While payment delinquencies continue to plague courts, some are fighting back to gain funds due them. In one the latest of examples, the Rhode Island court system made a concerted effort to collect $81 million in overdue fines and fees. (Rhode Island’s Traffic, District and Superior Courts are actually owed $113.2 million related to criminal cases, but this effort includes sums that have been overdue for 90 days.) A mass mailing was sent to scofflaws, some at multiple addresses, in an attempt to find them and get them to comply.
They have 30 days to pay up, or, by law, their names and town or city of residence will be published on the judiciary website!
The amount owed to R.I. Courts ranges greatly—from a bill for as little as one cent to as much as $506,000 (these are fines and fees owed by Joseph Mollicone Jr., the former bank president embezzler, that date back to 1991, according to the Providence Journal. He is on a payment plan for another 11.9 million).
Other states have been fully addressing the collection issue too. In response to Chief Justice George’s 2003 declaration elevating the collection of court-ordered debt to a top priority, the California State Legislature enacted a law in 2004 the addressed the lack of compliance. The legislation required that the California Judicial Council survey collection programs on current collection processes and adopt guidelines and standards for a statewide comprehensive program for the collection of fines, fees, penalties, and assessments imposed by court order. A working group was formed, which received input from 16 superior courts, 15 counties, and three state agencies.
Over the past decade, the California Judicial Council has been improving their practices by establishing collections guidelines and standards as well as a creating a definition of “delinquent accounts/payments” for use by the 58 court/county comprehensive collection programs. The state judiciary continues to develop and establish statewide policies, procedures, and processes for the uniform collection of court-ordered debt.
Collections Hurdles
The collections process is complicated, and there are a number of hurdles to overcome in getting delinquents to pay. The California judiciary reports one of the biggest obstacles in the collection and reporting of court-ordered debt is the lack of a single entity with responsibility and authority over statewide court-ordered debt. This lack of authority results in laws being misinterpreted, late reports, and non-compliance.
In Florida, clerks participating in a 2012 survey prepared by the National Center for State Courts were asked to identify what they perceive as various barriers to success. Their responses indicated that greater coordination is needed between clerks and judges, and with other criminal justice agencies, in particular state and county probation. More robust information systems are needed in some jurisdictions to improve the efficiency of collection management and enforcement, they furthered. The survey responses also show that some jurisdictions have unique problems. One Florida clerk reported that over 30 percent of the county criminal cases involve homeless individuals. Many counties have large migrant populations that pose unique challenges.
The mobility of the public in general is another barrier that courts must overcome. Penn Credit, which is a private company with a diversified client base in government, utility, healthcare and higher education markets, says one of the main challenges they find with court collections (and collections in general) is to skip trace and locate defendants who have moved, or in a situation where they were initially provided only partial contact information.
Further, once the defendant is found it is still not easy to collect the debt, say Tim Foley, Penn’s collection manager. “Once we successfully make contact with the defendant, it can be challenging to make that individual understand that even though they may have moved to a different city, county or state, their financial obligation does not go away.”
Another major challenge is to collect debts from individuals who were previously incarcerated, Foley furthers. “Our goal normally is to establish a reasonable time payment plan with the defendant which allows them to re-establish their finances while still staying within the re-payment terms the court has set.”
Sometimes courts are reticent about involving themselves in the collections process because they believe the motivation to pay is all about the consequences. But with collection rates now a major focus, experience suggests that consequences aren’t enough, says Frank Pollack, VP, Products and Services with Point & Pay, LLC, which began in 1999 by helping counties in Florida expand acceptance of tax and motor vehicle payments. Using technology is another way to look at the problem, he says. “Thinking about the way people pay their debts—phone bills, loans, utilities—we’re trained from a young age that you can pay for anything anywhere, anytime. When that capability isn’t available, it creates a gap. Maybe someone wants to pay the moment they get their paycheck, or the instant they find a ticket crumpled up under the seat. If the technology isn’t available to facilitate that payment right when that impulse occurs, the payment may never happen at all.”
Point & Pay creates and integrates electronic payment systems that enable clients to accept card payments onsite or via telephone or Internet, 24/7.
If a court chooses to enter into a collections program, there is a proper way to go about the collections process, and though these defendants are scofflaws, the mission of Penn Credit is to treat them in a “respectful, yet aggressive manner.”
