Washington state courts imposed more than half a billion dollars in legal financial obligations (LFOs) between 2018 and 2021, according to a new report by the Washington State Center for Court Research (WSCCR).
LFOs, or monetary sanctions, are penalties that people receive when they become entangled with the criminal legal system. LFOs tend to fall into three buckets: fines as punishment, fees for court services, and restitution to compensate victims or repair damages. Alarming figures indicate that four in five people with LFO debt in Washington are indigent and unable to pay, which can trap families in a cycle of poverty and limit community resources.
Between 2018 and 2021, Washington courts levied $530.5 million in LFOs, leaving residents with $297 million in unpaid debt by the end of that period. This financial burden has far-reaching consequences, affecting individuals’ access to housing, employment opportunities, and increasing their risk of prolonged involvement with the criminal legal system.
Washington currently enforces 376 different types of monetary sanctions. Advocates have long called for reform, urging policymakers to address these burdensome penalties and improve data tracking to better understand their impact on individuals and communities alike. Washington residents deserve a criminal legal system where they are treated equally — regardless of their age, race, gender, or where their case is heard. However, routinely, data demonstrates that is not what people receive.
Here are some key takeaways from the new report.
People’s experience of the criminal legal system varies by geography
WSCCR’s report confirms what advocates already knew: Washington is a state where people experience “justice by geography.”
Since 2021, nearly all mandatory monetary sanctions have been eliminated in Washington — meaning judges have the discretion, or choice, to impose most LFOs. Certain jurisdictions assessed LFOs at a rate of 7 times the state average, while others imposed limited amounts of LFOs — nearly half that of the state average. Roughly 40% of municipal and district courts, otherwise known as Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CLJs), were found to impose amounts significantly higher than the state average. Finally, most rural courts impose LFOs at a higher rate than the state average.
Racial bias remains baked into the criminal legal system — from implicit personal biases among law enforcement officers to laws that disproportionately target certain racial groups.
For people navigating Washington’s criminal legal system, these differences matter. Monetary sanctions can have debilitating effects — from affecting a person’s credit, to wage garnishment, to negative health outcomes, and an inability to maintain housing and employment. Across the state, where a person lives or the jurisdiction that they’re charged in can determine their future: whether they’ll rehabilitate and successfully reenter society or be trapped in a crushing cycle of debt.
Monetary sanctions disproportionately harm people of color
Racial bias remains baked into the criminal legal system — from implicit personal biases among law enforcement officers to laws that disproportionately target certain racial groups. As a result, in Washington, Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) make up a disproportionate number of the people with charges filed against them when compared to the state population at large.
Updated data from WSCCR suggests that the imposition of LFOs and the average amount of LFOs imposed is not greatly impacted by a defendant’s race. Notably, however, the report finds that judges impose LFOs against Latinx defendants at a rate slightly higher than the state average, and at a rate lower than the state average for Black defendants.
Contrary to this data, we know that LFOs continue to burden BIPOC people at a disproportionate rate. Although defendants are being assessed the same average amount of LFOs regardless of race, due to the higher number of BIPOC people interacting with the criminal legal system and the concentration of wealth among white people, the effects of LFOs are not felt equally across racial groups. For example, over 60% cases involving Native defendants have outstanding LFO debt.
Washington’s restitution system wrongly benefits insurance agencies, while depriving communities of much needed resources
Restitution is a type of monetary sanction ordered to be paid by defendants to harmed parties, typically a person or business. For example, if a defendant was found guilty of injuring a person, they could be ordered restitution in the amount of the harmed party’s hospital bills.
In Superior Courts, insurance companies are the leading recipient of restitution — with more than $33 million in restitution ordered to be paid to insurance companies between 2018 and 2021. In that same period, judges in CLJs ordered an additional $1.2 million to be paid to insurance companies.
As the system is currently structured, insurance companies are paid twice for their services: once by policy holders, and a second time by defendants after policy holders use their coverage. This has negative ramifications for both the defendants and harmed parties involved, as defendants are trapped in a debilitating cycle of debt and harmed parties see their insurance premiums rise. The people of Washington deserve a restitution system that meets the needs of the harmed party, and the person convicted of causing harm — not insurance companies and private businesses.
Counties are finding new ways to misuse monetary sanctions to generate revenue
Washington’s courts and local governments are using monetary sanctions, such as restitution, to cover court costs — a practice that raises ethical and financial concerns.
The report notes that in CLJs, local governments are the second most frequent recipients of restitution after individuals. In Superior Court cases, just four counties — Mason, Spokane, Snohomish, and Chelan — account for 65% of all restitution directed to local governments. These findings suggest that some jurisdictions may be increasingly reliant relying on restitution payments to cover court expenses, raising concerns about regressive revenue practices that disproportionately affect people living on low incomes.
Unlike most states, in Washington, local governments are primarily responsible for funding court expenses, and many municipalities rely heavily on fines and fees to generate revenue, despite the inefficiency and inequity of this approach. While recent reforms prohibit judges from imposing fines and fees on indigent defendants (those below 125% of the federal poverty line), the report shows that courts and local governments have increasingly turned to restitution as an alternative revenue source. From 2018 to 2021, defendants were ordered to pay $8 million in restitution directly to local governments.
Legislators must explore new, progressive revenue options to cover court costs and reduce reliance on monetary sanctions to generate revenue.
Legislative victories have chipped away at the problem, but there’s still work to do
In recent years, advocates have pushed lawmakers to pass reforms to Washington’s monetary sanction system. These reforms have made previously mandatory LFOs discretionary, prohibited judges from charging juvenile defendants with fines and fees, and limited judges’ ability to impose LFOs against people living on low incomes. The WSCCR report highlights how these legislative changes, along with declining caseloads, have contributed to declining amount of LFOs imposed. However, the researchers warn that, “without additional legislative reforms or changes in judicial LFO practice, total LFO amounts could stabilize or begin to increase if caseloads increase.”
As the 2025 legislative session approaches, legislators must act to further reduce the burdens of LFO debt for families across Washington. Eliminating fees — or the monetary sanctions which aim to recover the costs of operating the criminal legal system — would offer immense relief to people living on low incomes in our criminal legal system. Although previous legislation has attempted to tackle this issue, the data tells us that the law is not being applied equally across the state. Greater measures must be taken to ensure that all state residents have equal access to justice.
