Federal Criminal Restitution: Most Debt Is Outstanding and Oversight of Collections Could Be Improved

One of the goals of federal criminal restitution is to restore victims of federal crimes to the position they occupied before the crime was committed by providing compensation. Various entities within the federal government are involved in the process of requesting, ordering, and collecting restitution for crime victims, including DOJ and the judiciary.

The Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 includes a provision for GAO to review the federal criminal restitution process for fiscal years 2014 through 2016. This report addresses, among other things: (1) the extent to which information is available on restitution requested by DOJ and ordered by courts; (2) the amount of restitution debt DOJ collected and the amount that remains outstanding; and, (3) the extent to which DOJ has conducted oversight on the collection of restitution. GAO analyzed laws, policies and procedures as well as USSC data on restitution orders and DOJ data on restitution collected from fiscal years 2014 through 2016. GAO also selected a non-generalizable sample of six federal judicial districts based on restitution collections and spoke with USAO officials and federal probation officers.

Officials from selected U.S. Attorney's Offices (USAO) stated that they document requests for restitution in case files and employ other internal controls, such as the use of templates and forms, throughout the prosecution process to ensure that prosecutors request restitution as appropriate. GAO's analysis of U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) data—an agency within the judiciary—showed that information on restitution orders was available for 95 percent of all offenders sentenced from fiscal years 2014 through 2016. Specifically, 214,578 federal offenders were sentenced during this time period and restitution was ordered for 33,158, or 15 percent, of those offenders. Collectively, courts ordered these offenders to pay $33.9 billion in restitution. Most federal offenders sentenced during these years were sentenced for immigration or drug-related offenses. In interviews, USAO officials stated that these offenses do not typically have victims requiring restitution. GAO found that data on reasons why restitution was not ordered were incomplete for 5 percent of all offenders sentenced from fiscal years 2014 through 2016. Determining why data on restitution orders are incomplete may inform the judiciary of the cause of the incomplete data and any efforts needed to improve USSC data.

GAO's analysis of Department of Justice (DOJ) data showed that USAOs collected $2.95 billion in restitution debt in fiscal years 2014 through 2016, see figure below. However, at the end of fiscal year 2016, $110 billion in previously ordered restitution remained outstanding, and USAOs identified $100 billion of that outstanding debt as uncollectible due to offenders' inability to pay.

DOJ identified improving debt collection—including restitution—as a major management initiative in its 2014-2018 Strategic Plan. While DOJ is developing analytical tools to monitor the collection of restitution, it has not established performance measures or goals. Performance measures and goals would allow DOJ to gauge USAOs' success in collecting restitution and, by extension, the department's success in achieving a major management initiative.

GAO is making three recommendations. GAO is making one to the judiciary to determine why data on restitution orders are incomplete. GAO is making two recommendations to DOJ, including one to implement performance measures and goals for the collection of restitution. The judiciary and DOJ concurred with the recommendations.

The impact of crime on victims often has significant emotional,  psychological, physical, financial, and social consequences. One of the  goals of federal criminal restitution is to restore victims of federal crimes  to the position they occupied before the crime was committed. Various  entities within the federal government are involved in the process of  requesting, ordering, and collecting restitution for crime victims, including  the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the judiciary. Prosecutors within  DOJ have the burden of proving a victim’s losses in court; victims are  those who suffered a physical injury or financial loss as a direct and  proximate result of the offense. When restitution is ordered by the court,  it is to be in the full amount of each victim’s losses without consideration  of the economic circumstances of the defendant. Once restitution is  ordered by the court, DOJ is responsible for collecting restitution  payments and has delegated these activities to Financial Litigation Units  (FLU) within each U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO). FLUs are also to  coordinate with federal probation officers supervising offenders to ensure  offenders pay restitution ordered.

The collection of federal criminal restitution has been a longstanding  challenge. We reported in 2001 that the amount of uncollected criminal  debt—of which restitution is a component—had more than doubled from  September 30, 1995 to September 30, 1999. Specifically, we found that  DOJ had not collected most of the outstanding criminal debt due to,  among other factors, the nature of the debt, and a lack of coordination  between relevant DOJ components. To address these findings, we made  24 recommendations, including 14 to DOJ, among other agencies. DOJ  implemented 11 of our recommendations, including that DOJ develop  performance measures for criminal debt collection and better coordinate  internally and with federal courts. In 2005, we reported that although DOJ  had taken some steps to address our recommendations, prospects for  collecting restitution for victims were poor and court-ordered restitution far  exceeded amounts likely to be repaid in selected cases we reviewed.  We found that, among other reasons, this situation occurred because  there were minimal negative consequences when offenders did not pay  restitution as ordered by the courts.

More recently in 2015, the DOJ Inspector General recommended DOJ  improve its prioritization of debt collection as well as collaboration among  DOJ component offices to better use forfeited assets to pay restitution  debt. DOJ took action to address the Inspector General’s  recommendations by reviewing the system it uses to prioritize debt  collection actions, by incorporating discussion of asset recovery into its  training program, and by initiating a comprehensive study to review  existing protocols and structures to improve DOJ’s ability to collect debts  owed to crime victims.

The Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 contained a provision for  us to review and assess the federal criminal restitution process for fiscal  years 2014 through 2016. This report addresses the following four  questions:  1.  To what extent is information available on restitution requested by  DOJ and ordered by courts for eligible federal criminal cases for fiscal  years 2014 through 2016?  2.  How much restitution debt did DOJ collect for fiscal years 2014  through 2016 and how much restitution remains outstanding?  3.  To what extent are DOJ’s recommended practices for restitution  considered effective?  4.  To what extent has DOJ conducted oversight on the collection of  restitution?

To answer all four questions, we analyzed relevant laws, including the  Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) and the Justice for All  Reauthorization Act of 2016. We also reviewed agency documentation  and spoke with officials from DOJ components and the judiciary. Within  DOJ, these included officials from the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys  (EOUSA), the Criminal Division, the Money Laundering and Asset  Recovery Section within the Criminal Division and the Justice  Management Division. Within the judiciary, these included officials from  the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), the Judicial  Conference, the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC), and Probation  and Pretrial Services within AOUSC.

