FEDERAL COURTS

Differences Exist In

Ordering Fines and

Restitution

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Senate

Committee on the Judiciary, and the

Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime,

House Committee on the Judiciary

May 1999

GAO/GGD-99-70

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-279743

Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

GAO

May 6, 1999

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Bill McCollum

Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

As you requested, this report discusses federal offenders who were

ordered to pay criminal fines and victim restitution. The objectives of this

report are to (1) identify the percentage of offenders who were ordered to

pay fines or restitution in fiscal year 1997 and those who were not, (2)

identify differences across judicial circuits and districts in the percent of

offenders who were ordered to pay fines or restitution and those who were

not, and (3) provide officials’ opinions about possible reasons for those

differences. Based on discussions with your staff, we also documented

changes in the rate at which offenders were ordered to pay restitution

before and after the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) (title II of

P.L. 104-132) was enacted April 24, 1996. This is the second of two reports

concerning victim restitution and criminal fines based on your request. Our

first report1

 concerned how offenders are required to make payments on

fines and restitution that have already been ordered, including the

guidelines available for determining payment schedules and how payment

schedules were established.

Individuals convicted of a federal crime can be ordered by the court to pay

a fine or restitution at sentencing. Criminal fines, which are punitive, are to

be paid in most cases to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Crime Victims

Fund. United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) Guidelines provide

guidance on the minimum and maximum fine amounts to be imposed by

the courts based on the offense. In establishing the USSC, Congress

sought, as one objective, uniformity in sentencing by narrowing the wide

disparity in sentences imposed for similar criminal offenses committed by

similar offenders. Fines may be waived if the offender establishes that he

or she is unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay a fine. MVRA

reformed restitution law and now requires the court to order full

restitution in certain cases to each victim in the full amount of each

 

1

 Fines and Restitution: Improvement Needed in How Offenders’ Payment Schedules Are Determined

(GAO/GGD-98-89; June 29, 1998).
B-279743

Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

victim’s losses, without regard to the offender’s economic situation.

Previously, as with fines, the court could waive restitution, in most cases,

based on the offender’s inability to pay.

While many factors influenced whether an offender was ordered to pay a

fine or restitution, the judicial circuit or district where the offender was

sentenced was a major factor during fiscal year 1997. The large statistical

variation among judicial circuits and districts raises a question, on a broad

level, about whether the objective of uniformity in the imposition of fines

and restitution is being met.

Most of the approximately 48,000 federal offenders sentenced under USSC

Guidelines in fiscal year 1997 were not ordered by the courts to pay a fine

or restitution. About 19 percent were fined by the courts and about 20

percent were ordered to pay restitution. The percentage of offenders who

were ordered to pay fines or restitution varied greatly across the 12 federal

judicial circuits and 94 federal judicial districts. Across districts, for

example, the percentage of offenders who were ordered to pay fines

ranged from 1 percent to 84 percent, and the percentage of the offenders

who were ordered to pay restitution ranged from 3 percent to 49 percent.

The likelihood of an offender being ordered to pay fines or restitution

could have been three times or more greater in one federal judicial district

than in an adjacent district.

An important factor in determining whether an offender was ordered to

pay a fine or restitution was the type of offense committed. While 6

percent of offenders sentenced for immigration offenses were ordered to

pay a fine, almost one-third of property offenders were ordered to pay.

Similarly, while 1 percent of drug offenders were ordered to pay

restitution, almost two-thirds of fraud offenders were ordered to pay.

Besides the type of offense committed, other factors, based on our

statistical analyses, that were associated with whether an offender was

ordered to pay included factors such as sex, race, education, citizenship,

length of sentence, and type of sentence imposed, such as prison,

probation, or an alternative. However, even after controlling for all of

these factors for four specific types of offenses in our multivariate

statistical analyses, the judicial circuit or district in which the offender was

sentenced continued to be a major factor in determining whether an

offender was ordered to pay a fine or restitution.

