Message From

the Director

Over the past three decades, the

criminal justice field has witnessed an

astounding proliferation of statutory

enhancements benefiting people who

are most directly and intimately affected by crime. As of 2000, all states had

passed some form of legislation to benefit victims. In addition, 32 states have

recognized the supreme importance of

fundamental and express rights for

crime victims by raising those protections to the constitutional level.

Of course, the nature, scope, and enforcement of victims’ rights vary from

state to state, and it is a complex and

often frustrating matter for victims to

determine what those rights mean for

them.To help victims, victim advocates,

and victim service providers understand the relevance of the myriad laws

and constitutional guarantees, the

Office for Victims of Crime awarded

funding to the National Center for

Victims of Crime to produce a series

of bulletins addressing salient legal issues affecting crime victims.

Restitution: Making It Work, the fifth in

the series, provides an overview of

state legislation and current issues 

related to the collection of courtordered restitution to crime victims.

Although every state has enacted legislation on this issue, many crime victims who are awarded restitution

Restitution: 

Making It Work

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office for Victims of Crime

NOVEMBER 2002

Introduction

Many crime victims are awarded restitution at the sentencing of an offender but

fail to receive any money. Others are paid only a small portion of the restitution

ordered. A recent study of restitution collection in Colorado found that convicted offenders ordered to pay their victims more than $26 million in 1996 still owe more

than $20 million.1 Even though many restitution orders will never be fully paid, states

are taking various legislative approaches to improve the collection of restitution.

Status of the Law

A

ll states have statutory provisions relating to the collection of restitution. States

have addressed this issue by laying the groundwork for collecting restitution at

sentencing and enforcing restitution orders during the payment period.

Laying the Groundwork for Collecting

Restitution

Courts can take many steps well before collection efforts begin that may make enforcing restitution orders much easier. The sentencing court can lay the groundwork for collecting restitution by thoroughly investigating the assets of convicted

offenders, preserving those assets, and routinely entering income deduction orders.

Investigating the Assets of Convicted Offenders

Many states have attempted to improve the collection of restitution by providing for

a thorough investigation of the assets of convicted offenders, either before or after

restitution is ordered. (Statutory approaches to such investigations are addressed in

Ordering Restitution to the Crime Victim, the sixth bulletin in this Legal Series.) A complete investigation of a defendant’s assets can help the court craft a workable payment

plan, which should decrease the likelihood of default. If the defendant later defaults

on any payments, the court can use this information to help determine whether the failure to pay restitution is willful.

LEGAL SERIESBULLETIN

#5

Continued on page 2
OVC Legal Series

2

Entering Income Deduction Orders

The routine entry of income deduction orders—or garnishment

orders—can streamline the process of collecting restitution.

California and Florida both provide for automatic entry of an 

income deduction order at the time restitution is ordered. In

California, this order is enforceable only when a defendant defaults on restitution payments, but in Florida, the order is effective immediately.7

Enforcing Restitution Orders

S

tates have enacted various provisions to enforce the collection of restitution orders when a defendant defaults in payment. These provisions are described below.

Improved Monitoring of Restitution Payments

A first step in any effort to improve the collection of restitution

must be a system for monitoring a defendant’s compliance with

the restitution order. Wisconsin requires its Department of Justice to establish a separate account for each person in custody or

under supervision who has been ordered to make restitution. The

court is to order a 5 percent surcharge to support the administrative expenses that result from such a system.8 In New Jersey, the

Victims of Crime Compensation Board is charged with developing a system to track and dispense restitution and other offender

payments,9 financed by a $3 offender assessment deposited into

the Criminal Disposition and Revenue Collection Fund.10

In Michigan, the probation or parole officer is required to review,

twice a year, every case in which restitution was ordered to ensure that payments are being made as ordered.11 The officer must

also perform a final review at least 60 days before the expiration

of an offender’s probation or parole. If an offender is not paying

restitution, the officer must file a written report with the court.

