Crime Does Not Pay, But Criminals May: Factors Influencing the Imposition and Collection of Probation Fees*

In this study, factors influencing the imposition and collection of probation fees in a sam ple of more than 2,400 Illinois adult probationers were examined. Predictor variables were grouped into two major categories (probationer and sentence characteristics), and four different measures related to probation fees were studied: 1) whether or not pro bation fees were imposed, 2) when imposed, the total amount of probation fees ordered, 3) the monthly rate of probation fees, and 4) the percentage of fees paid/collected. Multivariate analyses revealed that some factors were consistent predictors of all mea sures of probation fees (imposition, amount, and collection rates), while other factors were only predictive of some of these measures. Probationer characteristics, including race, income, and prior convictions, were predictive of whether fees were imposed and the collection rate, while environmental conditions, such as whether the probationer was sentenced in a rural jurisdiction or whether other financial conditions of probation were imposed, such as criminal fines, were predictive of all three measures of probation fees. The pressure for government agencies to increase their effectiveness and efficiency, while at the same time reducing the burden on taxpayers, has resulted in a number of sig nificant changes in the ways in which public agencies are financed. One mechanism through which public organizations have increased their resources has been the assess ment of user fees, which place more of the burden for supporting the cost of government services on those who disproportionately use them. Although this practice has been adopted for many types of government services, such as waste removal, the provision of water, electricity, and other utilities, and maintenance of roads, the widespread applica tion of user fees, as opposed to fines, by the criminal justice system is relatively new. Corrections is one component of the criminal justice system that has applied the practice of making "users" pay for services, particularly for community-based supervi sion programs. Indeed, many criminal justice practitioners and policymakers view fees