Frequently Asked Questions

Collection Improvement Program

1. What is the Office of Court Administration's (OCA's) Collection Improvement Program?
2. OCA's Collection Improvement Program is a set of principles and a process for managing cases when defendants are not prepared to pay all court costs, fees, and fines, at the point of assessment and when time to pay is requested. (See Components - Collection Improvement Program [pdf])
2. Who is required to implement a Collections Improvement Program?
3. Senate Bill 1863, Article 10 is now codified as Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 103.0033, and requires cities with populations of 100,000 or more, and counties with populations of 50,000 or more, to implement a Collection Improvement Program based in part on the OCA's model designed to improve in-house collections through the application of best practices.
3. What happens if a city or county fails to comply with Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 103.0033?
4. Local Government Code, Section 133.058 (e):
   
        "A municipality or county may not retain a service fee if, during an audit under Section 133.059 of this code or Article 103.0033(j), Code of Criminal Procedure, the comptroller determines that the municipality or county is not in compliance with Article 103.0033, Code of Criminal Procedure. The municipality or county may continue to retain a service fee under this section on receipt of a written confirmation from the comptroller that the municipality or county is in compliance with Article 103.0033, Code of Criminal Procedure."
   
   Local Government Code, Section 133.103(c-1):
   
        "The treasurer shall send 100 percent of the fees collected under this section to the comptroller if, during an audit under Section 133.059 of this code or Article 103.0033(j), Code of Criminal Procedure, the comptroller determines that the municipality or county is not in compliance with Article 103.0033, Code of Criminal Procedure. The municipality or county shall continue to dispose of fees as otherwise provided by this section on receipt of a written confirmation from the comptroller that the municipality or county is in compliance with Article 103.0033, Code of Criminal Procedure."
4. Who determines whether a city or county is in compliance?
5. Ultimately the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (CPA) makes this determination, via periodic audits to verify compliance with the Collection Improvement Program requirements. These requirements are listed in the Components - Collection Improvement Program [pdf]. The compliance audit form that the Comptroller's auditors will use is the Compliance Program Survey [doc].
5. What cities and counties are affected by Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 103.0033?
6. A total of 78 cities and counties are affected over the biennium. (See Priority Implementation Schedule [xls])
6. When will these programs have to be implemented?
7. Approximately half of the affected cities and counties were to implement programs by April 1, 2006 and the remaining number were to implemented by April 1, 2007. (See Priority Implementation Schedule [xls])
7. How will the effectiveness of these programs be determined?
8. The Comptroller of Public Accounts (CPA) is responsible for determining, by an audit, a jurisdiction's pre-program and post-program collection rate. Affected cities and counties are required to provide relevant collections data to assist in this effort.
8. What period of time will the Comptroller use to measure pre-program and post-program collection rates?
9. For the pre-program collection rate, the CPA auditor will select cases from 4 to 16 months prior to the implementation date of the mandatory Collection Improvement Program. A sampling of cases will be taken from each court that handles criminal cases, and the activities, payments, and credits will be captured in the first 120 days after the date of deferral or conviction. For the post-program collection rate, cases will be selected from the time period subsequent to the implementation date of the mandatory Collection Improvement Program and the same methodology applied for the calculation.
9. Do the calculations of the pre-program and post-program collection rates have any bearing in determining whether a county or municipality is in compliance with the Collection Improvement Program requirements and the potential loss of the 10% service fee?
10. No. The calculations of the pre and post-program collection rates have no bearing in determining whether a county or municipality is in compliance with the Collections Improvement Program requirements. The collection rates are simply a tool to measure the effectiveness of a mandatory program.
    