We further selected six federal judicial districts throughout the country  and conducted semi-structured interviews with USAO officials and federal  probation officers within those districts to obtain their views on the  restitution process. Because the collection of restitution has been a  longstanding challenge, we selected districts to study based on the extent  of the USAO’s collection of restitution within that district. Specifically, we  selected USAOs for three districts that had relatively high levels of  restitution collected and USAOs for three districts that had relatively low  levels of restitution collected from fiscal years 2014 through 2015—the last 2 years of data available when we began our review. In particular, we  spoke with USAO and probation officials within the District of Connecticut,  the Southern District of California, the District of New Jersey, the  Southern District of Ohio, the District of South Dakota and the District of  Wyoming. Additionally, we ensured that our selected districts reflected  geographical diversity to capture a range of perspectives and  experiences. Since we selected a non-probability sample of districts, the  information we obtained cannot be generalized more broadly to all  districts. However, the information provides important context and insights  into how the restitution process works across the country. We also  obtained perspectives from stakeholders from associations representing  victims, federal prosecutors and defense counsel, as well as four  individuals knowledgeable about the federal restitution process referred to  us by EOUSA officials and other restitution experts.

To address the first question on the extent information is available on  restitution requested by DOJ and ordered by courts for eligible federal  criminal cases for fiscal years 2014 through 2016, we reviewed DOJ  guidance for requesting restitution and AOUSC and Judicial Conference  guidance for ordering restitution. To determine the extent of information  available on restitution requested by DOJ, we interviewed DOJ and  EOUSA officials as well as USAO officials in the six districts mentioned  above to determine how prosecutors are to document requests for  restitution. To determine the extent of information available for restitution  ordered by courts, we analyzed USSC data on restitution orders for fiscal  years 2014 through 2016. We assessed the reliability of these data by  reviewing system documentation and interviewing knowledgeable officials  about system controls. We determined that these data were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. We also analyzed the  extent to which these data contained required information about the  reasons restitution was not ordered and then compared the results of our  analysis against Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government.

To address the second question on the amount of restitution debt DOJ  collected for fiscal years 2014 through 2016 and the amount outstanding, we analyzed data from DOJ’s debt management system (the  Consolidated Debt Collection System) from fiscal years 2014 through  2016. We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing system  documentation, interviewing knowledgeable officials about system  controls, and conducting electronic testing. We determined that these  data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives.  We used these data to determine the amount of restitution collected by  each USAO during fiscal years 2014 through 2016 as well as the amount  of debt outstanding during this time. Further, during our interviews with  DOJ and judiciary officials as well as USAO and probation officials in the  six districts mentioned above, we obtained perspectives on potential  factors contributing to outstanding debt.

To address the third question on the extent to which DOJ’s recommended  practices for restitution are considered effective, we reviewed agency  documentation, including guidance manuals for USAO prosecutors and  financial litigation unit staff. We interviewed EOUSA officials responsible  for developing this guidance and USAO officials in the six districts to  determine the extent to which they find this guidance helpful for  requesting, facilitating orders for, and collecting restitution.

To address the fourth question on the extent to which DOJ has conducted  oversight on the collection of restitution, we reviewed our prior work and  reports by the DOJ Office of the Inspector General to identify prior  recommendations made to DOJ and interviewed EOUSA officials to  assess the extent to which these recommendations have been  implemented. We also analyzed DOJ’s 2014-2018 Strategic Plan and  EOUSA’s internal evaluation program to assess the extent to which  DOJ’s oversight mechanisms provide sufficient information on USAOs’  performance in meeting initiatives outlined in DOJ’s Strategic Plan and  the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016. We compared the results  of our analysis to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993  (GPRA), as updated by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010  (GPRAMA). We further obtained agency documentation and interviewed  DOJ officials on the extent to which DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Program  supports the collection of restitution and compared this information to federal regulations, DOJ’s 2014-2018 Strategic Plan, and Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 through  February 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

DOJ and its components, as well as the judiciary, play important roles in  requesting and collecting restitution.

DOJ and select components: Prosecutors in DOJ’s Criminal Division  and the Criminal Divisions of the 94 USAOs are responsible for  overseeing criminal matters, including identifying and notifying victims,  determining their losses as part of a case investigation, prosecuting cases  and negotiating the terms of plea agreements, of which restitution may be  a part. Within DOJ’s Criminal Division, the Money Laundering and Asset  Recovery Section manages DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Program. As  previously stated, FLUs within each USAO undertake activities to collect  restitution from offenders in their district. Additionally, all USAOs have  asset forfeiture staff responsible for forfeiting property seized by law  enforcement agencies because the property was used in criminal  activities or purchased with the proceeds of criminal activities.  According to EOUSA guidance, coordination between the FLU and Asset  Forfeiture units is highly encouraged to use forfeited assets as a means  to collect on unpaid restitution debts.

DOJ requires each USAO to have its own policies and procedures related  to debt collection efforts but allows them discretion in developing these  policies and procedures to ensure that they are appropriate for local  conditions. DOJ also requires USAOs to have policies and procedures  to make early, effective, and coordinated asset investigations and  recovery a routine part of every case involving victims but allows USAOs  to specify these policies and procedures.

DOJ’s EOUSA provides USAOs with management assistance, guidance,  training, and administrative support. Among other activities, EOUSA  provides management assistance to USAOs by administering internal  evaluations for each USAO, which are intended to provide on-site  management support for that office. Further, EOUSA provides guidance  to enhance offices’ efforts to request and collect restitution.

Judiciary: Within the judiciary, the 94 federal district courts order  restitution, receipt restitution payments, and disburse restitution to  victims. Within the federal district where the offender was convicted, a  probation officer prepares the presentence investigation report (PSR) for  the court, which includes information on the victim’s losses and an  offender’s financial information. Probation officers may obtain this  information from DOJ, which has the statutory responsibility for the  enforcement and collection of criminal debt. The court uses the PSR,  among other things, to determine whether to order restitution. If an  offender is released to the community by the court and placed on  supervision, probation officers are responsible for ensuring the offender  abides by the terms of release, including paying any restitution owed to  victims. The Clerk of each District Court is responsible for the receipt of  restitution from offenders and for disbursing payments to victims.

The Judicial Conference is the national policy-making body for the federal  courts. The Conference operates through a network of committees  created to address and advise courts on a wide variety of subjects such  as information technology, personnel, probation and pretrial services,  space and facilities, security, judicial salaries and benefits, budget,  defender services, court administration, and rules of practice and  procedure. The Judicial Conference has taken policy positions on  restitution-related issues and has supported legislative proposals to  improve the restitution process.

AOUSC is the agency within the judiciary that provides a broad range of  legislative, legal, financial, technology, management, administrative, and  program support services to federal courts. AOUSC is responsible for  carrying out Judicial Conference policies and a primary responsibility of  AOUSC is to provide staff support and counsel to the Judicial Conference  and its committees.