“We have received a higher number of defendants who have been sent to a collection agency for the first time, which has resulted in our staff educating individuals on what it means to be sent to a collection agency,” explains Penn’s Foley. In addition, the current climate is that there has been an increase in the number of partial payments a defendant is required to pay in order to satisfy a balance, he points out.
Of course there are pitfalls in choosing a collections agency, and a bad choice can place an ugly mark on the public’s perception of the court. Says Foley: “The hired collection vendor is an extension of the court and the defendant often is a constituent/voter in the local area, so showing respect and acting professionally is paramount. “ He adds that Penn Credit aims to “continue to make internal investments to improve the customer experience when interacting with our office, from additional payment options to increased training and education for our collection staff who are able to respond to the defendant’s questions.”
Performance Standards
In 2012, as noted above, the National Center for State Courts prepared a report to the Florida Clerks of Court Operations that studied the effectiveness of collections in Florida courts. Through the leadership of the CCOC, Florida clerks have established collection standards as a yardstick for measuring performance. Data for the most recent two fiscal years shows that statewide collection rates for criminal traffic substantially exceed standards. The statewide averages for county criminal and civil traffic are just under the standard but showed improvement in 2011/12. Circuit criminal cases appear to be the most difficult to collect, mirroring the experience in other states (see chart above).
Florida continues to be a leader in collecting and publishing performance data, the report states. This information helps the CCOC and individual clerks determine where to focus their efforts to improve compliance rates, as well as identifying factors that contribute to more effective collections.
Tools & Solutions
The report notes that there are a number of collection enforcement methods not currently authorized in Florida statute that have proven to be successful in other states. These include vehicle registration holds, professional and recreational license holds, enhanced civil enforcement procedures, fine amnesty, and warrant sweeps.
The passage of federal legislation authorizing the collection of court-ordered financial obligations through tax offset or intercept would give Florida’s clerks and courts additional leverage. A number of states have successfully implemented similar programs to offset state income taxes.
Regulations and enforcement mechanisms vary by location, court type, and the type of infraction, says Foley. “Our collection staff utilize a variety of tools during the collection process including dunning notices, automated batch and web-based skip tracing resources, automated and live dial call strategies, as well as providing defendants with numerous easy and convenient payment options (e.g. pay by phone, website). After making contact and qualifying a defendant, we often enter into payment arrangements, and we strive to establish a recurring automatic transaction tied with a checking account or credit card.”
Courts themselves can assist with the collection process through several enforcement mechanisms, Foley points out, such as driver’s license suspension, vehicle registration hold and/or the possibility of re-appearing in court. Previously, courts had the ability to use credit bureau reporting as a collection tool, however, the credit bureaus will no longer allow the reporting of court debts beginning June 2016 since they are not credit-related transactions.
Point & Pay’s approach is all about “making the best technologies available in bill payment processing—web, mobile, text, electronic documents, installment plans—available to every court, without major investment in the technology or resources,” notes Pollack.
These are a few technological choices from Point & Pay:
Websites with mobile interfaces: “The core of what we do is building great websites,” says Pollack. “We utilize style elements from the courts’ logos and color palettes over very clean, usable templates. On the sites, we present bills and balances with integrated look-up functions so that users know they are in the right place. Our sites are designed to look great on computers, phones, or tablets—anywhere and anytime someone gets the impulse to pay.”
eBilling: Electronic billing is a popular product for Point & Pay because it represents a cost savings over paper. It is also convenient, Pollack adds, because the person is just a click away from completing their payment. “Once we’ve built that electronic relationship with a customer we can use it to send frequent communications by email or text. Persistence pays.”
Installment plans: With the increased focus on collections, Pollack says they observed courts becoming a lot more flexible in terms of offering installment payment plans. Its product offers secure tools for setting up recurring payment schedules, storing payment methods, and facilitating all of the communications needed to administer the plans.
Mobile cashiering: Point & Pay has clients in Ohio that installed its payment technology right in their cruisers so that they could collect on a ticket at any point while the person was there, Pollack says.