    The Comptroller's auditor will conduct a compliance review of a mandatory program, which has been in place for at least one year, to determine whether a county or municipality is conforming to the Collection Improvement Program requirements. The Comptroller's auditor will complete this compliance review at the time the auditor returns to conduct the calculation of the post-program collection rate. The compliance audit form that the Comptroller's auditors will use is the Collection Program Survey [doc].
10. Is it possible to obtain a waiver of this new requirement?
11. OCA will grant a blanket waiver from implementation when the requesting entity demonstrates that: (1TAC §175.7(b))
    
    "(1) the estimated costs of implementing the program are greater than the estimated additional revenue that would be generated by implementing the program; and
    (2) a compelling reason exists for submitting the waiver request after the entity's published implementation deadline. The requesting entity and OCA program staff each shall submit documentation supporting their cost and revenue projections to the administrative director for determination."
11. Can OCA grant a waiver for a specific component of the Collection Improvement Program?
12. In our opinion, OCA does not have authority to grant a waiver for a specific component of the Collection Improvement Program. The statutory language concerning a waiver speaks to a waiver permitting a county or municipality to decline to implement a Collection Improvement Program in its entirety. However, to provide more flexibility in the implementation of the program, the Texas Administrative Code, 1TAC, §175.7(c) [pdf] provides:
    
    "Temporary waivers. OCA will consider a request to grant a temporary waiver for good cause that could not have been reasonably anticipated. Such temporary waivers may be granted after an audit to allow a program to correct deficiencies discovered during the audit."
12. Do all courts have to participate?
13. Yes. With the exception of Teen and Juvenile courts, all criminal courts in the affected cities and counties are required to participate to achieve compliance. However, to provide more flexibility to a county with its implementation, the Texas Administrative Code, 1TAC, §175.5(c) [pdf] provides:
    
    "Compliance Audit Standards. The comptroller shall use the following standards in the compliance audit:
    (1) A county has met the requirements of §175.3(b) of this chapter when either 90 percent of all courts in the county, or all courts in the county except one court, have satisfied all three requirements. Partial percentages are rounded in favor of the county. A municipality must satisfy all three requirements of §175.3(b) of this chapter."
13. Who's responsible for setting up and implementing the collection programs statewide?
14. At the state level the OCA is responsible for providing technical assistance, training and consultation for the affected cities and counties to develop and implement these collection programs.
14. Under what office and/or branch of government should the program operate?
15. This is a very important and sometimes difficult issue in virtually every jurisdiction. We expect each locality to determine under which office and/or branch of government the collection program will most appropriately operate, and we will be satisfied as long as the operation complies with the Collection Improvement Program requirements and all applicable statutes for the collection of court costs, fees, and fines.
15. Will counties be required to have one centralized collections program?
16. No. Although this approach may enhance efficiency, it is sometimes not feasible given the variety of stakeholders involved. County government is free to develop and determine a program approach that best serves its individual requirements as long as the operation complies with the Collection Improvement Program requirements and all applicable statutes for the collection of court costs, fees, and fines. Cities and municipal courts are more likely to easily lend themselves to a centralized approach.
16. Will the program require staff dedicated to collections?
17. Yes. Our experience has shown that it is fundamental to have at least one local staff person whose priority job function is collection activities. Further staffing of a collection office may be accomplished by partial positions. Texas Administrative Code, 1TAC, §175.2(b) [pdf] provides:
    