Similarly, in Utah, the Corrections Department is responsible for

collecting restitution and must file a violation report with the

court if a defendant fails to pay.12

Accurate information regarding payment must be shared between agencies that play a role in collecting restitution. In

Iowa, for example, if probation is revoked for failure to pay

restitution, the probation department is to forward the restitution plan, payment balance, and other pertinent information

to the corrections department.13 In Massachusetts, when an 

offender is ordered to pay restitution to a victim, “the victim has

the right to receive . . . a copy of the schedule of restitution payments and the name and telephone number of the probation 

officer . . . responsible for supervising the defendant’s payments.”14

never receive any money or receive only a small portion of

what the court has ordered the defendant to pay.This bulletin

and the others in the Legal Series highlight various circumstances in which relevant laws are applied, emphasizing their successful implementation.

We hope that victims, victim advocates, victim service providers,

criminal justice professionals, and policymakers in states across

the Nation will find the bulletins in this series helpful in making

sense of the criminal justice process and in identifying areas in

which rights could be strengthened or more clearly defined.We

encourage you to use these bulletins not simply as informational

resources but as tools to support victims in their involvement

with the criminal justice system.

John W. Gillis

Director

A list of a defendant’s assets also can assist the victim or other

entities in their collection efforts. In California, a victim is entitled to see a defendant’s disclosures identifying all assets, income,

and liabilities or certain other documents concerning financial

information.2 Until all restitution is paid, Kansas gives a crime

victim the right to any information regarding the offender’s financial assets, income, or employment that is in the possession of

the district court, parole board, or any community correctional

service program.3

Preserving the Assets of Convicted Offenders

In some cases, defendants may conceal assets or may even waste

assets in an attempt to avoid paying restitution. Pennsylvania 

allows the prosecutor to seek a restraining order or injunction

when the criminal complaint is filed or the offender is indicted to

preserve assets that may be used later to pay restitution. Before

entering such an order, the court must hold a hearing to find a

substantial probability that the commonwealth will prevail in the

action, the restitution order will exceed $10,000, the property to

be preserved appears necessary to satisfy any restitution order, and

the failure to enter the restraining order or injunction will result

in the property being made unavailable.4 Under certain circumstances, a temporary emergency restraining order can be issued

“without notice or opportunity for a hearing, whether or not a

complaint, information, indictment[,] or petition alleging delinquency has been filed.”5

California takes another approach. By state law, it is a separate

offense to dispose of property to avoid paying restitution;6 the offense is usually a misdemeanor but may be a felony.

Continued from page 1
Often, statutes prioritize how an inmate’s work program wages

should be allocated to pay any restitution and other payments

an inmate is required to make. For example, Louisiana law provides that wages from its prison industries program will be paid

in the following order: (1) federal and state taxes and Social

Security deductions, (2) 30 percent of the remainder after tax

and Social Security deductions to the victims of crimes committed by the offender to the extent of their loss and thereafter

to any state compensation fund, (3) 20 percent of the remainder after tax and Social Security deductions to the Department

of Corrections, and (4) 40 percent of the remainder after tax and

Social Security deductions to the inmate’s spouse and children. If

an inmate has no spouse or children, this portion shall be paid to

any victims of crimes committed by the offender to the extent of

their loss and thereafter to any state compensation fund. The

amount remaining is deposited into the inmate’s personal fund.31

Revoking Probation or Parole

States generally provide that probation or parole may be revoked

for failure to pay restitution. The offender’s failure must be willful. Because this can be hard to prove, the remedy is not widely

invoked. However, in some cases, courts were able to determine

that a defendant’s failure to pay was intentional. For example, in

one case in Illinois, a defendant had accepted a plea agreement

under which he was to pay $5 a month. When he did not make

the first $5 payment, the court found that his failure to pay was

willful because he had given every indication that he was able to

pay that amount. Such willful failure to pay was sufficient to revoke the defendant’s conditional discharge.32

A California defendant had her probation revoked after she had

been given numerous chances to pay restitution and had lied to

the court regarding a loan application for money to pay restitution. In sentencing the defendant to prison, the trial court judge

noted the defendant was not put in prison “for nonpayment of a

debt. That’s against our constitution. But this defendant is totally

failing to comply with the orders of the court.”33 The appellate

court upheld the trial court judge’s ruling.

Extending Probation or Parole

Some states permit the extension of probation or parole when

restitution remains unpaid at the time supervision is to expire.