Some court officials and prosecutors provided explanations of why

differences existed among the districts. Some attributed the differences to

Results in Brief
B-279743

Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

the nature and type of offenses committed or types of offenders sentenced

in the districts. Some officials believed that the culture in the judicial

district among the prosecutors and court officials contributed to whether

offenders were fined or ordered to pay restitution. The culture included

how prosecutors and court officials worked together to identify victims

and their losses, among other factors.

Since the imposition of restitution for certain offenses became mandatory

with the passage of MVRA, the percentage of offenders, overall, who were

ordered to pay restitution during fiscal year 1997 actually declined from 26

percent of offenders sentenced for crimes committed before April 24, 1996,

to 12 percent of offenders sentenced for crimes committed on or after

April 24, 1996, when MVRA became effective. The differences in the

likelihood of offenders being ordered to pay restitution for crimes

committed before and after MVRA became effective varied for specific

types of offenses; for example, the percentage of offenders ordered to pay

restitution increased for robbery offenses but decreased for larceny and

fraud offenses. Some court officials and prosecutors believed that it was

still too early to see the full impact of MVRA. These officials commented

that time is needed to become familiar with and implement the act. They

said that there may also be mitigating circumstances, such as the recovery

of stolen money in a robbery, to explain why restitution was not ordered in

a particular case.

Congress divided the country into 94 federal judicial districts, and in each

district there is a federal district court. The U.S. district courts are the

federal trial courts—the places where cases are tried, witnesses testify,

and juries serve. Congress placed each of the 94 districts in one of 12

regional circuits, and each circuit has a court of appeals. If a trial is lost in

district court, the case can be appealed, and the court of appeals can

review the case to see if the district judge applied the law correctly. Figure

1 depicts a map of the United States that shows the geographical

boundaries of the 94 district courts and the 12 regional circuit courts

(including 11 numbered circuits and the District of Columbia Circuit.)

There is also a Federal Circuit whose court of appeals is based in

Washington, D.C., but hears certain types of cases from all over the

country. The Court of Claims is the trial court from which the appeal arises

for the Federal Circuit.

Background
B-279743

Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts data.

Under the law, offenders in federal court may be ordered to pay a fine or

restitution at sentencing. The court is to impose a fine in all cases, except

where the defendant establishes that he or she is unable to pay and is not

Figure1: Geographical Boundaries of Twelve Regional Circuit Courts Including the District of Columbia and Ninety Four State

District Courts
B-279743

Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

likely to become able to pay any fine, according to guidelines issued by the

USSC,2

 which interpret federal law.

In establishing the USSC, Congress sought, as one objective, uniformity in

sentencing by narrowing the wide disparity in sentences imposed for

similar criminal offenses committed by similar offenders. USSC’s

Guidelines state that the amount of the fine should always be sufficient to

ensure that the fine, taken together with other sanctions imposed, is

punitive. Except where the fine is established by specific statute, the fine

should be within a range established by the USSC. The range is based on

the offense level. The base offense level, which is a numerical score, is

established in the Guidelines for each type of crime. Adjustments can be

made to the base offense level for such things as offense characteristics,

offender’s role, the victim, obstruction of justice, and acceptance of

responsibility. For example, the Guideline range for fines for offense level

8 is $1,000 to $10,000; for offense level 38 the guideline range for fines is

from $25,000 to $250,000. There is also a criminal history category that

helps the judge determine whether an offender should be sentenced higher

or lower within the Guideline range. According to the USSC Guidelines, in

determining the amount of the fine, the court should consider, among

other factors, the need for the combined sentence to (1) reflect the

seriousness of the offense (including the harm or loss to the victim and the

gain to the defendant), (2) promote respect for the law, (3) provide just

punishment, and (4) afford adequate deterrence.

According to the USSC Guidelines, the court should also consider any

evidence presented on the offender’s ability to pay a fine in light of the

offender’s earning capacity and financial resources, as well as the burden

that the fine places on the offender and his or her dependants, any

restitution or civil obligations the offender is required to make, other

consequences of conviction such as civil obligations, whether the offender

has been previously fined for a similar offense, and any other pertinent

equitable considerations. The court may waive the fine or impose a lesser

fine if it has been established that the offender is not able and is not likely

to become able to pay all or part of the fine, even with the use of a

reasonable installment schedule. The court may also waive the fine or

impose a lesser fine if the imposition of a fine would unduly burden the

defendant’s dependents.

 

2

 USSC was created by Congress in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, P.L. 98-473. The act required

USSC to develop a system of sentencing guidelines.
B-279743

Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Since passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473), most fines

have been used to support DOJ’s Crime Victims Fund. The fund provides,

among other things, grants for victim assistance programs and

compensation to victims.

Restitution is to be paid to the victim of the crime and should reflect actual

losses suffered as a result of the crime. However, mandatory restitution as

part of a federal criminal sentence is a relatively recent idea. Initially, the

courts did not recognize restitution as a separate term of a criminal

sentence. This changed with the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982

(P.L. 97-291), which was the first statute that broadly addressed victim

restitution in general. Before enactment, imposition of an order of

restitution was completely within the discretion of the court and could

only be ordered as a condition of probation. Later, in 1992, with the

enactment of the Child Support Recovery Act (P.L. 102-521), Congress

introduced the idea of “mandatory” restitution into federal law. The act

mandated that courts impose restitution on defendants convicted of willful

failure to pay past due child support. In the Violence Against Women Act

of 1994 (title IV of P.L. 103-322), Congress identified certain other types of

crimes subject to mandatory restitution, such as sexual abuse, sexual

exploitation and other abuse of children, domestic violence, and

telemarketing.

On April 24, 1996, MVRA was enacted as title II of the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-132), reforming restitution

and altering the way it is to be enforced. MVRA now requires the court to

order restitution for each offender who has been convicted or has pled

guilty to the following charges, without regard to the offender’s economic

situation:

• a crime of violence (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 16);

• an offense against property under title 18 of the U.S. Code, including any

offense committed by fraud or deceit; or

• an offense relating to tampering with consumer products (18 U.S.C. 1365).

According to MVRA, there must be an identifiable victim or victims who

have suffered a physical injury or monetary loss. The only other exception

to mandatory restitution is for an offense against property if the court

finds that

• the number of identifiable victims is so large that it makes paying

restitution impractical or
B-279743

Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

• determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the

victims’ losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a

degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by

the burden on the sentencing process.

Prior to MVRA, the law provided that the court could consider, in

determining whether to impose an order of restitution, the financial

resources of the offender, the financial needs of the offender and his or her

dependents, and other factors the court deemed appropriate. Under

MVRA, the court cannot waive restitution based on the offender’s

economic circumstances. However, the court can order the offender to

make nominal periodic payments if the offender’s economic circumstances

do not allow for (1) the payment of any amount of a restitution order or (2)

the payment of the full amount in the foreseeable future, under any

reasonable schedule of payments.

According to the legislative history, an intent of MVRA was to establish

one set of procedures for the issuance of restitution orders in federal

criminal cases. The history cited fiscal year 1994 USSC statistics that

showed that about 20 percent of federal criminal cases had restitution

orders. The history also cited rates for specific types of crimes, such as

about 55 percent of offenders sentenced for robbery were ordered to pay

restitution. The history cited these figures as indications that more

progress in ordering restitution remained to be made.

The objectives of this report are to (1) identify the percentage of offenders

who were ordered to pay fines or restitution in fiscal year 1997 and those

who were not, (2) identify differences across judicial circuits and districts

in the percent of offenders who were ordered to pay fines or restitution

and those who were not, and (3) provide officials’ opinions about possible

reasons for those differences. We also documented changes in the rate at

which offenders were ordered to pay restitution before and after MVRA

was enacted April 24, 1996.

 To identify the number of offenders who were ordered to pay fines or

restitution and those who were not, we used USSC data for fiscal year

1997. USSC maintains a computerized data collection system, which forms

the basis for its clearinghouse of federal sentencing information. USSC

requests that each probation office in each judicial district submit the

following documents on every defendant sentenced under the guidelines:

• indictments,

• presentence report,

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology
B-279743

Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

• report on the sentencing hearing,

• written plea agreement, and

• judgment of conviction.

Data from these documents are extracted and coded for input into USSC’s

databases. We did not independently verify the accuracy of the USSC data.

However, USSC takes several steps to insure the reliability and

completeness of the data system.

To identify the differences across the judicial circuits and districts in the

percentage of offenders who are ordered to pay fines or restitution and

those who are not, we used USSC’s data for fiscal year 1997 to identify the

percentage of offenders who received a fine or restitution by court district.

Because we found that type of offense was strongly related to whether

fines or restitution was ordered, we also analyzed the differences among

judicial circuits and districts in fines and restitution ordered by selected

types of offenses. To determine the percentage of offenders ordered to pay

fines, we selected larceny, fraud, and drug trafficking crimes because of

the large number of offenders sentenced under USSC guidelines in federal

courts for these crimes. To determine the percentage of offenders ordered

to pay restitution, we selected robbery, larceny, and fraud crimes because

(1) there were a large number of offenders sentenced in federal courts and

(2) these crimes involve an act upon another person, so we believed there

was the reasonable expectation of an identifiable victim.

To identify possible reasons for sentencing differences among judicial

circuits and districts, we analyzed the overall percent of fines and

restitution ordered by circuits and districts and for the specific types of

crimes we chose. In performing our analysis, we first considered all federal

offenders and how the likelihood of being ordered to pay fines or

restitution was affected by

• selected demographic characteristics of the offenders (sex, race,

citizenship, education, and number of dependents);

• the type of offense they committed (whether it involved property, drugs,

firearms, fraud, immigration, a violent or other offense);

• characteristics of the offender’s sentence (whether it occurred before or

after MVRA was enacted, whether the offender was sentenced to prison,

probation, or an alternative sentence imposed, and whether there was

more than a single count of conviction); and

• the circuit and district in which the sentencing occurred.
B-279743

Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

We found that a number of factors were strongly associated with whether

fines or restitution were ordered and that the type of offense was one of

the most important. Therefore, we conducted a series of multivariate

statistical analyses for specific types of offenses to estimate the effects of

the other factors on fine and restitution orders, independent of one

another. We used logistic regression techniques to estimate,

simultaneously, the effects of these different factors on the odds of an

offender being ordered to pay restitution among larceny, robbery, and

fraud offenses and then to estimate the effects of these factors on the odds

of an offender being ordered to pay fines among larceny, drug trafficking,

and fraud offenses. 3 In one series of regression models, we employed

circuit as one of our independent variables to determine how much

variation across circuits in the odds on ordering fines and restitution

persisted for these types of offenders after other factors were controlled.

In a second series of regressions, we restricted our attention to offenders

in the 10 largest districts, based on the number of offenders sentenced

during fiscal year 1997 for each of the 4 types of offenses selected, to get a

sense of the extent of variation across districts. (It was not always the

same 10 districts for each type of crime.) There were not sufficient

numbers of offenders ordered to pay fines for robbery offenses or

restitution for drug trafficking offenses in the districts for us, in our

opinion, to reliably perform the multivariate statistical analyses in those

cases. We also believed it would be too time consuming to perform the

multivariate statistical analyses for offenders sentenced for all types of

federal offenses separately in all 94 districts.

We interviewed officials from the DOJ’s Executive Office of the U.S.

Attorneys, the Administrative Offices of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), USSC,

and selected Federal District Courts to obtain their opinions of why the

differences existed in the percentage of offenders ordered to pay fines and

 

3

 The statistical terms probability, odds, and odds ratio are used in this report. Probability, expressed

as a proportion or percentage, is the ratio of the number of outcomes that will produce a specific event

to the total number of possible outcomes. For example, the probability of an offender being ordered to

pay a fine was 0.19 (19 out of every 100 offenders, or 19 percent, were so ordered.) However,

probability is limited by the bounds of 0 and 100. For comparison purposes, odds are better than

probability because they are not restricted by these boundaries. Odds is the ratio of the probability of

an event occurring to the probability of it not occurring. For example, the odds of an offender being

ordered to pay a fine was 0.23 (19 of 100 ordered to pay divided by the 81 of 100 who were not). More

simply, odds of 0.23 means that 23 were ordered to pay a fine for every 100 who were not.