USSC is an independent agency within the judiciary which, among other  activities, establishes and promulgates detailed sentencing guidelines  that judges are to consider in sentencing offenders convicted of federal  crimes, including guidelines on when and how to order restitution.  Additionally, each district court is required to submit to USSC a report of  each offender’s sentence that includes, among other information, details  on the offenses for which the offender was convicted; the sentence  imposed on the offender; and if the judge departed from the sentencing  guidelines, information on reasons why. USSC maintains a database  containing sentencing data on federal offenders convicted of felonies or  serious misdemeanors, analyzes it and publishes these data on an  annual basis. USSC is also statutorily required to annually report to  Congress its analysis of sentencing-related documents, including an  accounting of districts USSC believes have not submitted appropriate  information to the commission, among other things.

During the course of a federal criminal investigation, federal prosecutors  identify and notify victims, as well as determine their losses in conjunction  with the federal agents investigating the case. If a defendant pleads guilty  or is found guilty at trial, the prosecutor has the burden of proving the  victims’ losses in court. To facilitate this, a Victim-Witness coordinator  within the USAO responsible for the case provides victims the opportunity  to explain their losses in detail, usually through a Victim Impact  Statement. This information is then to be provided to a federal probation  officer who uses it to begin a PSR.

To develop the PSR, probation officers use information provided by the  USAO and may contact victims and verify the loss amounts. Additionally,  probation officers will investigate an offender’s economic circumstances— such as if the offender has a job, any assets or any dependents. If a  judge determines that restitution is to be ordered, the judge must order  restitution for the full amount of a victim’s losses for offenses without  consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant. Judges  may decline to order restitution in certain instances, for example, where  restitution is discretionary, or in certain cases where the number of  identifiable victims makes restitution impracticable or the complexity of  calculating restitution would unduly prolong the sentencing process. If the  court does not order restitution, or orders only partial restitution, the judge  must provide the reason, and judges usually do so in a written Statement  of Reasons document. Figure 1 provides an overview of the federal  restitution process.

Upon imposition of a restitution debt by the court, FLU staff use two  mechanisms to determine the collectability of the debt and what collection  actions to take. First, FLU staff classify the debt into one of four  categories to determine the extent to which the FLU will pursue  enforcement actions to collect upon the debt. FLUs classify debts from a  Priority Code 1 debt (indicating that FLUs will make collection of this debt  the highest priority) to a Priority Code 4 debt (indicating that FLUs will  make collection of this debt the lowest priority). Second, FLUs may  suspend collection action on criminal debts, regardless of their  categorization, under certain circumstances if they determine the debts  are uncollectible. FLU staff may also determine that debts are  permanently uncollectible and categorize them as Priority Code 4 debts.

If a debtor does not provide payment, FLU staff then use various  enforcement actions to collect the restitution debt. These can include,  among other actions, filing liens against an offender’s property,  coordinating with asset forfeiture staff to use forfeited assets to pay the  restitution debt, and garnishing wages an offender may earn.

Victims can be compensated for losses with the proceeds of forfeited  assets through DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Program and in accordance with  law and regulation. Federal regulations provide that the proceeds from  forfeited assets are first used to cover program costs associated with  forfeiture-related activities and next to pay valid owners, lien-holders, and  federal financial regulatory agencies. Forfeited assets can then be  distributed to other victims of crime as compensation for their losses if  their loss is a direct result of the commission of the offense underlying  forfeiture or a related offense. Any remaining funds from the forfeited  asset may be placed into official use, distributed to foreign governments,  state or local law enforcement agencies as part of the equitable sharing  program to enhance cooperation with federal investigations.

When victims are eligible for compensation using forfeited assets, DOJ  employs two processes: restoration and remission. The restoration  process involves the USAO staff requesting funds on behalf of a victim  when there is both an order of forfeiture and an order of restitution. Under  the restoration process, USAO staff request DOJ’s Money Laundering  and Asset Recovery Section to use the forfeited asset to pay a restitution  debt. If DOJ approves the request for restoration, the funds from the  forfeited property are then transferred to the Clerk of the Court who  disburses this money to the victim. The remission process requires a  victim of a crime to directly petition DOJ to receive funds from the  forfeited property. According to officials in DOJ’s Criminal Division, the  courts may not order restitution on behalf of victims who suffered a  specific actual loss as a direct result of a crime for a variety of reasons,  and therefore the remission process serves as a complement to the  restoration process to ensure victims are made whole. For example,  these officials stated that, among other reasons, the courts may not order  restitution if a defendant dies prior to sentencing or if the case is one in  which a court is not required to, and does not, order restitution, but the  victim has suffered eligible losses.

Select USAOs Reported Documenting Requests for Restitution, but the Judiciary Did Not Always Document Reasons It Was Not Ordered EOUSA and Officials in Six USAOs Told Us Their Offices Document Requests for Restitution in Case Files

EOUSA and USAO officials in all six of the offices with whom we spoke  told us that prosecutors document requests for restitution in their case  files and that their offices employ other internal controls, such as the use  of templates and forms, throughout the prosecution process to ensure  that prosecutors request restitution as appropriate. EOUSA officials told  us that although the agency does not track this information, they believed  all USAOs generally document requests for restitution in their offices’  case files. Further, USAO officials in all six offices told us that  prosecutors document requests for the court to order restitution in their  case files by including this information in a written memorandum. To  support prosecutors in documenting this information, all six offices we  selected provide prosecutors with a prosecution memorandum template.  Of the six templates we reviewed, four explicitly include a section for  prosecutors to indicate whether victims have been identified and the  extent of any victim losses.

In addition to these templates, four of six USAOs we selected had forms  that prosecutors could use to identify whether cases have victims and  their need for restitution when drafting criminal charging documents.  Moreover, officials from two of the six USAOs told us their offices use this  form as an internal control to ensure prosecutors have identified all  victims and considered their need for restitution, if applicable. All six  offices we selected also provided prosecutors templates for drafting plea  agreements, and templates we reviewed from all six USAOs included  language requesting the offender pay restitution, if applicable. However,  prosecutors are not required to use plea agreement templates, nor are  they required to request restitution as part of a plea agreement. USAO  officials from one office stated that including this language in the plea  agreement template served to remind prosecutors of their requirement to  consider requesting restitution as stated in the U.S. Attorney’s Manual.

Select USAO officials also described various forms of management  oversight to ensure prosecutors request restitution as appropriate.  Specifically, four USAOs we selected require supervisory review of the  form that prosecutors fill out when drafting criminal charging documents,  which includes information on victims. Additionally, officials in all six USAOs told us that they require supervisory review of plea agreements  for every case. For example, officials from two USAOs told us their office  requires the Criminal Chief, the supervisor of all criminal cases, to  approve documents in the plea agreement, which may include requests  for restitution.

