Data

General Issues
Governance & Political Institutions
Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice & Corrections
Transportation
Specific Topics
Budget - Local
Economic Inequality
Taxation
Location
San Francisco
California
United States
Files
FINAL Fines and Fees Task Force Recommendations.pdf
Links
Digital storage of the Fines and Fees Task Force's documents.
Start Date
End Date
Ongoing
No
Purpose/Goal
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Research
Approach
Evaluation, oversight, & social auditing
Research
Spectrum of Public Participation
Involve
Total Number of Participants
25
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Open to All
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Appointment
Targeted Demographics
Appointed Public Servants
Stakeholder Organizations
Low-Income Earners
General Types of Methods
Collaborative approaches
Planning
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Propose and/or develop policies, ideas, and recommendations
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
Yes
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Formal Testimony
Information & Learning Resources
Expert Presentations
Participant Presentations
Written Briefing Materials
Decision Methods
General Agreement/Consensus
Communication of Insights & Outcomes
Public Report
Public Hearings/Meetings
Type of Organizer/Manager
Local Government
Community Based Organization
Funder
City of San Francisco
Type of Funder
Local Government
Staff
Yes
Volunteers
No
Evidence of Impact
Yes
Types of Change
Changes in public policy
Implementers of Change
Appointed Public Servants
Stakeholder Organizations
Formal Evaluation
No

CASE

San Francisco Fines and Fees Task Force

21 avril 2022 shojehl
General Issues
Governance & Political Institutions
Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice & Corrections
Transportation
Specific Topics
Budget - Local
Economic Inequality
Taxation
Location
San Francisco
California
United States
Files
FINAL Fines and Fees Task Force Recommendations.pdf
Links
Digital storage of the Fines and Fees Task Force's documents.
Start Date
End Date
Ongoing
No
Purpose/Goal
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Research
Approach
Evaluation, oversight, & social auditing
Research
Spectrum of Public Participation
Involve
Total Number of Participants
25
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Open to All
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Appointment
Targeted Demographics
Appointed Public Servants
Stakeholder Organizations
Low-Income Earners
General Types of Methods
Collaborative approaches
Planning
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Propose and/or develop policies, ideas, and recommendations
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
Yes
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Formal Testimony
Information & Learning Resources
Expert Presentations
Participant Presentations
Written Briefing Materials
Decision Methods
General Agreement/Consensus
Communication of Insights & Outcomes
Public Report
Public Hearings/Meetings
Type of Organizer/Manager
Local Government
Community Based Organization
Funder
City of San Francisco
Type of Funder
Local Government
Staff
Yes
Volunteers
No
Evidence of Impact
Yes
Types of Change
Changes in public policy
Implementers of Change
Appointed Public Servants
Stakeholder Organizations
Formal Evaluation
No

San Francisco's Fines and Fees Task Force sought to examine the impact of fines, fees, and other financial penalties on low income people and people of color and recommend reforms to mitigate any undue negative impacts.

Problems and Purpose

In 2015, the Department of Justice’s report: “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department” drew national attention to the inequitable and unjust fines and fees policies and practices that the largely low-income and African American residents of Ferguson faced.[i] This was followed by a report published by a coalition of California legal aid organizations highlighting the inequity of driver’s license suspensions for Californians. Those without the money to pay rising traffic violation costs faced driver’s license suspensions and were barred from court hearings, as both required full payment of fees and fines associated with the violation. Driver’s license suspensions resulted in lost jobs and difficult decisions between paying violation costs and buying food or medical care. As a result of these policies, over 4 million or 17% of Californians have suspended driver’s licenses, and California now has over $10 billion in uncollected court-ordered debt.[ii]