Forte Payment Systems is another vendor that offers payment solutions. Its multi-channel payment solutions give customers the convenience of making payments through Internet, IVR (phone), point of sale, mobile and kiosk, points out Tim Dixon. “Though this is only scratching the surface,” he says, “professional licenses, real and personal property tax, sales tax, motor vehicle driver’s license and sticker renewals, vital records, utilities, and court fines and fees are just a few examples of the types of payments Forte can process.” On top of that, he continues, our systems are also Level 1 PCI compliant and we closely follow the guidelines of the card associations, so courts can be assured payment data is safe and secure.
Gaining Compliance
Just as judges and clerk staff expect that jail sentences, community service, and treatment orders will be complied with, there should be a similar expectation that fines, restitution, and other penalties and reimbursements will be paid unless the defendant is legitimately unable to comply due to indigence, notes the NCSC Florida report.
A few states have established statewide programs in which they have conducted research, developed standards and improved compliance. In 2005, for example, the Texas legislature enacted legislation that requires cities with a population of 100,000 or more, and counties with a population of 50,000 or more, to adopt a collection improvement program based on the voluntary model. The Texas Office of Court Administration estimates that in the five-year period from 2006 through 2010, the mandatory collections improvement program has generated over $340 million in additional revenue. Michigan and Arizona have also established policies that address noncompliance, adopted policy on collections, and have increased revenues.
In California, one indirect success the Judicial Council achieved is in funding its Victim Compensation program. The court-ordered debt program was not designed to improve the collection of victim restitution orders; however the adoption of the best practices and other efforts has led to increased collections. It allows that cases that have delinquent debt can be collected by a court, county, private vendor, or the Franchise Tax Board-Court Ordered Debt program. Thus, from FY 1993-1994 to FY 2003-2004, the FTB-COD program collected more than $1.4 million. From FY 2004-2005 to 2008-2009, after a statewide initiative began, the FTB-COD program collected more than $6.5 million.
With budget shortfalls constricting courts’ operations, there continues to be increased concern to research better methods for compliance, whether it is researching collections methods and creating standards and best practices, drafting legislation to enhance collections, or applying new technologies that can help edge their compliance rates up.
Foley at Penn Credit explains a policy of theirs that achieves best results: “Overall, we have the most success when the court refers delinquent accounts to collections in a timely manner after their internal process ends, ideally within 45 days. This provides a consistent message to the defendant and demonstrates to them as well as to the public that the court is serious about collecting all financial obligations.” CT
They have 30 days to pay up, or, by law, their names and town or city of residence will be published on the judiciary website!
The amount owed to R.I. Courts ranges greatly—from a bill for as little as one cent to as much as $506,000 (these are fines and fees owed by Joseph Mollicone Jr., the former bank president embezzler, that date back to 1991, according to the Providence Journal. He is on a payment plan for another 11.9 million).
Other states have been fully addressing the collection issue too. In response to Chief Justice George’s 2003 declaration elevating the collection of court-ordered debt to a top priority, the California State Legislature enacted a law in 2004 the addressed the lack of compliance. The legislation required that the California Judicial Council survey collection programs on current collection processes and adopt guidelines and standards for a statewide comprehensive program for the collection of fines, fees, penalties, and assessments imposed by court order. A working group was formed, which received input from 16 superior courts, 15 counties, and three state agencies.
Over the past decade, the California Judicial Council has been improving their practices by establishing collections guidelines and standards as well as a creating a definition of “delinquent accounts/payments” for use by the 58 court/county comprehensive collection programs. The state judiciary continues to develop and establish statewide policies, procedures, and processes for the uniform collection of court-ordered debt.
Collections Hurdles
The collections process is complicated, and there are a number of hurdles to overcome in getting delinquents to pay. The California judiciary reports one of the biggest obstacles in the collection and reporting of court-ordered debt is the lack of a single entity with responsibility and authority over statewide court-ordered debt. This lack of authority results in laws being misinterpreted, late reports, and non-compliance.
In Florida, clerks participating in a 2012 survey prepared by the National Center for State Courts were asked to identify what they perceive as various barriers to success. Their responses indicated that greater coordination is needed between clerks and judges, and with other criminal justice agencies, in particular state and county probation. More robust information systems are needed in some jurisdictions to improve the efficiency of collection management and enforcement, they furthered. The survey responses also show that some jurisdictions have unique problems. One Florida clerk reported that over 30 percent of the county criminal cases involve homeless individuals. Many counties have large migrant populations that pose unique challenges.
