Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Courts Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects bill that would end juvenile fines and fees after heated debate about funding and service loss
Summary
Senate Bill 340, which would have eliminated many juvenile fines, fees and court costs and relied on a companion appropriation to backfill courts, failed in committee after judges, CASA advocates and legislators raised concerns about uncertain replacement funding and the risk to programs that use those fees for services.
Representative Mary Bentley presented Senate Bill 340, a measure that would remove the ability to assess many juvenile fines, fees and court costs. Supporters said the goal is to prevent low-income families from being saddled with debt that limits access to rehabilitation; critics said the bill would remove funding courts use to provide diversion and support services unless replacement funding is guaranteed.
Keisha Smith, executive director of Arkansas Advocates for Women and Children and a former deputy director at the Department of Human Services, described the bill's intent: to eliminate fees that can be a barrier to families and to use a companion appropriation (Senate Bill 341) to replace fees so courts would not lose resources they use for services.
"What it does... is goes through the juvenile code and takes out the ability to assess fines and fees on juveniles in every place that you see that," Keisha Smith said. She emphasized the sponsors had filed an appropriation bill intended to replace the fees.
Judges who testified said the fines and fees fund services — probation staff, transportation, community-based programs and Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) programs — and warned that the bill's appropriation figure (reported in committee as roughly $140,000) was far short of what judges estimated would be needed statewide. Judge Troy Braswell and others said the figure in SB 341 would not come close to covering the amounts courts collect across many counties.
"If we pass 3 40 and 3 41, the concern is what are we cutting from courts?" Judge Braswell said, noting some counties' fees support gardening programs, restorative-justice initiatives and transportation costs.
CASA representatives from multiple counties warned that fees fund CASA programming in their districts and that eliminating the revenue could force programs to reduce or cut services. Melanie Allen of Crawford County CASA said her program relied on juvenile-court funding and would be forced to scale back services if funds were eliminated.
Opponents also noted practical data gaps: courts and clerks collect fees differently and some county-level accounting makes statewide totals hard to pin down quickly. Judges and representatives urged more precise accounting and an agreed backfill plan before removing statutory fee authority.
After extended debate, Representative Bentley moved the bill; the committee voted and the motion failed. The chairman announced the bill did not pass the committee.
Why it matters: Juvenile fines and fees have been used in many counties to fund probation services, transportation, CASA, and diversion programs; ending the authority to assess the fees without a reliable replacement could reduce available services in counties with limited budgets.
What remains unclear: Committee debate showed no consensus on a verified statewide dollar amount required to replace juvenile fines and fees; sponsors said they would continue to work on the appropriation and asked for interim discussions, but the bill failed in committee.