We compare odds by taking odds ratios. For example, the odds ratio is determined by dividing the odds

of an offender being ordered to pay restitution in a circuit by the odds of an offender being ordered to

pay restitution in the referent circuit. The referent circuit is the circuit in which an offender has the

lowest odds of being ordered to pay restitution before controlling for other factors that might affect

whether restitution is ordered. Odd ratios are, perhaps, most easily understood in terms of “times as

likely.” For instance, an odds ratio of 4.5 would be interpreted as “4.5 times as likely as in the referent

circuit.”
B-279743

Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

restitution and their views about the effect of mandatory victim restitution.

We limited our discussions to district courts in the largest judicial districts,

based on number of offenders sentenced for each of the four types of

offenses. We selected these districts first because they were among the

districts that met the criteria for our multivariate statistical analyses. We

then narrowed our selection to seven districts in two parts of the country

where at least one district was adjacent to another and there appeared to

be variation in the percent of offenders ordered to pay fines or restitution.

Those seven districts were the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the

District of New Jersey, the Southern District of New York, the Eastern

District of New York, the Northern District of California, the Central

District of California, and the Southern District of California. At each

district, we interviewed the Chief Judge, the U.S. Attorney, and the Chief

Probation Officer or a representative selected by that official. However, we

did not review court case files at each district. A review of court case files

would have been time consuming and might not have provided the reason

why a fine or restitution was or was not ordered in a particular case.

We did our work from August 1998 through January 1999 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested

comments from DOJ, USSC, and AOUSC. We obtained written comments

from DOJ and USSC. AOUSC provided technical comments. These

comments are summarized at the end of this letter and are contained in

appendixes III and IV. All three agencies provided technical corrections

and suggestions.

According to our analysis of USSC data, of the approximately 48,000

federal offenders sentenced in fiscal year 1997 under USSC guidelines,

about 9,000 (19 percent) were ordered to pay fines and 9,600 (20 percent)

were ordered to pay restitution. About 2 percent were ordered to pay both

fines and restitution. The total amount of fines and restitution ordered was

over $1.6 billion dollars.

The percent of federal offenders sentenced that were ordered to pay fines

and restitution varied substantially across the 12 federal circuits. Figure 2

shows the percent of offenders ordered to pay fines ranged from 7 percent

in the D.C. Circuit to 42 percent in the Seventh Circuit, which includes

Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Figure 3 shows the percent of offenders

who were ordered to pay restitution ranged from 15 percent in the Fifth

Circuit, which includes Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, to 32 percent in

the Seventh Circuit. Table I.2 in appendix I shows the percent of offenders

ordered to pay fines or restitution, by judicial circuit.

Numbers and Percent

of Federal Offenders

Ordered to Pay Fines

or Restitution

Percent of Federal

Offenders Ordered to

Pay Fines or

Restitution by Judicial

Circuit or District
B-279743

Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Figure2: Percent of Offenders Ordered

to Pay Fines, by Circuit
B-279743

Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

The 94 federal judicial districts also differed greatly in the percent of

offenders ordered to pay fines, ranging from a low of 1 percent of the

offenders sentenced in the Eastern District of Oklahoma to a high of 84

percent in the Southern District of Illinois. The rate at which offenders

were ordered to pay restitution also varied from 3 percent in the Southern

District of California to 49 percent in the Western District of Wisconsin.

The rate at which offenders were ordered to pay fines or restitution might

be three times or more greater in one district than in an adjacent district.

According to court officials, there should be less variation in the types of

offenses committed among adjacent districts than there might be among

districts located in different parts of the country. For example, while 45

percent of the offenders in the district of New Jersey were ordered to pay

fines, 12 percent of the offenders in the Eastern District of New York,

which includes Staten Island and Long Island, were ordered to pay.

Similarly, while 22 percent of the offenders in the District of New Jersey

were ordered to pay restitution, 9 percent of the offenders in the Eastern

District of New York were ordered to pay. Table I.3 in appendix 1 shows

Figure3: Percent of Offenders Ordered

to Pay Restitution, by Circuit
B-279743

Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

the variation by district in offenders ordered to pay fines or restitution for

all 94 judicial districts.