The mobility of the public in general is another barrier that courts must overcome. Penn Credit, which is a private company with a diversified client base in government, utility, healthcare and higher education markets, says one of the main challenges they find with court collections (and collections in general) is to skip trace and locate defendants who have moved, or in a situation where they were initially provided only partial contact information.
Further, once the defendant is found it is still not easy to collect the debt, say Tim Foley, Penn’s collection manager. “Once we successfully make contact with the defendant, it can be challenging to make that individual understand that even though they may have moved to a different city, county or state, their financial obligation does not go away.”
Another major challenge is to collect debts from individuals who were previously incarcerated, Foley furthers. “Our goal normally is to establish a reasonable time payment plan with the defendant which allows them to re-establish their finances while still staying within the re-payment terms the court has set.”
Sometimes courts are reticent about involving themselves in the collections process because they believe the motivation to pay is all about the consequences. But with collection rates now a major focus, experience suggests that consequences aren’t enough, says Frank Pollack, VP, Products and Services with Point & Pay, LLC, which began in 1999 by helping counties in Florida expand acceptance of tax and motor vehicle payments. Using technology is another way to look at the problem, he says. “Thinking about the way people pay their debts—phone bills, loans, utilities—we’re trained from a young age that you can pay for anything anywhere, anytime. When that capability isn’t available, it creates a gap. Maybe someone wants to pay the moment they get their paycheck, or the instant they find a ticket crumpled up under the seat. If the technology isn’t available to facilitate that payment right when that impulse occurs, the payment may never happen at all.”
Point & Pay creates and integrates electronic payment systems that enable clients to accept card payments onsite or via telephone or Internet, 24/7.
If a court chooses to enter into a collections program, there is a proper way to go about the collections process, and though these defendants are scofflaws, the mission of Penn Credit is to treat them in a “respectful, yet aggressive manner.”
“We have received a higher number of defendants who have been sent to a collection agency for the first time, which has resulted in our staff educating individuals on what it means to be sent to a collection agency,” explains Penn’s Foley. In addition, the current climate is that there has been an increase in the number of partial payments a defendant is required to pay in order to satisfy a balance, he points out.
Of course there are pitfalls in choosing a collections agency, and a bad choice can place an ugly mark on the public’s perception of the court. Says Foley: “The hired collection vendor is an extension of the court and the defendant often is a constituent/voter in the local area, so showing respect and acting professionally is paramount. “ He adds that Penn Credit aims to “continue to make internal investments to improve the customer experience when interacting with our office, from additional payment options to increased training and education for our collection staff who are able to respond to the defendant’s questions.”
Performance Standards
In 2012, as noted above, the National Center for State Courts prepared a report to the Florida Clerks of Court Operations that studied the effectiveness of collections in Florida courts. Through the leadership of the CCOC, Florida clerks have established collection standards as a yardstick for measuring performance. Data for the most recent two fiscal years shows that statewide collection rates for criminal traffic substantially exceed standards. The statewide averages for county criminal and civil traffic are just under the standard but showed improvement in 2011/12. Circuit criminal cases appear to be the most difficult to collect, mirroring the experience in other states (see chart above).
Florida continues to be a leader in collecting and publishing performance data, the report states. This information helps the CCOC and individual clerks determine where to focus their efforts to improve compliance rates, as well as identifying factors that contribute to more effective collections.
Tools & Solutions
The report notes that there are a number of collection enforcement methods not currently authorized in Florida statute that have proven to be successful in other states. These include vehicle registration holds, professional and recreational license holds, enhanced civil enforcement procedures, fine amnesty, and warrant sweeps.
The passage of federal legislation authorizing the collection of court-ordered financial obligations through tax offset or intercept would give Florida’s clerks and courts additional leverage. A number of states have successfully implemented similar programs to offset state income taxes.
Regulations and enforcement mechanisms vary by location, court type, and the type of infraction, says Foley. “Our collection staff utilize a variety of tools during the collection process including dunning notices, automated batch and web-based skip tracing resources, automated and live dial call strategies, as well as providing defendants with numerous easy and convenient payment options (e.g. pay by phone, website). After making contact and qualifying a defendant, we often enter into payment arrangements, and we strive to establish a recurring automatic transaction tied with a checking account or credit card.”