Because restitution is a sentencing condition, extending a

defendant’s probation or parole enables the criminal justice 

system to exercise continued jurisdiction over that sentence.

Arkansas law provides that if a defendant fails to make all restitution payments at the time probation ends, the court has authority to continue and extend probation.34 Under Arizona law,

Single System for Collecting Restitution and Other

Court-Ordered Payments

Some states have attempted to improve the collection of restitution and other court-ordered payments—such as court fees—

through a single system. Washington was an early leader in this

area, devising a system for collecting an offender’s legal financial

obligation that combines into one debt the restitution, statutorily

imposed crime victim compensation fees, court costs, courtappointed attorney fees, and other costs assessed by the court

against an offender.15 When moneys are collected from the offender for the legal financial obligation, restitution is to be paid

first.16 Other states, including Alabama and New Jersey, also 

address collecting such costs through a single entity.17

Attachment of State Payments to the Defendant

Some states allow by statute various state payments, which ordinarily would first go to the defendant, to be used to satisfy restitution orders. For example, Maryland and Wisconsin laws allow a

defendant’s lottery prize to be used to pay restitution.18 Iowa requires that any witness fees paid to an inmate be applied toward

restitution.19 In Tennessee, 15 percent of the amount raised by

the sale of inmate arts and crafts must be applied to restitution.20

Several states provide that whenever a prisoner is awarded damages in a civil suit, the award must be used to pay restitution.21

In Montana, any time a prisoner accumulates more than $200

in his or her prison inmate trust account, the excess is forfeited

and used to pay any outstanding restitution.22 Similarly, Iowa

law requires its director of corrections to deduct restitution payments, according to the inmate’s restitution plan, from the inmate’s account, which consists of money received by the inmate

from any source.23

In some states, a defendant’s bond may be used to satisfy a restitution order.24 Under an Illinois appellate court ruling, courts

may order that bond proceeds be applied to restitution even

when someone other than the defendant provided the money.25

Wages From Prison Work Programs

By law, many prison work programs must direct a portion of the

offender’s wages to the payment of restitution.26 Some statutes

apply only to programs within the prison,27 others to programs

run by private industry using prison labor,28 and still others to

work-release programs.29 Because California law requires a 

deduction from prison wages for the payment of restitution, a

California appellate court has ruled that trial courts may presume the payment of restitution from prison wages unless evidence shows that a defendant would be ineligible.30

3
4

RESTITUTION: MAKING IT WORK

probation may be extended up to 3 additional years for a felony

and 1 year for a misdemeanor to allow an offender time to satisfy

the requirements of a restitution order.35 In Kentucky, parole is to

be extended until restitution is paid in full.36

In contrast, Washington provides for continuing jurisdiction as

long as restitution remains outstanding; there is no need to

specifically extend supervision.

Using State Entities or Private Collection Agencies

To Collect Restitution

Several states have amended their laws to allow restitution orders, particularly orders in default, to be referred to private collection agencies. Some states add the collection fee to the

amount due from the defendant, and others deduct this fee from

the amount paid by the defendant.37 Under Alabama law, district

attorneys are authorized to establish special restitution recovery

divisions. On written notification that a defendant has defaulted

in payment of restitution, the division may collect or enforce

such orders. A collection fee of 30 percent of the outstanding

amount is added to the debt.38 The district attorney’s office is authorized to retain 75 percent of that collection fee, with the remaining 25 percent to be used by the circuit court for operating

expenses. The district attorney’s office is authorized to contract

with a private collection agency to collect outstanding debts.39

Kansas has taken a different approach to restitution collection.

Under Kansas law, the attorney general is authorized to contract

with certain entities to collect restitution and other court costs.

The list of approved collection agencies is then published for use

by courts and victims. Collection entities receive a fee of up to

33 percent of the amount collected, which is to be deducted

from, not added to, the amount owed by the defendant.40 Meanwhile, at least three states—California, Iowa, and Virginia—

allow the restitution debt to be referred to the state taxation

authorities for collection.41

Converting Restitution Orders to Civil Judgments

Most states allow restitution orders to be converted to civil judgments, especially when restitution remains unpaid at the end of

the defendant’s probation or parole. In some states, a restitution

order is automatically entered as a civil judgment,42 whereas in

others, the victim is authorized to have an order entered as a

civil judgment.43 Kansas places an additional burden on the victim, requiring the victim to pay court costs for entering such a

judgment.44 In some states, the conversion to a civil judgment

happens immediately;45 in others, the conversion or entry takes

place only when a defendant defaults on the payment.46

Current Issues

Lack of Data

Data are generally lacking on the amount of restitution ordered

and collected. In the few states that have data on the gross

amount of restitution collected, insufficient information is available on the percentage of restitution collected. Until the information is available, states will continue to be hampered in their

efforts to improve restitution collection.

Victim Enforcement of Restitution Orders

Converted to Civil Judgments

As noted, most states provide for unpaid restitution orders to be

converted to and enforced as civil judgments. However, few

crime victims understand the means available to enforce such

judgments. The California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, formerly the California State Board of

Control, has attempted to address the problem by developing a

simple brochure for crime victims. The brochure describes procedures for converting a restitution order to a civil judgment

and investigating the assets of the defendant.47

Conclusion

S

tate legislatures and criminal justice experts alike have

recognized that holding a convicted offender financially responsible for the harm caused by the crime is a proper criminal sanction. They also recognize the importance of restitution

in promoting the recovery of the crime victim. However, until

the process of collecting restitution improves, these twin benefits

cannot be fully realized. This process must begin before the restitution is ordered, with a thorough investigation of the defendant’s assets and earning abilities and the court’s ability to preserve

those assets when necessary. At the same time, a state must have

a system in place to monitor compliance with restitution orders

and the means to enforce the orders. With increased focus on all

aspects of collection, states have the potential to make restitution

orders far more meaningful.

Notes

1. Study of Criminal Restitution in Colorado (1999). Denver, CO:

Colorado Legislative Counsel. Table 2, p. 18. The study includes

numerous caveats to this figure, including that the data reflect an

analysis of payment over time and payments on many orders are
5

RESTITUTION: MAKING IT WORK

continuing and that many of the offenders ordered to pay are

currently incarcerated and not expected to make significant payments until release or placement in a work program (see p. 16).

2. CAL. PENAL CODE § 1202.4 (Deering 2001).

3. KAN. STAT. ANN. § 60-4305 (2000).

4. 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 9728 (West 2000).

5. Id.

6. CAL. PENAL CODE § 155.5 (Deering 2001).

7. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 13967.2 (Deering 2001); FLA. STAT. ANN.

§ 775.089 (West 2000).

8. WIS. STAT. § 973.20 (2000).

9. N.J. STAT. ANN. § 52:4B-8.1 (West 2001).

10. N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2C:43-3.1 (West 2001).

11. MICH. STAT. ANN. §§ 28.1073, .2306 (Michie 2000).

12. UTAH CODE JUD. ADMIN. R. 6-303.

13. IOWA CODE § 910.4 (2001).

14. MASS. ANN. LAWS ch. 258B, § 3 (Law. Co-op. 2001).

15. WASH. REV. CODE § 9.94A.030 (2001).

16. WASH. REV. CODE § 9.94A.120 (2001).

17. ALA. CODE § 12-17-225.2 (2001); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 52:4B-8.1

(West 2001).

18. MD. ANN. CODE art. 27, § 810 (2001); WIS. STAT. § 973.05

(2000).

19. IOWA CODE § 622.69 (2001).

20. TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 41-6-301–303 (2001).

21. ARK. STAT. ANN. § 12-29-601 (2001); OKLA. STAT. tit. 57,

§ 566.1 (2000); WIS. STAT. § 806.025 (2000). In Arkansas and

Oklahoma, this is limited to suits against the government.

22. MONT. CODE ANN. § 53-1-107 (2000).

23. IOWA CODE § 904.702 (2001).

24. For example, CAL. PENAL CODE § 1463.009 (Deering 2001);

730 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 5/5-5-6; N.Y. CRIM. PROC. LAW § 420.10

(Consol. 2001); S.C. CODE ANN. § 17-15-15 (Law. Co-op. 2000).

25. People v. Rayburn, 258 Ill. App. 3d 331, 196 Ill. Dec. 598,

630 N.E.2d 533 (3d Dist. 1994).

26. For example, LA. REV. STAT. § 15:840.2 (2000); N.Y. CORRECT.

LAW § 860 (Consol. 2001); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 24-11A-20

(Michie 2000).

27. For example, N.J. REV. STAT. § 30:4-92 (2001).

28. For example, MICH. STAT. ANN. § 28.1540(7a) (Michie 2000);

MINN. STAT. § 241.26 (2000).

29. For example, ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 17-A, § 1330 (West

2000); N.C. GEN. STAT. § 148-32.1 (2000).

30. People v. Frye, 21 Cal. App. 4th 1483, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 52

(3rd Dist. 1994). See also People v. Gentry, 28 Cal. App. 4th

1374, 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 37 (1st Dist. 1994). (In making restitution

determination, court may consider defendant’s future prison

wages in their entirety, as well as possibility of employment on

release from prison; defendant’s conclusory statement that a bad

back precluded him from prison work was insufficient to show

that the defendant could not secure prison employment.)

31. LA. REV. STAT. § 15:840.2 (2000).

About This Series

OVC Legal Series bulletins are designed to inform victim advocates

and victim service providers about various legal issues relating to

crime victims.The series is not meant to provide an exhaustive

legal analysis of the topics presented; rather, it provides a digest of

issues for professionals who work with victims of crime.

Each bulletin summarizes—

■ Existing legislation.

■ Important court decisions in cases where courts have 

addressed the issues.

■ Current trends or “hot topics” relating to each legal 

issue.
42. For example, COLO. REV. STAT. § 16-18.5-103 (2000); R.I. GEN.

LAWS § 12-28-5.1 (2001).

43. For example, HAW. REV. STAT. § 706-647 (2000). In Maryland,

orders from the Circuit Court (felony crimes) are automatically

entered as civil judgments, whereas those entered in District

Court (misdemeanors) are entered on the victim’s request. MD.

ANN. CODE art. 27, § 807 (2001).

44. KAN. STAT. ANN. § 60-4303 (2000).

45. For example, COLO. REV. STAT. § 16-18.5-103 (2000); S.C.

CODE ANN. § 17-25-323 (Law. Co-op. 2000); UTAH CODE ANN.

§§ 76-3-201, 77-18-6 (2000).

46. For example, DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4101 (2000); GA. CODE

ANN. § 42-8-34.2 (2000). 

47. “How To Enforce Your Restitution Order as a Civil

Judgment,” California Victim Compensation and Government

Claims Board, formerly the California State Board of Control,

www.boc.cahwnet.gov/RRCD_Pubs/Civil.pdf.

NCJ 189193

The OVC Legal Series bulletins were created by the National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC) under grant number 1999–VF–GX–K007 awarded

by the Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this bulletin are those of the author/NCVC and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Office for Victims of Crime is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of

Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

32. People v. Clark, 268 Ill. App. 3d 810, 206 Ill. Dec. 585, 645

N.E.2d 590 (4th Dist.), appeal denied, 161 Ill. 2d 531, 208 Ill.

Dec. 363, 649 N.E.2d 419 (1995).

33. People v. Lawson, 69 Cal. App. 4th 29, 35, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d

283 (1st App. Dist., Div. 3, 1999).

34. ARK. STAT. ANN. § 5-4-303 (2001).

35. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-902 (2000).

36. KY. REV. STAT. § 439.563 (2001).

37. Fee added to amounts owed by defendant: ALA. CODE

§ 12-17-225.4 (2001); IOWA CODE § 602.8107 (2001); 42 PA. CONS.

STAT. § 9730.1 (2000). Fee paid out of the amount collected: VA.

CODE § 19.2-349 (2000).

38. ALA. CODE § 12-17-225.4 (2001).

39. ALA. CODE §§ 12-17-225 to -225.9 (2001).

40. KAN. STAT. ANN. § 75-719 (2000).

41. CAL. PENAL CODE § 3000.05 (Deering 2001); IOWA CODE

§ 602.8107 (2001); VA. CODE § 19.2-349 (2000).