Two members of this California legal aid coalition, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, also came together with other legal aide and community organizations, including the Community Housing Partnership, All of Us or None, and the Coalition on Homelessness San Francisco to create the coalition Debt Free SF to call for reforms of San Francisco’s fine and fee policies that resulting in crippling negative impacts on their communities and constituents.[iii] The coalition worked with Supervisors John Avalos and Jane Kim to have San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors’ Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee hold a hearing to address fines and fees practices and impacts in San Francisco. The coalition’s clients, people who were poor, homeless, or exiting jail or prison, struggled with included tickets for sleeping on park benches, overwhelming court ordered fines, and debt from the criminal justice system, as well as $400 tow fees that resulted in lost cars.[iv] Further, the African American community in San Francisco was disproportionately heavily affected by fine and fee policies, as despite making up less than 6 percent of the population, they represented over half of people in County Jail, 45 percent of those arrested for “failure to appear/pay” traffic court warrants, and over 70% of people seeking legal assistance for driver’s license suspensions. [v]

The Fines and Fees Task Force was created to examine the impact of various financial penalties that disproportionately impacted low-income San Franciscans Francisco and recommend reforms to ensure more just and equitable policies.[vi]


Background History and Context

In March of 2015, the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division released the report: “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department”. Their investigation found a pattern of unlawful conduct stemming from a focus on revenue generation in both the police department and the municipal court which fundamentally compromised the roles of these institutions and led to an erosion of community trust.[vii] This report drew national attention to the potential inequitable and dire impacts of municipal fine and fee policies.

In April of 2015, following the Department of Justice’s report, a coalition of California legal aide organizations released the report: “Not Just a Ferguson Problem – How Traffic Courts Drive Inequality in California”. The report made the argument that California’s ballooning uncollected court-ordered debt of $10 billion and over 4 million suspended driver’s licenses were the result of inequitable practices and policies regarding license suspensions, access to courts, and fines and fees. The report observed that many of these practices were “chillingly similar” to practices criticized by the Department of Justice’s report on Ferguson. These practices included ballooning add-on fines and fees, where, for example, a citation with a $100 base fine could ultimately result in an over $800 total in fines and fees, as well as policy to suspend driver’s licenses until fees are paid in full and policies requiring the maximum fine amount be paid in order to exercise the right to a court hearing. California’s current practices and policies resulted in a system that “turn[ed] a citation offense into a poverty sentence”.[viii]

In 2016, Debt Free SF, a coalition of legal aide and community organizations, was formed to advocate for fines and fee reforms in San Francisco. The coalition included two of the organizations responsible for the California report, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, as well as the Community Housing Partnership, All of Us or None, and the Coalition on Homelessness San Francisco. Clients of these organizations had struggled with tickets for sleeping on park benches, court ordered fines, criminal justice system debt, and tow fees exceeding $400.[ix] Further, fines and fees burdens in San Francisco fell heavily on the African American Community, with African American individuals representing more than 70% of people seeking legal assistance for driver’s license suspensions, 45% of people arrested for a “failure to appear/pay” traffic court warrant, and over half of people in the county jail.[x]

The coalition worked with Supervisors John Avalos and Jane Kim to have San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors’ Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee hold a special meeting for the hearing on Driver’s License Citations, Suspensions, and Related Collection Practices on February 25th, 2016. At this hearing, numerous representatives of city and county departments presented regarding the city’s fine and fee policies and impacts, including the public defender’s office, treasurer’s office, the municipal transport agency, and the superior court. At public comment, representatives of community organizations as well as members of the community spoke to the ill effects of fine and fee practices and policies on themselves and their communities and called for reforms.[xi]

In 2016, the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee consisted of three of the eleven Board of Supervisors, Jane Kim, John Avalos, and David Campos, and met every first and third Thursday at 10 am. The committee covered any measures related to public safety and neighborhood services, including public works, traffic and parking control, public protection, and delinquency prevention.[xii] Under the Sunshine Ordinance, all meetings of the committee must be conducted before the people. Furthermore, members of the public are encouraged to testify at committee meetings during an allotted public comment period.[xiii]

At the end of the hearing, Supervisor Avalos and Kim expressed support for the creation of a task force to address the issues brought up during the hearing. Supervisor Avalos suggested: “it could make sense to put a taskforce together that can put a raft of recommendations together”, while Supervisor Kim stated she would “look forward to coauthoring a resolution on the creation [of the task force]”.[xiv]

