RALEIGH (AP) — North Carolina is leaving millions of dollars on the table in uncollected fees, fines and restitution from traffic and criminal cases, according to an audit released today.
The report by the Office of the State Auditor says that antiquated computers and administrative processes are part of the problem. But the audit also says the state Judicial Department isn’t using all of the methods at its disposal to collect the court-ordered funds.
As a result, the audit says, the state didn’t collect roughly $40.2 million in cases from 2008, the most recent year for which data is available.
“Due to the department’s lack of accountability and use of limited collection efforts for the recovery of court-ordered fines, fees and restitution,” the auditors wrote, “the state, local governments, crime victims and other beneficiaries may not receive the full amounts owed to them.”
Judge John Smith, director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, disputed the findings and conclusions, saying auditors set an unrealistic goal of collecting close to 100 percent. He also said there’s no evidence to suggest that employing other collection methods would boost the recovery rate, and said the General Assembly has repeatedly failed to provide funding that would allow the department to upgrade its technology.
“Given our high compliance rate, impressive estimated collection rate and large amount of money actually collected (especially given the population from whom we collect), your staff could have complimented the Judicial Department instead of criticizing us with unrealistic and unattainable expectations,” Smith wrote in a letter to State Auditor Beth Wood.
According to the audit, the department’s computer systems are seriously flawed and unable to produce reports with basic information such as how much money courts have ordered in fees and fines, how much has been paid and how much money is left to be collected.
State workers can find that information only after going through court records and using multiple computer systems, the audit found.
“Even then this process is prone to error because amounts owed are not located on a single document” in the paper file, auditors wrote.
The audit also faults the department for not using more techniques at its disposal to bring in the money, such as hiring third-party collection agencies and assessing a special fee for amounts past due more than 30 days.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011 (Updated 1:21 pm)
By Tom Breen