USSC Has Information on Restitution Orders for 95 Percent of All Offenders Sentenced From Fiscal Years 2014 through 2016

Federal courts sent information on sentencing decisions to USSC and  USSC had information on restitution decisions for 95 percent of all  offenders from fiscal years 2014 through 2016. According to our analysis  of USSC data, 214,578 federal offenders were sentenced from fiscal  years 2014 through 2016 and restitution was ordered for 33,158 of those  offenders, or 15 percent. Collectively, courts ordered these offenders to  pay $33.9 billion in restitution during this period. Courts did not order  restitution for the remaining 181,420 offenders, or 85 percent. Table 1  shows the number of federal offenders sentenced and ordered to pay  restitution for fiscal years 2014 through 2016, as well as the total amount  of restitution ordered by the courts.

The majority of federal offenders were sentenced for immigration or drug- related offenses, and USAO officials in all six offices we selected told us  that these types of offenses do not typically have victims with actual  losses. For example, from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, USSC data  showed that 131,088 offenders, 61 percent of offenders sentenced, were  sentenced for immigration or drug-related offenses and courts ordered  999 (or less than 1 percent) of these offenders to pay restitution.

USSC data show that courts ordered restitution more often for offenders  sentenced for other offenses, such as fraud. For example, courts  sentenced 21,551 offenders for fraud offenses from fiscal years 2014  through 2016, and courts ordered restitution for 15,902 of these  offenders, or 74 percent. Table 2 shows the number of offenders  sentenced and the number ordered to pay restitution by offenses for  which restitution was most often and least often ordered by courts from  fiscal years 2014 through 2016.

The percentage of federal offenders ordered to pay restitution varied  across federal court districts; from 2 percent of offenders in one district to  42 percent in another district. USAO officials we interviewed stated that  some of this variation may be due to the types of offenses prosecuted  within different districts. For example, officials from one USAO stated  that their office, which had a high volume of immigration–related  offenders, had few cases in which restitution was applicable. Our analysis  of USSC data showed that from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2016  and across all districts, districts with a higher than average rate of  immigration-related offenders had lower than average rates of restitution  ordered. Conversely, districts with above-average rates of offenders  convicted of financial offenses such as fraud, embezzlement, money  laundering, tax offenses, counterfeiting or bribery had higher than  average rates of restitution ordered, as shown in table 3.

Judges indicated on documents sent to USSC that restitution was not  applicable and thus did not order it for most offenders sentenced from  fiscal years 2014 through 2016—167,230 offenders—or 78 percent of all  offenders sentenced during this time period. Our analysis of sentencing  information for the remaining offenders found that courts ordered  restitution at a higher rate as compared to all offenders. Specifically, after  excluding offenders for whom restitution was not applicable and were not  ordered to pay it, we found that courts ordered restitution for 70 percent of  the remaining 47,348 offenders.

EOUSA and USAO officials told us that in cases where there are  identifiable victims, restitution may not be ordered for other reasons.  EOUSA officials told us that restitution may not be ordered for several  reasons, such as when victims provide no proof of their losses or when victims recover compensation through other means, such as through civil  proceedings. Further, officials from one USAO told us that victims must  provide documentation of their losses for restitution and, if victims are not  able to provide this documentation, courts may decline to order  restitution. Also, in certain cases, courts are not required to order  restitution—such as when there is no identifiable victim or, on the other  hand, when the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make  restitution impractical, among other reasons. Additionally, the court might  not order, or order only partial restitution for other reasons, such as when  the value of property the defendant returned to the victim was deducted  from the restitution award or because the victim received compensation  from insurance.

Data on Five Percent of Restitution Orders Were Incomplete

If a court does not order restitution, or orders partial restitution, it is  required to provide the reason for its decision and to provide that reason  to USSC, but our analysis showed USSC did not always have these  data. Specifically, from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, we found that  restitution was not ordered—and no reason was documented in USSC  data for that decision—for 9,848 offenders (5 percent of the 214,578  offenders sentenced during this time period). Information on offenders’  sentences, including restitution, assists USSC in its continuous  reexamination of its guidelines and policy statements and ensures that  various sentencing practices are achieving their stated purposes. Further,  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  management should evaluate issues identified through monitoring  activities or reported by personnel to determine whether any of the issues  rise to the level of an internal control deficiency.

In response to our questions about the missing information on reasons  why restitution was not ordered, AOUSC and USSC officials stated that  they were unaware of the missing information or why it was missing.  Judiciary officials stated that because various entities within the judiciary  participate in the process of collecting and recording information on  reasons restitution was not ordered, they did not know which entities  could take action to improve USSC data. However, as previously  discussed, if the court does not order restitution, or orders only partial  restitution, the judge must provide the reason, and judges usually do so in  a written Statement of Reasons form. The Judicial Conference, along  with USSC, has developed guidance to help judges fill out the Statement  of Reasons form and AOUSC supports the Judicial Conference in  carrying out its policies. Further, courts must provide USSC the written  Statement of Reasons form for sentences imposed. USSC is also  responsible for collecting, analyzing, and distributing information on  federal sentences provided by each district court, including information  related to orders for restitution. However, judicial officials, including from  the entities listed above, agreed that further studying the missing data  may inform the judiciary of the cause of the missing data, as well as any  efforts needed to improve USSC information.

Courts are required to provide reasons for not ordering restitution and to  provide this information to USSC so that the agency can analyze and  report on sentencing data. Determining why USSC data are incomplete  could help inform the judiciary whether the issue rises to the level of an  internal control deficiency and whether additional action can be taken to  improve the transparency of sentencing decisions. Doing so could help  the judiciary ensure reasons for not ordering restitution are provided  consistently in all cases and potentially improve data provided to USSC,  in turn supporting its mission to promote transparency in sentencing  decisions.

DOJ Collected $2.95 Billion in Restitution Debt from Fiscal Years 2014 through 2016, but Most Debt Remains Outstanding Due to Offenders’ Inability to Pay

DOJ Generally Collected More on Newer Debts, Though Not All Collected Restitution Is Disbursed

Our analysis of DOJ data showed that DOJ collected $2.95 billion in  restitution debt from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, half of which was  collected on debts imposed during this period. The extent of collections  across the 94 USAOs ranged from a high of $848 million in one USAO to  a low of $1.2 million in another USAO. The median amount collected for  USAOs was $10.7 million.

DOJ was more successful at collecting restitution on newer debts—debts  imposed from fiscal years 2014 through 2016. Of the $2.95 billion in  restitution debt collected, about half was collected from new debts  imposed by courts during this time period. Specifically, DOJ collected  $1.5 billion (4 percent), of the $34 billion ordered from fiscal years 2014  through 2016. The remaining half of the debt collected during this time  frame was collected from debts imposed between fiscal year 1988 and  fiscal year 2014.