On April 28th, 2016, ordinance no. 93-16, “Establishing Municipal Fines and Fees Task Force”, was submitted and amended in the Rules Committee and on May 17th, the amended ordinance was passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors. This ordinance tasked the Task Force with creating a report evaluating and recommending policy options to “(1) reduce municipal fines and fees [or low-income people, (2) reduce the rate at which low-income people are cited for municipal violations, (3) offer debt relief for low-income people facing significant debt arising from municipal fines, fees, and court-ordered debt, and (3) implement the Statewide Traffic Tickets/Infraction Amnesty Program based on California Vehicle Code Section 42008.8”[xv]


Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The Fines and Fees Task Force was created by the Board of Supervisors and led by the Treasurer’s Office’s Financial Justice Project.[xvi] According to the establishing ordinance, the task force was to consist of eleven voting members. Seven seats were to be occupied by one employee each from the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office, the Office of Economic & Workforce Development, the Human Services Agency, the Public Defender’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office, the Municipal Transportation Agency, and the San Francisco Superior Court. A further four seats were to be “held by persons with lived experience as, or experience providing services or assistance to, low-income people regarding court-ordered debt, suspended driver's licenses. or payment of municipal fines or fees, appointed by the Board of Supervisors”. The task force was provided administrative support from the Treasurer-Tax Collector, with the Budget and Legislative Analyst and any other relevant expertise available upon request.[xvii]  

Furthermore, two additional seats were added for an employee from Adult Probation and an employee from the Department of Child Support Services. The chair for Adult Probation was added because research by the Financial Justice Project had uncovered many fines and fees that people on probation faced. The chair for Child Support Services was added because people at community meetings were requesting that inequitable policies for child support be addressed.[xviii]

According to the chair of the task force and director of the Financial Justice Project, Anne Stuhldreher, there was an application process for the four community seats on the task force. As the coalition Debt Free SF was the driving external force in the formation of the task force, all of the folks who applied to seats on the task force were from organizations that were a part of the coalition. One community member had struggled on and off with homelessness.[xix] Representatives from the Community Housing Partnership, Coalition on Homelessness, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and Bay Area Legal Aid occupied the four community seats.[xx]

The task force’s recommendations were developed with key department and community stakeholders prior to each meeting, where they were then fully vetted during task force meetings. The meetings were open to members of the public. As an irregularity to typical procedures, members of the public and other non-Task Force members were invited to participate in discussion at most meetings.[xxi] Meeting minutes show that members of the public that were recorded were largely representing various organizations. Some of these included other employees from city departments already represented on the board. Others included representatives of national, state, and local non-profit organizations who served stakeholders that were effected by fines and fees policies and practices.[xxii]

Citi Community Development and the Walter & Elise Haas Fund were funding partners to the Financial Justice Project.[xxiii]


Participant Recruitment and Selection

The formal members of the Fines and Fees Task Force were largely selected according to procedures described in the Board of Supervisor’s ordinance establishing the task force, No. 93-16. These included seven seats for employees appointed by the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office, the Office of Economic Workforce Department, the Human Services Agency, the Public Defender’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office, the Municipal Transportation Agency, and the San Francisco Superior Court and four seats for community members with “lived experience as, or experience providing services or assistance to, low-income people regarding court-ordered debt, suspended driver’s licenses, or payment of municipal fines or fees” to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors.[xxiv] The selection process for the four community seats included an application process, and all of the people who applied were from organizations that were a part of the Debt Free SF coalition, a driving force in the creation of the task force. One of the four people selected from the coalition had experienced housing instability. The four community seats were ultimately filled by representatives of from the Community Housing Partnership, Coalition on Homelessness, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and Bay Area Legal Aid.[xxv]

Two additional seats were added during the task force’s creation. A seat for an employee from Adult Probation was added due to a recognition of fines and fees hardships facing people who had experienced probation that was uncovered by the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Financial Justice Project during preparatory research. A seat for an employee from the Department of Child Support Services was added due to demand at community meetings coordinated by the Financial Justice Project, where constituents described inequitable policies for child support that they hoped would be addressed.[xxvi]