Courts themselves can assist with the collection process through several enforcement mechanisms, Foley points out, such as driver’s license suspension, vehicle registration hold and/or the possibility of re-appearing in court. Previously, courts had the ability to use credit bureau reporting as a collection tool, however, the credit bureaus will no longer allow the reporting of court debts beginning June 2016 since they are not credit-related transactions.
Point & Pay’s approach is all about “making the best technologies available in bill payment processing—web, mobile, text, electronic documents, installment plans—available to every court, without major investment in the technology or resources,” notes Pollack.
These are a few technological choices from Point & Pay:
Websites with mobile interfaces: “The core of what we do is building great websites,” says Pollack. “We utilize style elements from the courts’ logos and color palettes over very clean, usable templates. On the sites, we present bills and balances with integrated look-up functions so that users know they are in the right place. Our sites are designed to look great on computers, phones, or tablets—anywhere and anytime someone gets the impulse to pay.”
eBilling: Electronic billing is a popular product for Point & Pay because it represents a cost savings over paper. It is also convenient, Pollack adds, because the person is just a click away from completing their payment. “Once we’ve built that electronic relationship with a customer we can use it to send frequent communications by email or text. Persistence pays.”
Installment plans: With the increased focus on collections, Pollack says they observed courts becoming a lot more flexible in terms of offering installment payment plans. Its product offers secure tools for setting up recurring payment schedules, storing payment methods, and facilitating all of the communications needed to administer the plans.
Mobile cashiering: Point & Pay has clients in Ohio that installed its payment technology right in their cruisers so that they could collect on a ticket at any point while the person was there, Pollack says.
Forte Payment Systems is another vendor that offers payment solutions. Its multi-channel payment solutions give customers the convenience of making payments through Internet, IVR (phone), point of sale, mobile and kiosk, points out Tim Dixon. “Though this is only scratching the surface,” he says, “professional licenses, real and personal property tax, sales tax, motor vehicle driver’s license and sticker renewals, vital records, utilities, and court fines and fees are just a few examples of the types of payments Forte can process.” On top of that, he continues, our systems are also Level 1 PCI compliant and we closely follow the guidelines of the card associations, so courts can be assured payment data is safe and secure.
Gaining Compliance
Just as judges and clerk staff expect that jail sentences, community service, and treatment orders will be complied with, there should be a similar expectation that fines, restitution, and other penalties and reimbursements will be paid unless the defendant is legitimately unable to comply due to indigence, notes the NCSC Florida report.
A few states have established statewide programs in which they have conducted research, developed standards and improved compliance. In 2005, for example, the Texas legislature enacted legislation that requires cities with a population of 100,000 or more, and counties with a population of 50,000 or more, to adopt a collection improvement program based on the voluntary model. The Texas Office of Court Administration estimates that in the five-year period from 2006 through 2010, the mandatory collections improvement program has generated over $340 million in additional revenue. Michigan and Arizona have also established policies that address noncompliance, adopted policy on collections, and have increased revenues.
In California, one indirect success the Judicial Council achieved is in funding its Victim Compensation program. The court-ordered debt program was not designed to improve the collection of victim restitution orders; however the adoption of the best practices and other efforts has led to increased collections. It allows that cases that have delinquent debt can be collected by a court, county, private vendor, or the Franchise Tax Board-Court Ordered Debt program. Thus, from FY 1993-1994 to FY 2003-2004, the FTB-COD program collected more than $1.4 million. From FY 2004-2005 to 2008-2009, after a statewide initiative began, the FTB-COD program collected more than $6.5 million.
With budget shortfalls constricting courts’ operations, there continues to be increased concern to research better methods for compliance, whether it is researching collections methods and creating standards and best practices, drafting legislation to enhance collections, or applying new technologies that can help edge their compliance rates up.
Foley at Penn Credit explains a policy of theirs that achieves best results: “Overall, we have the most success when the court refers delinquent accounts to collections in a timely manner after their internal process ends, ideally within 45 days. This provides a consistent message to the defendant and demonstrates to them as well as to the public that the court is serious about collecting all financial obligations.” CT
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter