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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Further, the Justice for All Reauthorization Act  of 2016 requires DOJ to evaluate each USAO in its performance in  recovering restitution for victims. Conclusions

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. By law, courts are to state why they did not order restitution and provide  that information to USSC. 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. Recommendations for Executive Action

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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.

What GAO Recommends

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.