Fines and Fees Task Force Meetings were also attended by members of the public. Under the Sunshine Ordinance of San Francisco, all meetings of policy bodies are required to be open and public, with further requirements that information about the meetings, including agendas, time, and location, be shared with the public 72 hours in advance of any meetings.[xxvii] Meeting minutes record the presence of members of the public at each meeting. However, these members of the public that were recorded were nearly all representatives of government bodies or other organizations with interests in reforming fine and fee policies.[xxviii]


Methods and Tools Used

Task forces are a commonly used method for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to address city-wide issues. The Fines and Fees Task Force received a mandate from the Board of Supervisors to address inequitable consequences of Fines and Fees structures in San Francisco. The task force was comprised of nine members from relevant city and county departments and four community members with direct experience.[xxix]

The task force heavily relied on administrative support from the Financial Justice Project, a team created by the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office. This team conducted independent research and community outreach prior to the first official meeting of the task force and coordinated with key department and community stakeholders to develop different recommendations.[xxx]

Throughout the process of developing recommendations, the task force aimed for consensus. Prior to the official monthly meetings, key department and community stakeholders worked together to develop recommendations. Task force members identified key stakeholders and experts to address identified issue areas and topics through presentations at monthly meetings. Recommendations were discussed and vetted after presentations at these monthly meetings. Typically, members of the public and non-task force attendees were invited to participate throughout discussions at these monthly meetings[xxxi]

In order to reach final recommendations, task force members made comments and held discussion on various iterations of differing recommendations before signing off after their comments and concerns were fully addressed.[xxxii]


What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The Fines and Fees Task Force met six times, October 12, 2016, November 16, 2016, December 15, 2016, January 19, 2017, February 16, 2017, and March 29, 2017, to create their final recommendation report. The first two meetings largely focused on creating criteria for possible reform of fines and fees, structuring a framework for equity assessment, and agenda setting for future meetings. The four following meetings focused on six specific topics: Ability to Pay, Driver’s License Suspensions, Quality of Life Citations, Transportation Fines and Fees, Reforming San Francisco’s System of Bail, and Child Support Debt. [xxxiii]

The task force received administrative support from the Treasurer-Tax Collector office’s Financial Justice Project for research and creation of policy recommendations. The Financial Justice Project team coordinated development of recommendations with key department and community stakeholders before each meeting. Experts and key stakeholders were invited to meetings to present on specific fines, fees, and potential reforms to provide further knowledge and context. Recommendations were then vetted and discussed during each meeting according to the framework the task force created, with five criteria: effective, fair, equitable, efficient, and sustainable. Typically, members of the public and other non-task force members were invited to participate in these discussions throughout meetings. However, when meetings were more time constrained, a public comment section was held at the end of meetings. The goal of action throughout the process was to achieve consensus on recommendations.[xxxiv]

Over the course of the task force’s run time of six months, potential recommendations were continuously iterated on, with task force members regularly discussing and commenting throughout the process. The final recommendations went through a process of discussion, comments, and signing off with individual members of the task force.[xxxv]

The final recommendations report was prepared by the Treasurer’s Office’s Financial Justice Project and released on May 16, 2017.[xxxvi]


Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The Fines and Fees Task Force ultimately produced a final report, released on May 16, 2017, and presented their findings to the Board of Supervisors at a hearing of the Government Audits and Oversight Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on May 17th, 2017.[xxxvii]

The report focused on six issue areas: Ability to Pay, Driver’s License Suspensions, Quality of Life Citations, Transportation Fines and Fees, Reforming San Francisco’s System of Bail, and Child Support Debt.

With regards to ability to pay, the task force argued that current fines and fees policies do not take into consideration an individual’s ability to pay, resulting in inequitable burdens for low-income San Franciscans. The task force presented a series of recommendations, including that fine and fee amounts be based on an individual’s ability to pay, options for community service for those who had a complete inability to pay, more flexible payment plans, streamlined verification of inability to pay through verification of enrollment in public benefits, and consistency of processes across City, County, & Court proceedings.

