YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri Claire McCaskill

March 29, 2001

Report No. 2001-29

This audit examined how well Missouri restores the financial loss to crime victims through collecting court-ordered restitution payments from offenders.  In 1999, 52 percent of the cases requiring restitution received no payments at all.  The report analyzed how Missouri’s crime victim laws and statewide procedures affect collecting, distributing and monitoring these payments.  

Offenders free from paying restitution after probation ends

Nearly $3 million of the $37 million in restitution owed in 1999 will never make it to victims.  This money cannot be recovered because the offenders have been released from probation, sent to prison, or have died.  As a result of these conditions, in 1999, 2,574 offenders who owed $2.9 million to victims no longer had to make their payments.  Paying restitution in full is not a condition for parole in Missouri.  This is not the case across the nation where at least 29 other states have laws that better ensure the victim will be compensated. (See page 3)

Offenders that could pay, did not

At least 353 offenders who owed restitution in 1999 never made a payment even though they all worked and earned wages greater than $20,000 a year.  In total, these offenders earned $7.2 million while on probation and owed their victims $1.6 million.  In addition, 66 offenders who owed restitution also received worker’s compensation or second injury fund settlements.  Missouri law does not allow the victim in either of these cases to obtain restitution by garnishing wages or attaching liens to settlements.  (See page 5)

Courts, attorneys and police receive offender money before victim

When offenders make their court-ordered payments, the victim ranks 36^th of the 38 entities that receive a portion of the money.  The Office of State Court Administrators created this disbursement hierarchy, which applies to all courts on the state’s Banner computer system.  Some of the entities that receive an offender’s money before the victim include various court divisions, sheriff’s retirement accounts and law enforcement training funds.  OSCA’s reasons for this hierarchy included:  an offender can more likely pay court costs, which are often lower than restitution owed; victims can more easily retrieve restitution through civil lawsuits than a court can obtain its fees through civil action; and to keep the Sheriff’s Association satisfied.  (See page 6)

Inaccurate data on restitution payments

Our review noted more than $13 million inaccurately included in the restitution data, which the Division of Probation and Parole regularly used to update legislators and the public about collection progress.  The data often overstated how much restitution actually reached victims.  For example, the data included child support payments as victim restitution payments.  (See page 12)

Complete Audit Report