Summary

During fiscal year 1997, the judicial circuit or district where an offender was sentenced was a major factor in whether he or she was ordered to pay criminal fines and victim restitution. This finding calls into question whether the objective of uniformity in the imposition of fines and restitution is being met. Across districts, for example, the percentage of offenders ordered to pay restitution ranged from three percent to 49 percent. An important factor in determining whether an offender was ordered to pay a fine or restitution was the type of offense committed. Although six percent of offenders sentenced for immigration violations were ordered to pay a fine, nearly one-third of property offenders were ordered to pay. Similarly, one percent of drug offenders were ordered to pay restitution, while nearly two-thirds of fraud offenders were ordered to pay. Although race, education, citizenship, length of sentence, and type of sentence (prison or probation) all influenced the likelihood that fines and restitution would be ordered, the judicial circuit or district in which sentencing took place was a major factor. Some court officials and prosecutors attributed the differences to the nature and type of offenses committed or types of offenders sentenced in the districts. Some officials believed that the culture in the judicial district among the prosecutors and court officials contributed to whether offenders were fined or ordered to pay restitution. The culture included how prosecutors and court officials cooperated to identify victims and their losses. Since restitution for some offenses became mandatory in April 1996, the percentage of offenders, overall who were ordered to pay restitution has actually declined--from 26 percent before passage of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act to 12 percent after the law became effective. Some court officials and prosecutors believe that it is still too early to gauge the full impact of the act. GAO summarized this report in testimony before Congress; see: Federal Courts: Differences Exist in Ordering Fines and Restitution, by Richard M. Stana, Associate Director for Administration of Justice Issues, before the Subcommittee on Crime, House Committee on the Judiciary. GAO/T-GGD-99-95, May 6 (six pages).

GAO noted that: (1) while many factors influenced whether an offender was ordered to pay a fine or restitution, the judicial circuit or district where the offender was sentenced was a major factor during fiscal year (FY) 1997; (2) most of the approximately 48,000 federal offenders sentenced under United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines in FY 1997 were not ordered by the courts to pay a fine or restitution; (3) the percentage of offenders who were ordered to pay fines or restitution varied greatly across the 12 federal judicial circuits and 94 federal judicial districts; (4) across districts, the percentage of offenders who were ordered to pay fines ranged from 1 percent to 84 percent, and the percentage of the offenders who were ordered to pay restitution ranged from 3 percent to 49 percent; (5) an important factor in determining whether an offender was ordered to pay a fine or restitution was the type of offense committed; (6) while 6 percent of offenders sentenced for immigration offenses were ordered to pay a fine, almost one-third of property offenders were ordered to pay; (7) besides the type of offense committed, other factors that were associated with whether an offender was ordered to pay included factors such as sex, race, education, citizenship, length of sentence, and type of sentence imposed, such as prison, probation, or an alternative; (8) even after controlling for all of these factors for four specific types of offenses in GAO's multivariate statistical analyses, the judicial circuit or district in which the offender was sentenced continued to be a major factor in determining whether an offender was ordered to pay a fine or restitution; (9) some court officials and prosecutors provided explanations of why differences existed among the districts; (10) some attributed the differences to the nature and type of offenses committed or types of offenders sentenced in the districts; (11) some officials believed that the culture in the judicial district among the prosecutors and court officials contributed to whether offenders were fined or ordered to pay restitution; and (12) since the imposition of restitution for certain offenses became mandatory with the passage of Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), the percentage of offenders, overall, who were ordered to pay restitution during FY 1997 actually declined from 26 percent of offenders sentenced for crimes committed before April 24, 1996, to 12 percent of offenders sentenced for crimes committed on or after April 24, 1996, when MVRA became effective.