With regards to driver’s license suspensions, the task force argued that the practice of suspending driver’s licenses as punishment for non-payment of traffic citations had resulted in an inequitable situation in which those who did not have the ability to pay faced heavy transportation challenges that could result in lost jobs and inability to react to emergency situations like bringing sick children to the hospital. Further, those with inability to pay faced difficult financial choices between paying citations to keep the ability to drive and other needs like putting food on the table or keeping a roof over one’s head. The task force listed a number of recommendations, including making permanent policy for the San Francisco Superior Court to not refer failures to pay to the Department of Motor Vehicles and supporting and advocating to pass SB185 to eliminate the practice statewide.

The task force found that quality of life citations regarding public behavior such as sleeping where it is prohibited, blocking a sidewalk, and having an open container of alcohol often carried a $200 fine that could grow to $500 if the initial fine went unpaid. These unpaid fines could result in a cascade of consequences, including jail time, destroyed credit ratings, and suspension of driver’s licenses. These consequences could cause further struggles with housing and employment, especially in creating barriers for those who were already struggling with homelessness. The task force provided a number of recommendations, including changes in practices, such as Sf police using warnings instead of citations and a discontinuation of $300 civil assessment fees being added on to unpaid fines, in order to avoid creating further challenges for people struggling with homelessness.

The task force found that practices surrounding transportation fines and fees were also having inequitable impacts on those of low socio-economic means. Costs of $600 for retrieving towed cars have led to 10 percent of owners abandoning cars. Fare evasion tickets cost $112 and the existing option to perform community service to clear the ticket required a $75 payment to enroll. The task force highlighted SFMTA efforts to address these inequitable realities, such as discounted public transportation passes for low-income San Franciscans and discounted towing fees. However, the task force still provided a number of recommendations, many of them being recommendations to expand current efforts addressing inequity, such as aligning boot fees with tow fees, spreading alternative payment information, and waiving enrollment fees for community service payment options.

The task force argued that San Francisco’s bail system was highly flawed, including being inequitable, resulting in people being kept in jail not based on risk to the community, but rather based on their ability to pay. Recommendations to address these flaws included a number of efforts for further research, as well as further resource allocation to move towards risk-based bail systems.

The task force also provided recommendations regarding child support debt. For single-parent families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the other parent owes child support payments reimbursing the government for the cost of TANF. These payments continue to be assessed regardless of the other parent’s situation, including if they are in jail, unemployed, or homeless and a further ten percent interest is charged on unpaid payments. Recommendations were largely addressed toward San Francisco’s Department of Child Support Services and included a program to erase delinquent child support debt for payment of a 10% portion of that delinquent debt as well as alternative nonmonetary options to address child support debt such as credit for caring for the child when the other parent pursued an Associates Degree from San Francisco City College.[xxxviii]

After the report, the various city and county departments made progress on the recommendations of the task force. The Treasurer’s Office’s Financial Justice Project supported many of these recommended efforts and pursued further opportunities to address the disproportionate impact of fines and fees on low-income communities and communities of color, including efforts for statewide legislative reforms on fines and fees issues.

Since the report, San Francisco eliminated and waived $32 million in debt from locally controlled administrative fees in the criminal justice system, including probation fees, ankle monitoring rental fees, and jail booking fees. Thousands of holds on licenses were also lifted as the San Francisco Superior Court ended the practice of suspending driver’s licenses for missed traffic court dates. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency lowered initial enrollment fees for fee payment plans and community service plans, created 50% reductions in towing and booting fines and fees for people with low incomes, and made public transportation available for free for people experiencing homelessness. The San Francisco Sheriff made jail phone calls free and ended markups on items in the jail commissary in August 2020. The San Francisco Department of Child Support Services eliminated debt stemming from required child support payments to the government to repay the cost of public assistance, instead having all child support payments go to their children. The San Francisco Public Library eliminated and waived all debt from overdue library fines in 2019. The San Francisco Police Department and the District Attorney created the CONNECT program, allowing homeless individuals to clear quality of life citations by receiving social service assistance from approved providers.[xxxix]

