United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States Government Accountability Office General Government Division author aut Government Organization text government publication eng GAOREPORTS Legislative Agency Publications gao legislative 2010-08-12 U.S. Government Printing Office 1998-06-29 monographic deposited born digital 67 p. GA 1.13:GGD-98-89 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GGD-98-89 P0b002ee1803796f2 f:gg98089 DGPO 2010-08-12 2011-03-28 GAOREPORTS-GGD-98-89 machine generated eng fdlp REPORT GAOREPORTS-GGD-98-89 GGD-98-89 Collection procedures Fines (penalties) Law enforcement Crimes or offenses Restitution Installment payments Financial statements Probation officers Crime Victims Fund Letter Report GGD

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed court orders of fines and restitution imposed on federal criminal offenders, focusing on: (1) identifying guidance available to probation officers on how to determine payment schedules for offenders who received orders to pay fines to the government and restitution to their victims; and (2) assessing, in two judicial districts, how offenders' payment schedules were actually determined while under court supervision.<p/>GAO noted that: (1) in the Central District of California and the Northern District of Texas, probation officers who supervised offenders lacked clear, specific policy guidance for determining how much offenders should pay each month towards their court-ordered fines and restitution; (2) in the absence of such clear policy guidance, the officers in the two districts GAO reviewed developed their own methods for determining how much offenders could pay monthly; (3) these methods were often based on subjective decisions not associated with financial criteria; (4) GAO identified issues of inconsistency and apparent inequity in 62 percent of the Central District of California installment-payment cases GAO reviewed; (5) the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) has provided guidance to probation officers on how to determine payment schedules; (6) however, the guidance, which is focused on what information to collect and how to collect it, does not specify how probation officers are to analyze financial information provided by offenders to determine how much, or if all, of the fine or restitution can be paid each month; (7) the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) offered financial investigation training to probation officers that provided more specific guidance on determining repayment schedules than that contained in the AOUSC manuals and publications; (8) although AOUSC viewed the training as reflecting its policies, it did not make this clear to probation officers; (9) moreover, the FJC training is voluntary, and not all officers took it; (10) the inconsistent methods used by probation officers for determining an offender's monthly payment schedule resulted in apparently inequitable treatment of offenders and reduced or slowed payments to the Crime Victims Fund and to crime victims; and (11) although GAO's detailed reviews were limited to two judicial districts and cannot be generalized beyond those districts, the fact that probation officers in other judicial districts are working with the same limited guidance and lack of financial standards as the districts GAO visited creates the risk that the types of inconsistencies and apparent inequities GAO found could occur nationwide. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GGD-98-89/html/GAOREPORTS-GGD-98-89.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GGD-98-89/pdf/GAOREPORTS-GGD-98-89.pdf GAO/GGD-98-89 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GGD-98-89 Letter Report GAO/GGD-98-89; Fines and Restitution: Improvement Needed in How Offenders' Payment Schedules Are Determined; Collection procedures Fines (penalties) Law enforcement Crimes or offenses Restitution Installment payments Financial statements Probation officers Crime Victims Fund Title 18 Section 3572 18 U.S.C. 3572 Public Law 104-132