New debts—imposed in fiscal years 2014 through 2016—were also more  likely to be fully paid during this time period compared to all debts.  Specifically, from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, DOJ collected the full  amount of restitution on 4,003 of the 24,950 debts imposed during this  time, 16 percent. However, across all debts, including debts imposed  prior to fiscal year 2014, DOJ collected the full amount of restitution  ordered on only 5 percent of debts. Across all restitution debts, DOJ  collected at least some of the debt for one-third of debts and did not  collect any restitution on the remaining two-thirds.

More than 60 percent of the restitution DOJ collected in fiscal years 2014  through 2016 was owed to non-federal victims ($1.8 billion), including  individuals, corporations and state and local governments. An additional  37 percent of restitution was collected on behalf of federal agencies that  were victims of crimes. One percent of restitution collected was  community restitution, which is restitution collected for drug offenses that  otherwise have no victims and which is disbursed to state victim  assistance agencies and state agencies dedicated to the reduction of  substance abuse, as shown in table 4.

AOUSC officials noted that some collected restitution is not disbursed to  non-federal victims due to a lack of accurate contact information for these  victims. Specifically, according to AOUSC, as of June 2017, courts had  more than $132 million in restitution due to 113,260 victims that could not  be disbursed because of a lack of accurate contact information for these  victims. DOJ is required to provide courts with victim contact  information, and victims are to notify DOJ if their contact information  changes. However, AOUSC and USAO officials told us that this  notification by victims may not always occur. For example, officials in one  USAO told us that due to the length of court proceedings, victims may  move without notifying the court prior to the disbursement of restitution  and, as a result, the court is unable to disburse restitution to those  victims.

Of $110 Billion in Outstanding Debt, 91 Percent Is Uncollectible Because Offenders Have Little Ability to Pay

According to our analysis of DOJ data, at the end of fiscal year 2016,  $110 billion in restitution was outstanding and USAOs had identified $100  billion of that debt as uncollectible, as shown in figure 2. USAOs may  identify debts as uncollectible and suspend collection actions on a debt  for a variety of reasons, including that the offender has no, or only a  nominal, ability to pay the debt.

Probation officials, EOUSA officials, and officials from five of six USAOs  we interviewed stated that most outstanding restitution debt is identified  as uncollectible and collection action is suspended because many  offenders have little ability to pay the debt—a conclusion supported by  USSC data. For example, according to USSC data, 95 percent of  offenders ordered to pay restitution from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  received a waiver from paying a court-ordered fine, indicating their  inability to pay. While courts are allowed to take an offender’s economic  circumstances into consideration when issuing fines, they generally may  not do so when ordering restitution. As a result, EOUSA and federal  probation officials with whom we spoke stated that offenders ordered to  pay restitution often do not have an ability to do so and therefore a large  amount of restitution orders is uncollectible.

Select USAO Officials View DOJ’s Recommended Practices for Requesting, Ordering and Collecting Restitution as Generally Effective

Through various guidance documents, DOJ has identified and  recommended numerous practices for DOJ prosecutors and FLU staff to  use throughout the restitution process to help ensure full and timely  restitution for victims. USAO officials in all six offices with whom we spoke  stated that, based on their experience, these practices were generally  effective. Specifically, DOJ and EOUSA officials identified practices for  prosecutors and FLU staff to use when requesting restitution, facilitating  court orders for restitution, and collecting restitution and documented  these practices in several guidance manuals. Officials we interviewed  from all six USAOs stated they were generally satisfied with the guidance  from EOUSA and that they thought most of DOJ’s recommended  practices were effective when requesting restitution, facilitating court  orders for restitution, and collecting restitution.

Requesting restitution. Officials we interviewed from three USAOs  identified coordination between prosecutors and case investigators prior  to sentencing to identify victims and their losses as an important practice  for requesting restitution. USAO officials from three of the six offices  stated that gathering detailed information on an offender’s financial  resources, which include assets that could be forfeited and used to pay a  restitution debt, was a very effective practice related to requesting  restitution.

Facilitating court orders of restitution. Although the courts, and not  prosecutors, are responsible for ordering restitution, DOJ guidance  identifies several practices that prosecutors can use to facilitate orders of  restitution that may increase the likelihood of full and timely restitution for  victims. Officials from three of six USAOs stated that the most effective  practice related to ordering restitution was ensuring courts ordered  restitution as due and payable immediately. Specifically, when offenders  cannot pay restitution in an immediate lump-sum payment, the courts  must specify a payment schedule through which the offender will pay  restitution based on the offender’s ability to pay. In these cases, USAO  officials stated that it is effective for prosecutors to ensure the restitution  order specifies that restitution is due and payable immediately. According  to an EOUSA official, this permits the agency to immediately pursue all  collection remedies allowed by law whenever the debtor has or  subsequently obtains the ability to pay.

Collecting restitution. Officials from all six USAOs stated that using the  Treasury Offset Program (TOP), a program that allows for the reduction  or withholding of a debtor’s federal benefits, such as a tax refund, was  one of the most effective practices for collecting restitution. Specifically,  officials in one USAO told us that TOP requires minimal effort for FLU  staff and can result in a high amount of collections. As an example,  officials from two USAOs told us their respective offices each recovered  more than $500,000 dollars in restitution debt in fiscal year 2016 through  TOP. Officials from three of the six offices also identified using wage  garnishment as an effective practice for collecting restitution.

Across all parts of the restitution process, USAO officials we spoke with  also consistently identified DOJ recommended practices related to  internal and external communication and collaboration as effective for  improving the restitution process. Specifically, the officials identified  collaboration between various units in the USAO as an effective practice  to ensuring restitution for victims. For example, USAO officials in two of  the six offices highlighted coordination between Victim-Witness  coordinators and prosecutors to help identify victims and quantify their  losses as effective to assisting in the request for restitution. Additionally,  USAO officials in all six offices stated that strong coordination between  FLU personnel and criminal prosecutors to identify an offender’s financial  resources and available assets was an effective practice to help ensure  FLU staff could collect restitution using those resources or assets.

USAO officials from five of six offices identified external communication  between FLU and the federal probation office as an effective practice.  Specifically, officials from these USAOs stated that FLUs coordinating  with probation officers during the offender’s supervision period to enforce  restitution terms was an effective practice for collecting restitution.  Additionally, according to EOUSA guidance, FLU staff can use outreach  and training with other partners such as the probation office to facilitate  information sharing on restitution collection issues and officials from five  of six USAOs told us that FLUs conducting training and outreach is a very  effective practice.

In addition, probation officials we interviewed in each of the six federal  judicial districts we selected stated that ongoing communication between  USAO staff and probation officers is effective to ensuring victims are  identified and receive full and timely restitution. Probation officials from  one court district emphasized the importance of a good working  relationship with the USAO, stating that the probation office and USAO  are better able to ensure victims and their losses are accurately identified and defendants’ ability to pay is adequately addressed when working  collaboratively. A probation official from another office said that probation  officers regularly coordinated with the USAO’s FLU, and this coordination  was particularly important on cases involving complex financial crimes,  where the offender has a complicated financial portfolio. Further,  probation officials from five of six probation offices also stated that  attending training conducted by the FLU is a very effective practice.

EOUSA and selected USAO officials told us that while these practices  may be useful in some circumstances, they may not be effective or  applicable in all cases or in all districts. Specifically, practices DOJ  recommends may be effective when offenders have the ability to pay  restitution but are simply unwilling to do so; however, USAO officials in  five of six offices stated that these practices cannot mitigate the fact that  many offenders lack the ability to pay restitution because they lack assets  and income. Additionally, while EOUSA guidance recommends that FLU  staff contact co-defendants or victims for information on the whereabouts  or assets of offenders who owe restitution, officials from three USAOs told  us this was not effective. According to one official, although co- defendants are sometimes eager to share information, the information is  usually unreliable. USAO officials also identified some recommended  practices as not applicable to their district. For example, EOUSA  recommends that FLU units request Asset Investigation assistance from  EOUSA for complex cases involving large amounts of valuable assets.  However, USAO officials in a small, rural district with whom we spoke  stated that the types of cases their office prosecutes tend not to be the  type of financial cases that warranted use of this resource.

DOJ Could Improve Oversight of the Collection of Federal Restitution, Including the Use of Forfeited Assets to Pay Restitution Debt DOJ Does Not Have Measures or Goals to Assess Performance in the Collection of Restitution

DOJ has identified improving debt collection—including court-ordered  restitution—as a major management initiative in its 2014-2018 Strategic  Plan. However, it does not have any measures or goals in place to  assess its performance in meeting this initiative or meet requirements that  it evaluate its performance in seeking and recovering restitution as  required by statute. In 2001, we recommended that DOJ adequately  measure its criminal debt collection performance against established  goals to help improve collections and stem the growth in uncollected  criminal debt. DOJ concurred with this recommendation, and as of fiscal  year 2003, annually assessed each district based on established  collection goals for that district. However, as of September 2017, DOJ  no longer evaluates each district based on established goals. EOUSA  officials stated that DOJ no longer uses these performance goals and that  the agency did not maintain records for when or why it stopped.

EOUSA officials stated that while the agency does not have any  measures or goals to assess USAOs’ performance in improving debt  collection, including the collection of federal restitution, they are working  with DOJ’s Justice Management Division to develop a suite of analytical  tools to monitor the collection of debt across all offices. According to DOJ,  some of these analytical tools have been implemented and additional  tools will be implemented by March 2018. EOUSA officials stated that  these tools will help the agency determine which cases are most likely to  result in significant collections and the types and timing of enforcement  actions that generate maximum debt recovery results. EOUSA officials  further stated the analytical tools will allow the agency to compare  districts’ efforts based on a variety of factors (e.g., caseload, staff size,  and enforcement actions). These analytical tools may provide EOUSA  with valuable insight into the present condition of the collection of  restitution across USAOs, but they will not provide DOJ with a baseline  performance standard that could be used to indicate if USAOs’ efforts to  collect restitution debts are having a measurable impact in meeting DOJ’s  objective of improving debt collection.

Additionally, EOUSA conducts evaluations of each USAO every 4 years,  which include a review of FLU operations, but EOUSA officials stated that  these reviews do not include oversight of the collection of restitution.  Among other aspects of USAO operations, these internal evaluations  review the extent to which each FLU is complying with statutory and DOJ  requirements related to debt collection, has sufficient program resources,  and adequately manages its caseload. However, DOJ and EOUSA  officials told us that it did not plan to use these internal evaluations to  meet the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 requirement to  evaluate each USAO on its performance in seeking and recovering  restitution for victims. Specifically, the officials stated that these internal  evaluations are not an appropriate mechanism to meet the law’s  requirements because the internal evaluations do not specifically review  the seeking and recovery of restitution for victims. According to DOJ  officials responsible for the internal evaluation program, these evaluations  are largely intended to provide onsite management assistance and  analysis of how the USAO allocates its administrative and legal personnel  resources rather than the office’s efficacy in collecting restitution.

Consistent with requirements outlined in the Government Performance  and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), performance  measurement is the ongoing monitoring and reporting of program  accomplishments—particularly towards pre-established, objective and  quantifiable goals—and agencies are to establish performance measures  to assess progress towards those goals. While GPRAMA is applicable  to the department or agency level, performance measures and goals are  important management tools at all levels of an agency, including the  program, project, or activity level. Agencies can use performance  measurement to make various types of management decisions to  improve programs and results, such as developing strategies and  allocating resources, including identifying problems and taking corrective  action when appropriate. Further, the Justice for All Reauthorization Act  of 2016 requires DOJ to evaluate each USAO in its performance in  recovering restitution for victims.

DOJ and EOUSA officials told us that DOJ does not require USAOs to  establish performance measures or goals to assess their progress in  improving the collection of restitution. DOJ and EOUSA officials also told  us that each USAO could develop performance goals but that they were  unaware of the extent to which USAOs did so, and further, they do not  track the extent to which USAOs met performance goals. Additionally,  these officials stated that because each USAO faces different constraints  in its ability to collect restitution, establishing a uniform and consistent  performance measure and goal would be challenging. EOUSA officials  noted that some USAOs may have more resources, such as more FLU  staff or specialized asset investigators, available to pursue collections as  compared to other offices and therefore offices with fewer resources  could have difficulty meeting a performance goal. Further, EOUSA and  USAO officials stated that the extent to which DOJ can collect on a debt  is heavily influenced by factors outside of the agency’s control, such as  an offender’s ability to pay.

USAOs could use information provided by performance measures and  goals—such as an office’s ability to meet a performance goal—to make  managerial decisions to help address these constraints, such as by  increasing the allocation of staff resources. Further, to avoid comparing  USAOs to a nationally set performance goal that does not account for  specific constraints faced by each office, DOJ could—as it did in fiscal  year 2003—require each USAO to establish its own objective,  quantitative collection goals based on historical, district-specific collection  statistics. Finally, as previously discussed, each USAO already accounts  for external factors that affect the collectability of a debt, such as an  offender’s ability to pay, by suspending collection action on debts it  identifies as uncollectible. Therefore, any performance measures and  goals developed could be based solely on debts that the USAO already  has determined to be collectible.

Stakeholders we interviewed—including officials from one USAO,  probation officials in two districts, and officials with DOJ’s Office of Crime  Victims—noted that receiving restitution is both emotionally and  financially important to victims. Specifically, officials from one USAO and  one probation office noted that while many victims may never receive the  full amount of restitution ordered, receiving even a minimal amount of  restitution is a symbolic victory and that it is important for victims to know  the government is making efforts to collect restitution on their behalf. The  legislative history of the MVRA echoes these sentiments, providing that  even nominal restitution payments have benefits for the victim of crime,  and that orders of restitution are largely worthless without enforcement.  Yet, according to our analysis, $10 billion of restitution debt DOJ identified  as collectible remained outstanding at the end of fiscal year 2016.  Further, the extent to which USAOs collected restitution varied widely— from a high of one USAO district collecting nearly 350 percent of all  collectible debt in fiscal years 2014 through 2016 to a low of one district  collecting less than one percent of collectible debt in the same period.

Without performance measures, including the establishment of goals,  DOJ cannot assess if this variation is due to factors outside the control of  USAOs or due to management deficiencies that require corrective action.

Developing performance measures and goals for each USAO related to  the collection of restitution would allow DOJ to assess its progress in  achieving its major management initiative in improving debt collection— including debts owed to victims as court-ordered restitution. Doing so  would also better position DOJ to meet the requirements of the Justice for  All Reauthorization Act of 2016 to evaluate offices in their performance in  recovering restitution on behalf of victims and to use performance  information to improve the practices of offices as needed.

DOJ Could Improve Its Information on Forfeited Assets Available for Victims

Although asset forfeiture and restitution are separate parts of a criminal  sentence, DOJ guidance states that using forfeited assets to benefit  victims is a way that DOJ can help ensure eligible victims of crime are  compensated for their losses. Further, DOJ regulations and policy  require that eligible victims receive compensation from forfeited assets  before certain other uses, such as official use or equitable sharing.  However, while DOJ tracks the amount of compensation provided to  victims through forfeited assets, it does not have assurances that forfeited  assets are being used to compensate victims to the greatest extent  possible.

According to DOJ information, the agency made payments of about $595  million to eligible victims other than owners of the property from the  Assets Forfeiture Fund from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, or 15  percent of $3.9 billion in paid expenditures during this period, as shown in  table 5.

As table 5 shows, DOJ can account for cases in which forfeited assets  were used to compensate eligible victims who were not owners or  lienholders. However, DOJ does not have information on the overall  universe of victims who could have been eligible to receive compensation  from forfeited assets. Further, it does not have insight into any reasons  why funds from forfeited assets were not used for these victims.  Specifically, DOJ officials stated that the department collects information  on whether victims have been identified in cases associated with forfeited  assets, and if restitution is anticipated in these cases, but it does not track  the extent to which these victims were ultimately compensated using  forfeited assets. Further, DOJ also does not collect information on  reasons why victims were not compensated using funds from forfeited  assets. While DOJ is required to use forfeited assets to compensate  victims before using those assets for certain other purposes, the agency  is unable to provide assurances that it is always doing so because it does  not have information on the overall universe of victims or reasons why  victims were not compensated using forfeited assets. As a result, DOJ  does not have a basis to know whether the $595 million provided to  victims from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 is the maximum amount of  compensation the agency could have provided to victims using forfeited  assets.

Full use of forfeited assets for victim compensation has long been, and  continues to be, a goal of DOJ. In 2005, an interagency task force—led  by DOJ and including the Department of Treasury, Office of Management  and Budget and AOUSC—developed a strategic plan to improve the  collection of criminal debt. Among other goals included in its strategic  plan, the task force stated a goal of examining how asset seizure and  forfeiture procedures can be used to maximize recoveries for victims.  More recently, DOJ reported in its 2014-2018 Strategic Plan that it would  make every effort to recover full and fair restitution for victims using the  federal forfeiture statutes to preserve and recover criminal proceeds.  Specifically, DOJ stated that using federal forfeiture statutes to recover  full and fair restitution for victims is one part of its strategy to protect the  rights of the American people and enforce the rule of law. Finally, DOJ  officials told us they considered providing compensation to victims as one  goal of the Asset Forfeiture Program and EOUSA stated in guidance that  asset forfeiture is the most widely available and effective tool to seize  assets for restitution purposes. Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government call on federal managers to design control activities  to achieve the agency’s objectives. These controls can include using  quality information to make informed decisions, evaluate the entity’s  performance in achieving key objectives, and address risks.

DOJ officials told us that they do not track the extent to which victims  were not compensated using forfeited assets because USAO staff are not  required to request that these assets be used for victim compensation.  DOJ officials explained that staff are required to indicate in the agency’s  forfeited asset database, the Consolidated Asset Tracking System, if  victims exist in cases associated with forfeited assets and if restitution is  anticipated in these cases. However, these officials stated that staff are  not required to then compensate these victims using the forfeited assets  or to indicate why these assets were not used for this purpose. DOJ  officials told us that decisions to compensate victims using forfeited  assets are best left to the judgment of the USAO staff familiar with the  case, such as the prosecuting attorney or asset forfeiture staff.

DOJ officials pointed to informal communication and coordination among  prosecutors, the FLU, and the Asset Forfeiture unit in each USAO as a  means to provide compensation to victims as appropriate. However,  communication and coordination among these groups has been a  challenge for USAOs, as the DOJ Inspector General found in a June  2015 review of DOJ’s debt collection program. Similarly, during our  current review, EOUSA and USAO officials we spoke with identified  communication and coordination as an area for improvement. EOUSA  officials told us that while they thought that FLU staff and Asset Forfeiture  unit staff were collaborating more frequently to use forfeited assets to  collect restitution debts since the issuance of the DOJ Inspector General’s  report, the extent of collaboration between these two units still varied  across USAOs. Further, officials we talked to in two USAOs and one  probation office noted that USAO staff could improve their use of forfeited  assets for restitution payments. For example, officials in one probation  office noted that it was their practice to identify forfeited assets that could  be used for compensation in the PSR because they had observed that  USAO staff were frequently not applying such assets to victim  compensation.

While DOJ may allow USAO staff to use discretion when requesting  restoration or alerting victims to assets available for compensation,  increasing the agency’s understanding of the extent to which assets could  have been—but were not—used for victim compensation, and the  reasons for those decisions, does not affect that discretion. There are  legitimate reasons why victims might not be compensated using forfeited  assets; for example, the assets may have other owners or lienholders that  must be compensated prior to victims, or offenders may have other  means by which to pay victims restitution. However, there are also  instances where victims may have not received compensation through  forfeited assets as a result of unintentional circumstances. For example,  according to DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Manual, forfeiture actions can  proceed faster than the parallel criminal case. Consequently, assets  might be equitably shared, placed into official use, or remitted to victims  who file petitions long before restitution is ordered, and therefore would  not be available for other victims who wait for restitution to be ordered  after an offender is sentenced. To avoid this outcome, DOJ recommends  that USAOs coordinate to ensure the retention of property for victim  compensation. However, although DOJ officials responsible for leading  DOJ’s asset forfeiture efforts highlighted the need for expedient  coordination when USAO staff are considering using forfeited assets to  compensate victims, they stated this may not always occur. As a result,  otherwise eligible victims may not always be compensated through  forfeited assets.

