have the financial means to comply with monetary sanctions. For these individuals, legal and financial obligations and subsequent sanctions intensify and prolong their involvement with the criminal justice system.[2]

When properly applied, fines can deter driving violations and improve roadway safety.[3] However, governments, especially smaller municipal governments, are more likely to use traffic fines to generate revenue rather than to directly improve roadway safety.[4] Using traffic enforcement to generate revenue can create a racially disparate impact; in one study, increases in traffic fines were more frequent in low-income places with predominant Hispanic residents or counties with more travelers and visitors.[5]

• Fines and fees can hinder reentry. For example, fees associated with phone calls from an incarcerated person are a barrier to maintaining family connections, which disproportionately affects Black and low-income individuals and can reduce the likelihood of successful reentry.[6]
• Fines and fees could lead to new crimes. One survey of individuals, most of whom were already involved in the justice system in some way, found that 38% of individuals admitted to committing at least one crime to pay off their court debt. Among those who only owed fines for traffic offenses, about one in five admitted to committing a more serious crime to help them pay their debt.[7] More research is needed to examine this unintended consequence.
• Time spent collecting fines and fees may result in reduced clearance rates. One study found that for every 1% increase in a municipality’s revenue generated from fines and fees (i.e., traffic tickets), there was a 6.1% decrease in clearing violent crime cases (in smaller agencies) and an 8.3% decrease in clearing property crime cases (clearance rates).[8]

Failure to pay (FTP) a traffic ticket or other fines and fees are a leading reason for driver’s license suspension in the United States.[9] The efficacy of license suspension in increasing compliance and preventing future traffic violations has been linked to drivers’ race and the socio-economic status of where they live. Financial penalties and FTP suspensions reduce the probability of receiving a subsequent ticket for White drivers. However, among Black drivers, financial penalties had no effect on future traffic citations, and FTP suspensions increased the probability of receiving a second ticket by 6—9%. This disparity does not appear to be caused by differences in behavioral actions by racial groups – both White and Black drivers made behavioral adjustments to minimize the probability of future tickets. This evidence suggests that supposedly racially neutral policies can still result in racially disparate outcomes. Some researchers argue that FTP suspensions should be removed from the driver's record once the financial obligations are met or eliminate FTP suspensions altogether.[10] Debt-based suspensions can lead to lost income, financial instability, and mental and physical health consequences.[11] An analysis of budget data from jurisdictions in Washington State suggests that fines and fees account for just over 0.3% of the state’s total revenue.[12]

• Behavioral nudges. There is some evidence that the negative impact of fines and fees can be mitigated by small behavioral nudges. For example, one study redesigned the summons form and provided text message reminders to people with outstanding warrants. Those changes reduced failure to appear by 13–21% and resulted in 30,000 fewer arrest warrants over a 3-year period.[13]
• Ability-to-pay determinations. Fines can be better matched to the ability to pay using online evidence-based scoring systems. Some view this as an efficient step that courts can take to make the use of fines as sanctions fairer and more effective while waiting for larger legislative reforms.[14]
• Flexible payment plans. Flexibility with payment options allows people to pay fines over time while minimizing additional penalties and fees.
• Community service. Community service is the most common alternative to financial sanctions, though there are no national standards for determining the fines-to-community-service conversion. Notably, the use of community service can create challenges by taking time away from employment or family demands. In some states, community service hours are assigned a standard wage equivalent value, which is used to “pay” financial sanctions. For example, in 2020, California raised its conversion rate to double the minimum wage, so that every hour of service corresponds to two hours in “wages” towards paying fines.[15]
• Education and workforce development. Some jurisdictions use educational classes or skills courses in place of financial penalties and are exploring remote-learning technology to satisfy this requirement.
• Substance and alcohol abuse programs or mental health counseling. People may be assigned to substance or mental health treatment as an alternative to financial sanctions.