While many factors influence whether an offender was ordered to pay a

fine or restitution, the judicial circuit or district where the offender was

sentenced was a major factor. Our initial statistical analysis of all 12

judicial circuits and 94 districts showed major variation among the judicial

circuits and districts in the likelihood of an offender being ordered to pay a

fine or restitution. However, there was also a strong association between

the type of offense committed and the likelihood of an offender being

ordered to pay a fine or restitution. We then performed a multivariate

statistical analysis for offenders sentenced for four types of offenses—

robbery, larceny, fraud, and drug trafficking—and controlled for such

things, among others, as offender characteristics, type of crime committed,

length of sentence, and type of sentence imposed such as prison,

probation, or an alternative. We selected these four types of offenses

because they were well-represented in the number of offenders sentenced

in the districts. We performed our multivariate statistical analysis for the

10 largest districts in number of offenders sentenced under the Guidelines

for each of the 4 types of offenses during fiscal year 1997.

Our multivariate statistical analyses for the four types of offenses showed

that the major variation among judicial circuits and districts, although less,

persisted and the likelihood of an offender being ordered to pay fines or

restitution for the same type of offense could still be many times greater in

one judicial circuit or district than in another. We asked court officials and

prosecutors in seven districts for possible explanations of why these

differences might exist. We received some reasons related both to the

nature of the crimes and the types of offenders sentenced in particular

districts and to the culture of the courts and the prosecutor’s office in the

districts such as how well court officials and prosecutors work together to

identify victims and their losses.

Initially, we identified a number of potential reasons for the differences

between the judicial circuits and districts in the likelihood of offenders

being ordered to pay fines or restitution. Judicial circuits and districts

varied substantially in the types of offenders who were sentenced. For

example, the percentages of offenders sentenced for drug trafficking,

robbery, and fraud varied by judicial circuit and district. Judicial circuits

and districts also varied according to the demographic characteristics of

offenders who were sentenced, such as the number of women, minorities,

or noncitizens. There were also differences in the characteristics of

offenders’ sentences, such as whether they were sentenced to prison or

Differences Among the

Judicial Circuits and

Districts in Ordering

Fines or Restitution
B-279743

Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

probation and the length of the sentence or amount of time the offender

would be in custody.

Our preliminary analysis showed that many of these characteristics

affected whether offenders were ordered to pay fines or restitution. For

example, the type of offense had a very pronounced effect. While 6 percent

of immigration offenders were ordered to pay a fine, almost one-third of

property offenders were likewise ordered. Similarly, while 1 percent of

drug trafficking offenders were ordered to pay restitution, almost twothirds of fraud offenders were so ordered. Similar disparities in the

likelihood of an offender being ordered to pay fines or restitution existed

among those sentenced for such offenses as drug trafficking, fraud, and

violence. Figures 4 and 5 show the percentage of offenders who were

ordered to pay fines or restitution, by type of offense.

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Figure4: Percentages of Offenders

Ordered to Pay Fines in Fiscal Year

1997, by Type of Crime
B-279743

Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Other factors related to the offender and the type of sentence also

produced variations in the likelihood of an offender being ordered to pay a

fine or restitution in our initial statistical analysis for all 12 judicial circuits

and 94 judicial districts. For example, overall, females were more likely

than males to be ordered to pay restitution and blacks less likely than

whites. Also, overall, citizens were six times more likely to have restitution

orders than noncitizens. Similar race differences existed in the likelihood

of offenders being ordered to pay fines. Additionally, offenders who were

sentenced to probation were much more likely to be ordered to pay a fine

or restitution than those sent to prison. Better-educated offenders also

were more likely to be ordered to pay a fine or restitution. Our comparison

for these factors is presented in detail in table I.1 of appendix 1.