By gathering information about the extent to which assets were used for  victim compensation—including when they were not used and reasons  why not—DOJ could have a better understanding of potential instances  where victims could be, but are not, receiving compensation through  forfeited funds and could take steps to address them accordingly. Options  for gathering such information could include doing a one-time  retrospective study of forfeited assets with victims or anticipated  restitution to determine the extent that assets were used for victim  compensation, or creating a tracking mechanism through its forfeited  assets database, or another system.

Gathering information on the extent to which forfeited assets were used  for victim compensation, including when not used and reasons why not,  could position DOJ to take action to increase the use of these assets for  victim compensation if warranted. These actions could include providing  funds for increased asset forfeiture staff in USAOs, providing additional  training or changing policies or procedures for using forfeited assets to  compensate victims. Fully and systematically understanding the extent to  which issues, such as a lack of coordination within USAOs, result in  victims not being compensated using forfeited assets would give DOJ a  basis upon which to develop improvements to the Asset Forfeiture  Program. Such information would also provide DOJ and staff at all  USAOs with information to evaluate its performance in achieving one of  the goals of the Asset Forfeiture Program and taking action to meet the  agency goal of protecting the rights of the American people—including  the right to full and fair restitution for victims.

Restitution serves the criminal justice goal of holding offenders  accountable and, to the extent possible, restoring victims of federal  crimes to their prior position had the crime not occurred. Many victims are  unlikely to receive any meaningful portion of court-ordered restitution  owed to them because of offenders’ inability to pay these debts. However,  the fact that restitution is difficult to collect does not negate the important  responsibilities of the judiciary and DOJ to properly manage and oversee  all aspects of the restitution process.

By law, courts are to state why they did not order restitution and provide  that information to USSC. While this information was collected and  recorded in USSC data for most offenders, we found that this information  was missing for thousands of offenders. It is important for the judiciary to  ensure that this information is consistently collected and recorded to  assist USSC in its continuous re-examination of its guidelines and policy  statements and ensure that various sentencing practices are achieving  their stated purposes. The judiciary could support USSC in this endeavor  by determining why this information is missing. Results from this study  could help inform the judiciary whether this issue rises to the level of an  internal control deficiency and whether additional action can be taken to  improve the transparency of sentencing decisions.

While DOJ has delegated collection activities for restitution to USAOs, it  could provide better oversight to ensure it is making reasonable efforts to  collect restitution and meeting its responsibility to victims. USAOs have  identified a significant portion of outstanding restitution debt as  uncollectible, but they have also identified $10 billion of outstanding  restitution debt that could be collected. Developing and implementing  performance measures and goals for each USAO would allow DOJ to  gauge USAOs’ success in collecting this restitution and, by extension, the  department’s success in achieving its major management initiative to  increase the collection of debt. Further, DOJ could use performance  information to improve the practices of offices in seeking and recovering  restitution, consistent with a requirement in the Justice for All  Reauthorization Act of 2016.

Finally, DOJ could gain greater visibility into the use of forfeited assets to  compensate victims by gathering information on cases in which victims  have been identified and restitution is anticipated but forfeited assets are  not used, and any reasons why. Doing so would better position DOJ to  take action to increase the use of forfeited assets to compensate eligible  victims if warranted and to provide assurance that it is maximizing the use  of asset forfeiture in satisfying restitution debts, one of the agency’s most  effective mechanisms for satisfying restitution.

We are making three recommendations, including one to the judiciary and  two to DOJ. Specifically:  Judiciary officials, including AOUSC, USSC, and the Judicial Conference,  should determine why USSC data on the reasons restitution was not  ordered are incomplete. Additionally, if warranted based on this  information, judiciary officials should take action to ensure USSC data  records include all required information for orders of restitution.  (Recommendation 1)

To improve oversight of the collection of restitution we recommend that  the Attorney General:

Develop and implement performance measures and goals for each  USAO related to the collection of restitution, and measure progress  towards meeting those goals. (Recommendation 2)

In cases where forfeited assets were not used to compensate victims,  gather information on reasons why forfeited assets were not used for  victims. If warranted based on this information, take action to increase  the use of forfeited assets to compensate eligible victims.  (Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DOJ, the  Judicial Conference of the United States, AOUSC, USSC, and the  Federal Judicial Center. DOJ concurred with our recommendations and  provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.  AOUSC provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix  III. In its written comments, AOUSC noted that it would work with the  USSC to address our recommendation.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees and the Attorney General, the Judicial Conference of the  United States, the Directors of AOUSC, the Staff Director of USSC, the  Federal Judicial Center and other interested parties. In addition, the  report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you and your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions are  listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Number and Percentage of Federal Offenders Ordered to Pay Restitution, Fiscal Years 2014 through 2016

According to our analysis of data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission  (USSC), 214,578 federal offenders were sentenced from fiscal years  2014 through 2016. Table 6 shows the number of offenders sentenced  and the number and percentage of offenders ordered to pay restitution for  each primary offense of conviction in fiscal years 2014 through 2016.

Appendix II: Views on DOJ-Recommended Restitution Practices from Officials in Selected in U.S. Attorneys’ Offices

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has identified and recommended  numerous practices for federal prosecutors and Financial Litigation Unit  (FLU) staff to use throughout the restitution process through various  guidance documents. We conducted semi-structured interviews with  officials from six U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAO) to obtain their views on  the restitution process and the extent to which they believed DOJ- recommended restitution practices related to the restitution process were  effective. In particular, we spoke with USAO officials from the District of  Connecticut; the Southern District of California; the District of New Jersey;  the Southern District of Ohio; the District of South Dakota; and the District  of Wyoming.

Tables 7 through 9 show the results of our semi-structured interviews. In  particular, table 7 shows practices related to requesting restitution and the  extent to which USAO officials found these practices effective. Table 8  shows practices related to facilitating orders of restitution and the extent  to which USAO officials found these practices effective. Table 9 shows  practices related to collecting restitution and the extent to which USAO  officials found these practices effective. Each table also indicates  practices that officials we interviewed considered as most important or  effective for helping ensure victims receive full and timely restitution.

Appendix III: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

In addition to the contact named above, Chris Ferencik (Assistant  Director); Kathleen Donovan (Analyst-in-Charge); Enyinnaya David Aja;  David Alexander; Lacinda Ayers; Carla Brown; Emily Hutz; Janet Temko- Blinder; and Adam Vogt, made key contributions to this report.