California eliminated suspension of driver’s licenses for failure to pay fines with the passage of California Assembly Bill 103 in 2017.[xl] As a result of this, the Department of Motor Vehicles lifted several hundred thousand existing failure-to-pay suspensions in 2018. Further, in June of 2020, the Court of Appeals decided that suspensions for failure to appear in traffic court require that the failure to appear be willful. The Department of Motor Vehicles agreed to clear failure-to-appear suspensions without the required notification of willful failure to appear in November 2020, and in June of 2021, the DMV reported it lifted over 500 thousand improperly imposed driver’s license suspensions.[xli]

The Cities & Counties for Fine and Fee Justice Network was established by PolicyLink, the San Francisco Financial Justice Project, and the Fines and Fees Justice Center. The Network launched the inaugural cohort of ten teams representing various cities & cohorts in May 2020 to work on advancing fine and fee reform.[xlii]


Analysis and Lessons Learned

San Francisco’s Fines and Fees Task Force ultimately created an initial findings and recommendations report that served as a solid foundation for a wide variety of reforms across multiple city and county institutions. Action on fine and fee reform led to the elimination of $32 million in locally controlled criminal administrative fees, an end to driver’s license suspensions for failure to pay and failure to appear to traffic court, increased supports by the Municipal Transportation Agency for people with low incomes through more flexible payment plans, lowered towing and booting fines and fees, and free public transportation, elimination of jail phone call fees and jail commissary markups, changed child support payment policy so that money from support payments went to the children and not the government, a waiving of overdue library fines, and the creation of the CONNECT Program, allowing homeless individuals to clear quality of life citations through receiving social services.

The Fines and Fees Task Force primarily relied on their administrative support team, as well as the four seats held by community members representing community organizations to ensure that recommendations were appropriately able to address issues stemming from fines and fees facing communities. Deep engagement with community partners allowed the Financial Justice Project to identify significant fine and fee pain points.

Further, fine and fee reform in San Francisco has been widespread across city and county departments and agencies because these departments and agencies were directly engaged to find alternative solutions to current fine and fee policies that were resulting in harmful practices.[xliii]

A strong commitment to engaging both community stakeholders and government stakeholders in driving fine and fee reform has led to a wide swathe of reforms benefiting residents of San Francisco and increasing equity.


Notes

[i] (2015). Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

[ii] Not Just a Ferguson Problem: How Traffic Courts Drive Inequality in California, https://lccrsf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Not-Just-a-Ferguson-Problem-How-Traffic-Courts-Drive-Inequality-in-California-2015.pdf

[iii] https://www.facebook.com/debtfreesf/

[iv] https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/sites/default/files/2020-04/FINAL%20Fines%20and%20Fees%20Task%20Force%20Recommendations.pdf p3

[v] https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/sites/default/files/2020-04/FINAL%20Fines%20and%20Fees%20Task%20Force%20Recommendations.pdf p8

[vi] (2017). SAN FRANCISCO FINES & FEES TASK FORCE: Initial Findings and Recommendations. Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collection City and County of San Francisco. https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/sites/default/files/2020-04/FINAL%20Fines%20and%20Fees%20Task%20Force%20Recommendations.pdf p4

[vii] (2015). Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

[viii] Bender, A, et al. (2015) Not Just a Ferguson Problem: How Traffic Courts Drive Inequality in California. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf


[ix] https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/sites/default/files/2020-04/FINAL%20Fines%20and%20Fees%20Task%20Force%20Recommendations.pdf p3

[x] https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/sites/default/files/2020-04/FINAL%20Fines%20and%20Fees%20Task%20Force%20Recommendations.pdf p8

[xi] https://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/24805?view_id=178&meta_id=482410&redirect=true

[xii] https://sfbos.org/public-safety-and-neighborhood-services

[xiii] https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=461372&GUID=B66562BC-3DE9-449A-86E3-1405F4C15C55

[xiv] https://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/24805?view_id=178&meta_id=482410&redirect=true

[xv] https://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/ordinances16/o0093-16.pdf

[xvi] (2017). Treasurer José Cisneros and Supervisor Jane Kim Advance First in the Nation Effort to Alleviate the Inequitable Burden of Fees and Fines on Low Income Communities and People of Color. Financial Justice Project. https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/media/treasurer-jose-cisneros-and-supervisor-jane-kim-advance-first-nation-effort-alleviate

[xvii] https://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/ordinances16/o0093-16.pdf p2

[xviii] Author’s interview with Anne Stuhldreher and Michelle Lau of the Financial Justice Project, March 10, 2022.