Given the effect of these characteristics, we did multivariate statistical

analyses that reestimated the differences in fines and restitution across

circuits and districts. In these analyses, we controlled for those

characteristics. These analyses took into account differences in offenders’

characteristics across these judicial locations and the effects of these

characteristics on fine and restitution orders. We looked separately at fine

orders among larceny, drug, and fraud offenders and separately at

restitution orders for larceny, robbery, and fraud offenders. The statistical

Figure5: Percentages of Offenders

Ordered to Pay Restitution in Fiscal

Year 1997, by Type of Crime
B-279743

Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

analyses are presented in full in appendix I. Figures 6 through 11 show the

differences among the 10 largest districts in number of offenders

sentenced during fiscal year 1997 for fraud, larceny, robbery, and drug

trafficking.

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Figure6: Percentage of Offenders

Sentenced to Pay Fines for Larceny

Offenses in Selected Districts

Figure7: Percentage of Offenders

Sentenced to Pay Restitution for

Larceny Offenses in Selected Districts
B-279743

Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Figure8: Percentage of Offenders

Sentenced to Pay Fines for Fraud

Offenses in Selected Districts

Figure9: Percentage of Offenders

Sentenced to Pay Restitution for Fraud

Offenses in Selected Districts
B-279743

Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Figure10: Percentage of Offenders

Sentenced to Pay Fines for Drug

Offenses in Selected Districts

Figure11: Percentage of Offenders

Sentenced to Pay Restitution for

Robbery Offenses in Selected Districts
B-279743

Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Even after controlling for the characteristics mentioned above, we found

that pronounced differences existed across judicial circuits and districts

for fine and restitution orders. For example, we found that the likelihood

of being ordered to pay restitution in some districts among offenders

convicted of robbery was five or more times as high as in other districts.

Drug trafficking offenders were 10 or more times as likely to be fined in

some districts as in others. We found similar results for the other types of

offenders and for both fines and restitution, with offenders in some

districts many more times as likely to be ordered to pay as in others.

Court officials and prosecutors we interviewed offered several possible

explanations why restitution might not have been ordered in all cases.

Some officials noted that there is rarely an identifiable victim in drug

offenses, making an order to pay restitution unlikely.4

 These officials also

identified bank robbers as being among the poorest of offenders who

usually lack the ability to pay a fine, especially if restitution to the bank is

ordered. Offenders who commit immigration offenses most likely are

aliens who can be deported after being sentenced and serving any time

that may be ordered; collection of a fine might be unlikely after

deportation.

While these explanations offered some reasons why fines or restitution

might not be ordered in all cases, they do not explain why—when

controlling for offender characteristics, length of sentence, and type of

sentence such as probation, prison, or an alternative—offenders have a far

greater likelihood of being ordered to pay a fine or restitution for the same

type of offense in one district than in another. We asked court officials and

prosecutors in seven of these districts what some possible explanations

might be for differences between the districts. These 7 districts were

among the 10 largest in number of offenders sentenced for each of the 4

types of offenses. The 10 largest districts were not always the same 10

districts for each of the 4 types of offenses.

While some of these officials acknowledged that they did not know the

reasons, other officials offered an explanation that the culture of the court

and prosecutor’s office within a district could be a factor. The culture

included factors such as how the court views an offender’s ability to pay

fines, how well the civil and criminal attorneys work together in the

prosecutor’s office, or how well court officials and prosecutors cooperate

 

-

4

 MVRA expanded discretionary restitution by creating community restitution for victimless drug

offenses (18 U.S.C. 3663c) allowing for the possibility of restitution, even when an identifiable victim is

not involved. This provision was effective for offenses on or after November 1, 1997, the date the

revised USSC Sentencing Guidelines went into effect.
B-279743

Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

with each other in identifying victims and the amount of loss for

restitution.

Some officials who had worked in more than one district explained that

the culture was very different among the districts in which they had

worked. These officials explained that, when trying cases, the diligence

with which prosecutors identified victims and their losses was greater in

one district than in the other. In one district, officials said there was a

greater reluctance to pursue restitution as part of the sentence because

there was a strong belief among prosecutors that the offenders would not,

in most cases, be able to pay it; whereas in another district, every

opportunity was considered by the prosecutors in the prospect of an

offender paying a fine or restitution as part of the sentence. Some criminal

prosecutors noted that in the district to which they had transferred, civil

attorneys sat in the same area as criminal prosecutors; and the civil

attorneys, who are more focused on monetary issues, assisted criminal

prosecutors in developing the financial aspects, such as restitution, in

criminal cases.

