Kansas committee hears bill to eliminate most juvenile fines and fees

A bill to prohibit most juvenile fines and fees and to discharge past assessments drew supporters and detailed questions at a Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice hearing.

Jason Thompson, of the Revisor’s Office, briefed the committee on House Bill 2,179, saying the measure “prohibits fines and fees from being assessed against a juvenile or a juvenile's parents, guardian, or custodian in a case pursuant to the revised Kansas juvenile justice code.” He said the bill would also discharge outstanding court-ordered fines and fees assessed under the juvenile offender code after the bill’s effective date of July 1, 2025.

The bill, as described by Thompson, exempts juveniles from a long list of existing fees and cost assessments across statutes tied to juvenile justice: fingerprinting and library fees, house arrest program fees, offender-registration fees when registration is required solely because of a juvenile adjudication, a $400 forensic science fee, certain Supreme Court nonjudicial personnel fees, fees for counsel where an attorney is appointed, docket fees for juvenile expungement petitions, DNA testing fees for juveniles, and others. Thompson said the measure does not cover restitution.

Proponents told the committee the fees produce little revenue while creating long-term harm to youth and families. Roshanee Hamby, director of policy and research at the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, testified that “fines and fees do not increase public safety” and argued that such assessments can prolong court involvement, produce missed school and work, and even lead to incarceration. Brenna Vazoski of Kansas Appleseed said Kansas charges more juvenile fines and fees than most states and provided state figures, including an estimate that in 2024 the state assessed about $394,000 in juvenile fees and collected about $345,000; she said collected fees make up a negligible share of the judiciary’s budget.

Formerly adjudicated youth and youth advocates described personal harms. Tyler Williams, who said he accrued about $1,000 while in custody, said collections continued after release, causing calls for payment and pressure that complicated housing and employment. Desmond Bryant of Progyny urged replacing monetary penalties with investment in mentorship and community-based alternatives.

Committee members asked how the bill treats appointed counsel costs and whether the bill applies retroactively. Thompson pointed the panel to the bill’s Section 10 and said appointed counsel fees “shall not be assessed to the juvenile or their parent guardian or custodian” and that the county general fund would pay reasonable fees for appointed counsel under the revised language. He also said Section 1 provides a retroactive discharge of outstanding juvenile fines and fees assessed under the juvenile offender code, other than restitution.

Witnesses from Juvenile Law Center and national researchers cited evidence tying financial assessments to higher recidivism and administrative costs that can exceed fee collections. Nadia Mozaffar of Juvenile Law Center summarized national findings that jurisdictions often recoup little revenue and spend significant staff time collecting fees from families that typically lack ability to pay.

No formal action on HB 2,179 was taken at the hearing. Committee discussion included clarifying which fees remain (restitution and specified statutory exceptions), the bill’s retroactivity, and how juvenile status is defined under the juvenile offender code.