2013-2014 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Victim Restitution—promises Unfulfilled

Conclusions 9

• CL1 Page 16
  The District Attorney’s Office has an important role in collecting victim loss information prior to the time the defendant is sentenced, but attention to completion of victim loss information is not consistent within the Office.
• CL2 Page 17
  The Probation Department does not regularly review victim restitution obligations for criminals who are in banked probation.
• CL3 Page 17
  The Probation Department rarely seeks to revoke probation for a criminal whose only probation violation is failure to pay court-ordered victim restitution.
• CL4 Page 17
  The Department of Revenue is primarily a billing agency that rarely enforces collection of victim restitution in the same way as a private sector collection agency.
• CL5 Page 18
  Victims are not routinely made aware that they can use the Order for Victim Restitution and the Abstract of Judgment to pursue collection of restitution in the civil court, if they are not satisfied with the Department of Revenue’s collection and distribution of the restitution funds.
• CL6 Page 18
  A portion of victim restitution funds collected is often not disbursed to victims because the Department of Revenue did not receive the victim’s change in contact information even though it was known by other county agencies.
• CL7 Page 18
  The Victim Restitution Committee has been ineffective in realizing its original goal of improving performance and outcomes in the collection of victim restitution.
• CL8 Page 19
  The Department of Correction has not implemented a system to deduct a portion of money deposited into an Inmate Personal Fund account of every inmate ordered to pay victim restitution to be applied to victim restitution.
• CL9 Page 15
  The Grand Jury interviewed many individuals who affirmed their commitment to the constitutionally mandated right to victim restitution. However, many of those same individuals know little about the process beyond their own individual department or agency. After interviews with all responsible departments and agencies, the Grand Jury has concluded there is little coordination among the several departments and agencies responsible for determining and collecting victim restitution. The Grand Jury agrees with a 1999 United States Department of Justice report30 which states: “The goals of victim restitution are: holding the criminal accountable, compensating the victim, and providing some measure of deterrence.” . The Grand Jury concludes that the Deputy District Attorneys should be more proactive in their efforts to obtain information from victims regarding their losses before the defendants are sentenced. This would better inform the court regarding the specifics of victim restitution on a case-by-case basis, which could then be included as a part of the convicted criminals’ sentences. The vast majority of convicted criminals are on informal (court) probation or in what is called “banked” probation. None of the convicted criminals on either informal probation or in a banked formal probation are ever directly and personally monitored by a probation officer, unless the criminal violates a term of probation other than failure to pay victim restitution. The Grand Jury concludes 30 “Promising Victim-Related Practices and Strategies in Probation and Parole,” July 1999 15 that the Probation Department should follow procedures and always seek ways to ensure that all criminals pay court-ordered victim restitution in full during their term of probation. The Department of Revenue has few formal written policies and procedures regarding victim restitution beyond instructing its employees how to enter data into its computer system. Further, the Department of Revenue appears to have established no quantifiable metrics to measure its effectiveness in collecting victim restitution. The DOR has not set measurable goals or objectives to improve the collection rate of victim restitution. Almost ten years after the Victim Restitution Committee was formed in response to a 2003-2004 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report, it has no reportable accomplishments. The Grand Jury concludes that the County should provide leadership to put this committee on an effective track in order to maximize collection of victim restitution Due to recent amendments to Penal Code Section 2085.5, the Board of Supervisors has a newfound opportunity to increase the collection of victim restitution. The Grand Jury hopes that the County will implement the same system of deductions from the Inmate Personal Fund accounts to be applied to victim restitution as is done in the state prison system. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The District Attorney’s Office has an important role in collecting victim loss information prior to the time the defendant is sentenced, but attention to completion of victim loss information is not consistent within the Office. Recommendation 1 The District Attorney should develop ways to improve the collection of victim loss information prior to the time the defendant is sentenced. Finding 2 The 2011 escheated victim restitution funds were sent by the Department of Revenue to the District Attorney’s Office and were not deposited into a designated victim services account. 16 Recommendation 2 The District Attorney should deposit escheated victim restitution funds into an account designated for victim services. Finding 3 The Probation Department does not regularly review victim restitution obligations for criminals who are in banked probation. Recommendation 3 The County should ensure criminals in banked probation are regularly reviewed by the Department of Probation for victim restitution obligations. Finding 4 The Probation Department rarely seeks to revoke probation for a criminal whose only probation violation is failure to pay court-ordered victim restitution. Recommendation 4 The County should direct the Probation Department to aggressively ascertain the criminal’s ability to pay and then calendar a violation of probation hearing when a criminal fails to pay court-ordered victim restitution. Finding 5 The Department of Revenue is primarily a billing agency that rarely enforces collection of victim restitution in the same way as a private sector collection agency. Recommendation 5 The County should direct the Department of Revenue to develop and implement procedures that reflect the methodology used by private collection agencies in the collection of victim restitution in order to ensure that victim restitution is paid in full. Finding 6 The Department of Revenue rarely sends delinquent victim restitution accounts to a private collection agency. 17 Recommendation 6 The County should direct the Department of Revenue increase the use of private collection agencies to increase the amount of victim restitution collected from delinquent criminals. Finding 7 Victims are not routinely made aware that they can use the Order for Victim Restitution and the Abstract of Judgment to pursue collection of restitution in the civil court, if they are not satisfied with the Department of Revenue’s collection and distribution of the restitution funds. Recommendation 7 The County should direct the Department of Revenue to notify victims, who are not satisfied with the collection and distribution of restitution by the Department of Revenue, that they can pursue collection of restitution in the civil court with the Order for Restitution and the Abstract of Judgment. Finding 8 A portion of victim restitution funds collected is often not disbursed to victims because the Department of Revenue did not receive the victim’s change in contact information even though it was known by other county agencies. Recommendation 8 The County should explore ways for the various agencies to improve the sharing of victim contact information in order to increase the rate of disbursement of restitution. Finding 9 The Victim Restitution Committee has been ineffective in realizing its original goal of improving performance and outcomes in the collection of victim restitution. Recommendation 9a The County should review the performance and effectiveness of the Victim Restitution Committee. 18 Recommendation 9b The County should develop effective methods of improving performance and outcomes in the collection of victim restitution. Finding 10 The Department of Correction has not implemented a system to deduct a portion of money deposited into an Inmate Personal Fund account of every inmate ordered to pay victim restitution to be applied to victim restitution. Recommendation 10 The County should direct to the Department of Correction to implement a system to deduct a percent of the money deposited into an Inmate Personal Fund account of every inmate ordered to pay victim restitution. 19

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.