    "Critical Components for Local Program Operations.
    (1) Dedicated Program Staff. Each local program must designate at least one employee whose job description contains an essential job function of collection activities. The priority collection job function may be concentrated in one individual employee or distributed among two or more employees. The collection function need not require 40 hours per week of an employee's time, but must be a priority."
17. How many people does it take to effectively staff a collections program?
18. Staffing requirements vary greatly depending on court type, volume, and traffic. Generally one person should be able to support court volumes ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 convictions (including deferred adjudications in that term) annually.
18. How does Art. 103.0033, CCP affect cities and counties who have outsourced or may be considering outsourcing to collect delinquent court costs, fees, and fines?
19. Art. 103.0033, CCP does not affect the ability of cities and counties to contract with a vendor for collection of delinquent court costs, fees, and fines.
19. Will contracting for collection of delinquent court costs, fees, and fines with an outside vendor satisfy all the requirements of Art. 103.0033, CCP?
20. No. SB 1863 has two components. The first component requires specific "in-house" management of current cases as outlined by the OCA. The second component requires strict management of delinquent cases which may include contracting with an outside vendor.
20. Is there a jurisdiction with a model program in place that we can call or visit?
21. Yes. Contact us and we will be happy to assist you with making the appropriate connection and arrangements.
21. Does the Collection Improvement Program apply to cases handled by a Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD)?
22. Local Government Code, Chapter 133, provides that the county treasurer is responsible for reporting and remitting the court costs and fees due by the county to the Comptroller, regardless of who collects them. While the CSCD may collect court costs, fees and fines, the county is still ultimately responsible for the reporting and remittance to the Comptroller. In addition, none of the components required for compliance conflict with the broad range of statutorily provided judicial authority. Based on this, it is our opinion that a CSCD which serves a county required to implement a program pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 103.0033, is not exempt from the requirements of the Collection Improvement Program when the CSCD collects court costs, fees, and fines imposed by a court.
22. Do the Collection Improvement Program requirements apply to the collection of victim restitution or community supervision fees?
23. No. The Collection Improvement Program requirements do not apply to the collection of victim restitution or supervision and related fees collected by the CSCD.
23. Can a CSCD continue to use existing procedures to handle the collections in cases that were adjudicated prior to the implementation of the Collection Improvement Program?
24. For CSCD cases that were adjudicated prior to the mandatory implementation date of the Collection Improvement Program, the CSCD may continue to use existing collection procedures. Cases adjudicated after the mandatory implementation date must be handled according to the Collection Improvement Program requirements.
24. What is the possibility of automating the application verification and collections interview process?
25. Automating the collections verification process without human intervention would be difficult, even with available technologies. The core problem centers on the availability of real-time data. There are systems currently available that can extract information from the application, such as phone numbers, employment dates, and even places of employment, and send the information through a data clearinghouse that can verify an association with a given name or social security number. The accuracy of the information is, however, only as good as the frequency with which the clearinghouse data is updated. If any of the information on the application is more recent than that possessed by the clearinghouse, the verification will be inconclusive. If this happens with a high percentage of applications, this may not be cost effective. Obtaining good, current information at an acceptable level will probably require at least some human intervention.
    
    The interview process could be automated by using an Interactive Voice Recording (IVR) system to contact or be contacted by defendants (defendants could either call into the system or the system could be programmed to call defendants). Once connected, the system could ask standard questions retrieved from and based on information contained on the application and automatically note responses.
    
    There are some inherent issues with any automation that will always require some human intervention. In this specific case, there are at least the following:
    
    
    • Connection or contact problems. Either the defendant fails to call in or does not respond to calls made by the system.
    • Inaccurate or incomplete information. The system would have to recognize, evaluate, and respond to a variety of problems that could arise on the application.
    • Technical limitations and literacy issues. Some defendants will not have access to the technology and/or be very challenged comprehending how to use it.
    • Language Barriers. System will need to include at least a Spanish component.
    
    
    Considering the technology available today we question the effectiveness of automating the collections interview part of the process.
25. Will the Office of Court Administration continue to support and train cities and counties that voluntarily implement the collections model?
26. Absolutely, as time and resources permit.
26. What is meant by collection rate and how is it computed?
27. The Comptroller's auditors will compute a pre-mandatory program implementation collection rate and a post-mandatory program implementation collection rate for those jurisdictions required to implement the Collection Improvement Program. Neither of these collection rates affects compliance/non-compliance with the Collection Improvement Program. These rates will be used to assist the Comptroller in determining the effectiveness of the Collection Improvement Program (see question 7). The Comptroller in conjunction with OCA determined that it would be reasonable to track collections for 120 days after the assessment of court costs, fees, and fines and compute separate rates for each court level (district, county, justice, and municipal).

Updated: 01-Mar-2011