Crime Restitution Fund Falls Victim to a Lack of Money

More than a decade after California became the first state to routinely compensate victims of crime, the fund that supports the effort is rapidly running out of cash.

Moreover, collecting money from criminal offenders--a key feature of the program--has proven to be a frustrating task that some agencies clearly would rather avoid. In some cases, county and state agencies have all but ignored the program, contending that it is a waste of time to try to collect from criminals who often have no visible assets.

“If someone does something bad, then that person should have to pay for it in some way,” said Geoffrey Davey, an auditor in charge of collecting fines and fees on behalf of Sacramento County. “But moral ideals and reality are two different things.”

Last year alone, the state restitution fund received $37.3 million, mostly from fines and penalties imposed by the courts, according to Judith Embree, deputy executive officer of the state Board of Control. At the same time, however, Embree said the fund spent $42.5 million, managing to stay afloat only by dipping into previous year surpluses.

$13-Million Shortfall

At the rate victims claims continue to pour in, Embree expects the surplus to be exhausted by next year when expenses are projected to outstrip income by nearly $13 million.

Aside from government’s reluctance to follow through on collections, Embree believes that much of the problem lies in rapidly rising numbers of claims. Last year, 30,000 crime victims applied for compensation, nearly triple the number who filed during 1983-1984. Of those, about 85% were eventually approved for payment.

“There is so much crime that we’ll never be able to compensate all the victims adequately,” Embree said.

The Victims of Crimes program, as it is known today, was established in 1965, the first of its kind in the nation. Although initially limited to compensating victims of violent crimes, the program was greatly expanded after voters in 1982 approved the so-called Victims’ Rights Initiative--backed by anti-tax crusader Paul Gann--amid widespread claims that the justice system was treating criminals better than their victims.

One of the most sweeping revisions of criminal law ever attempted by a state, the initiative eased rules of admissible evidence for trials, restricted plea bargaining and limited defense pleas of insanity and diminished capacity.

The one reform keyed specifically to crime victims was a provision setting forth their right under law to receive restitution from the criminals who wronged them.

Although victims may collect as much as $46,000, actual payments average $2,642--up about $500 from 1983. Moreover, compensation is limited to medical costs, psychological counseling expenses and lost wages.

To pay for the claims, counties are empowered to add a $5 assessment to each $10 in criminal fines levied by the courts, with a portion of that going to the restitution fund. Additional support comes from the federal Victims of Crime Act.

Beyond that, judges may order offenders to directly compensate victims or to pay additional fines into the restitution fund on behalf of all crime victims.

There are no guidelines on the amount of restitution that judges may order, but they commonly take into account recommendations from probation officers and testimony from victims.

In some cases, judges order no restitution at all for fear that it would bankrupt the innocent families of criminals. Former Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Robert H. Philibosian, who chairs the California Council on Criminal Justice, takes issue with that practice.

Why Help Criminal’s Family?

“Why should the family of the victim suffer to help the family of a criminal who knew what he was doing?” Philibosian asked.

Even when restitution or fines are ordered, however, the money often goes uncollected, although there are no statewide figures on what percentage of money due actually is paid.

A recent Department of Corrections survey found that less than half of new inmates admitted to state prisons had paid any restitution.

The state controller has authority to garnishee any tax rebates due criminals under a 1985 law to ensure that the payments are made. But a spokesman for Controller Gray Davis said he cannot remember the law ever being used, in part because many convicted offenders do not have income to report. Another law gives the Department of Corrections authority to collect restitution, although it too has never seen fit to exercise that power.

But the major responsibility rests with the counties, where court and county clerks, probation workers, collection departments and auditors are charged with the onerous task of making sure that criminal offenders pay.

In past years, few counties appeared up to the task. A 1983 Office of Criminal Justice Planning survey and a 1984 auditor general’s report found that many counties failed to collect and to turn over the money that was due the state. The auditor general’s report estimated that in four counties alone, nearly $1.5 million was lost to the restitution fund from 1981 to 1983.

Problems Remain

Since then, many of the report’s recommendations reportedly have been implemented as the result of legislation signed into law in 1984. Yet, problems remain.

The collection system “is crazy, it’s illogical, it doesn’t make sense,” said Suzie Cohen, executive director of the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Assn. “People (who) are charged with collecting restitution (in many counties) aren’t experts at getting money from people, like collection agencies are.”

In many cases, probation officers whose primary duty is to supervise paroled criminals are left with the task of determining the proper amount of restitution and collecting it. As a result, restitution does not always get top priority, Cohen said.

“Probation officers are peacekeepers, they’re trained to do interventions, more law enforcement,” Cohen added. “When they get sent out to collect restitution, they roll their eyes and ask, ‘What am I doing here?’ But (they) are sworn to uphold the law and they are not going to complain.”

The most common problem for all collection agents is that criminals often do not have money to pay. And even if they do, the costs of collecting can far outstrip the amount collected.

At the county level, Cohen said the process of collecting restitution resembles a “dog chasing its tail.” Under the law, she said, if probationers have not paid their restitution by the end of their probation period, the period may be extended for another five years.

“You’re spending $800 a year to have a person under supervision to collect $100,” Cohen said. “This is silliness.”

‘Cost-Benefit Considerations’

The Department of Corrections cited similar “cost-benefit considerations” in deciding not to aggressively pursue offenders who fail to pay restitution. “It is clearly questionable for the department to implement it,” said Debra Sherman, program administrator of the department’s institutions division.

For now, officials who administer the victims’ restitution program are pinning their hopes on two bills that would increase penalty assessments to $7 for each $10 in fines collected from convicted criminals. If passed and signed into law, the measures, by Sen. Ed Davis (R-Valencia) and Assemblyman Charles M. Calderon (D-Alhambra), would raise an additional $24 million each year.

Davis is confident of passage, contending that lawmakers who vote against his bill “will have to answer to the victims’ groups.”

Others have argued that higher fees may not be the answer. “The law of diminishing returns work here,” Cohen said. “Higher fees makes it more difficult to collect and it begins to be a disincentive.”

‘Restitution Centers’ Planned

Meanwhile, the Department of Corrections is planning to build “restitution centers” where inmates can live and work in the community while they raise money to pay their victims. One-third of the wages earned by the offenders would go to administrative costs of running the facility, another third to the victims and the remainder would be deposited in a savings account for the offenders.

It is unclear, however, whether these centers will be able to overcome public opposition that surfaces whenever the state proposes to house convicts in residential communities.

Initial plans call for opening a 50-bed center next year “somewhere in the south, probably Los Angeles,” said Walt Ellison, correctional administrator of the department’s parole division.

Regardless of the financial and bureaucratic problems, efforts to require criminals to compensate their victims are not likely to go away.

“People feel that there is no more room to lock people up for years and years,” Davey said. The sentiment now is “no more appealing sentences, make them pay and make them pay through their noses.”