Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Restitution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Audit proposed to track restitution funds and compensation processes; committee keeps item on call
Summary
Senator Susan Ashby proposed a wide review of California’s restitution and victim compensation systems to determine how much restitution has been ordered, collected and delivered to victims and how collection practices affect people ordered to pay. The committee did not finalize action and kept the item on call.
Senator Susan Ashby asked the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to review how victim restitution and state victim compensation funds are collected and distributed across counties and state agencies.
Why it matters: Witnesses and proponents said many crime victims receive only a fraction of court‑ordered restitution, while people ordered to pay restitution may be subject to garnishment, fees and interest that reduce the amounts that actually reach victims. Proponents urged a review to measure the flow of funds, administrative costs, denials and coordination among agencies.
Scope and objectives: The state auditor described proposed objectives to: (1) evaluate local and state processes for collecting and distributing restitution and the amounts ordered, collected and outstanding over a 10‑year window; (2) identify the portions paid to victims versus administrative retention, fees or interest; (3) review coordination and statutory compliance among state and county collection programs; (4) assess demographic data for payors and effects of unpaid restitution on reentry; and (5) review the Victim Compensation Board’s funding, eligibility and administrative costs and the solvency of the state restitution fund. The auditor estimated the audit would require roughly 4,400 hours.
Testimony: Delaney Green of the Berkeley Law Policy Advocacy Clinic described fragmented data and low collection rates in county examples; Esteban Núñez of the Anti‑Recidivism Coalition described his personal experience with unclear accounting and wage garnishment. Representatives of the Victim Compensation Board, the Franchise Tax Board and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation described how their programs operate and said they would cooperate with auditors.
Committee action: Members discussed the audit’s potential to clarify how restitution fines, court‑ordered restitution and victim compensation interact, and how much victims actually receive. A motion to approve the audit was moved and seconded; in committee roll call the item was left on call for further consideration rather than being finalized at this hearing.