[xix] Author’s interview with Anne Stuhldreher and Michelle Lau of the Financial Justice Project, March 10, 2022.

[xx] https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/sites/default/files/2020-04/FINAL%20Fines%20and%20Fees%20Task%20Force%20Recommendations.pdf p23

[xxi] https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/sites/default/files/2020-04/FINAL%20Fines%20and%20Fees%20Task%20Force%20Recommendations.pdf p24-25

[xxii] https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/fines-and-fees-task-force

[xxiii]SAN FRANCISCO FINES & FEES TASK FORCE: Initial Findings and Recommendations. Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collection City and County of San Francisco. https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/sites/default/files/2020-04/FINAL%20Fines%20and%20Fees%20Task%20Force%20Recommendations.pdf

[xxiv] Establishing Municipal Fines and Fees Task Force, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 0093-16, 2016 http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/ordinances16/o0093-16.pdf

[xxv] Author’s interview with Anne Stuhldreher and Michelle Lau of the Financial Justice Project, March 10, 2022.

[xxvi] Author’s interview with Anne Stuhldreher and Michelle Lau of the Financial Justice Project, March 10, 2022.

[xxvii] https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_admin/0-0-0-19536#JD_67.5

[xxviii] https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/fines-and-fees-task-force

[xxix] Establishing Municipal Fines and Fees Task Force, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 0093-16, 2016 http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/ordinances16/o0093-16.pdf

[xxx] https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/sites/default/files/2020-04/FINAL%20Fines%20and%20Fees%20Task%20Force%20Recommendations.pdf 24 & Author’s interview with Anne Stuhldreher and Michelle Lau of the Financial Justice Project, March 10, 2022.

[xxxi] https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/sites/default/files/2020-04/FINAL%20Fines%20and%20Fees%20Task%20Force%20Recommendations.pdf 24-25

[xxxii] Author’s interview with Anne Stuhldreher and Michelle Lau of the Financial Justice Project, March 10, 2022.

[xxxiii] https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/fines-and-fees-task-force Minutes for the Various Meetings Found Here.

[xxxiv] https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/sites/default/files/2020-04/FINAL%20Fines%20and%20Fees%20Task%20Force%20Recommendations.pdf 24-25

[xxxv] Author’s interview with Anne Stuhldreher and Michelle Lau of the Financial Justice Project, March 10, 2022.

[xxxvi] https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/sites/default/files/2020-04/FINAL%20Fines%20and%20Fees%20Task%20Force%20Recommendations.pdf

[xxxvii] https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/media/treasurer-jose-cisneros-and-supervisor-jane-kim-advance-first-nation-effort-alleviate

[xxxviii] SAN FRANCISCO FINES & FEES TASK FORCE: Initial Findings and Recommendations. Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collection City and County of San Francisco. https://sfgov.org/financialjustice/sites/default/files/2020-04/FINAL%20Fines%20and%20Fees%20Task%20Force%20Recommendations.pdf P10-22

[xxxix] https://catalog.results4america.org/program/fines-and-fees-reform/fines-and-fees-reform-san-francisco-ca

[xl] https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/articles/california-ab-103-public-safety-omnibus-budget-trailer-bill-ends-drivers-license-suspension-for-unpaid-fines-and-fees/

[xli] https://baylegal.org/ca-dmv-reports-lifting-554997-improperly-imposed-drivers-license-suspensions/

[xlii] https://www.policylink.org/ccffj 4.18.22

[xliii] https://catalog.results4america.org/program/fines-and-fees-reform/fines-and-fees-reform-san-francisco-ca