MVRA requires the court to order full restitution in certain cases, including

most federal offenses involving a crime of violence or a crime against

property. Prior to MVRA, the court could waive restitution, in most cases,

based on the offender’s ability to pay. MVRA’s amendments are to be, to

the extent constitutionally permissible, effective for sentencing

proceedings in cases in which the defendant is convicted on or after the

date of enactment, which was April 24, 1996. However, because of an ex

post facto issue, DOJ has issued guidelines that any provisions of MVRA

for determining whether to impose restitution or the amount of restitution

would be applied only prospectively to offenses committed on or after

April 24, 1996. In general, the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution

has been interpreted to prohibit the application of a law that increases the

primary penalty for conduct after its commission.

Our statistical analysis showed that the percentage of offenders ordered to

pay restitution, overall, declined after MVRA went into effect, while the

results of the multivariate statistical analysis for the four types of offenses

were mixed on whether the percentage of offenders changed after MVRA

became effective. Overall, for offenders sentenced during fiscal year 1997,

26 percent of offenders who were sentenced under the USSC Guidelines

for crimes committed before MVRA went into effect were ordered to pay

restitution, compared with 12 percent who were sentenced for crimes

The Effect of MVRA on

Restitution Orders
B-279743

Page 21 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

committed after MVRA went into effect5 (See table I.1 in app. I.) Our

multivariate statistical analyses showed inconsistent results across types

of offenses. (See table I.5 in app. I.) For all districts, offenders who

committed fraud offenses after MVRA’s effective date were about 80

percent as likely to be ordered to pay restitution as those who committed

offenses before restitution became mandatory. Larceny offenders who

were sentenced for crimes committed after MVRA went into effect were

about half as likely to be ordered to pay restitution as those sentenced for

crimes committed before MVRA went into effect. Robbers who were

sentenced for crimes committed after MVRA went into effect were about

one-third more likely to be ordered to pay restitution than robbers

sentenced for crimes committed before MVRA went into effect.

In discussing our results, some court officials and prosecutors said that it

was still too early to assess the full impact of MVRA. Some officials

commented that time is needed to become familiar with and implement

MVRA, especially on the part of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who

prosecute cases covered by MVRA. Prosecutors in one district

acknowledged that they were not yet fully implementing the law. Most

prosecutors, however, commented that they did not remove an offender’s

responsibility for restitution when drafting plea agreements.6

 The judges

we interviewed, in general, commented that they were implementing the

law and did not have constitutional questions with MVRA.

Although we selected larceny, fraud, and robbery because of the likelihood

of a victim being due restitution, a substantial percentage of offenders—

about one- to two-thirds of offenders sentenced—were still not ordered to

pay restitution, even if their crimes were committed after MVRA was

passed. Court officials and prosecutors provided some reasons why

restitution might not have been ordered in these cases. In some cases,

stolen money or assets might have been recovered. In other cases, an

offender might have paid the restitution prior to sentencing, removing the

need for a restitution order. Another reason cited by officials was that the

offense might have been an attempted fraud or attempted robbery, and the

offender was arrested prior to obtaining any money from the victim. Some

officials also cited an exception to MVRA in ordering mandatory

restitution, such as in cases where the number of victims is so large that it

 

5

 For our analysis, for a crime to be considered subject to MVRA, it had to be identified in the database

as having been committed on or after April 24, 1996. Overall, 55 percent of offenders in our database

committed crimes after MVRA became effective.

6

 This is consistent with MVRA because the mandatory restitution provisions of the act apply to plea

agreements.
B-279743

Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

makes paying restitution impracticable. One district had a number of

telemarketing schemes in which large numbers of victims were defrauded

of small amounts. It was not practical to identify all victims and obtain

restitution for them.

In response to our questions, Chief Probation Officers in the Northern

District of California, which includes San Francisco, and the Central

District of California, which includes Los Angeles, provided information

from local databases on bank robbery cases where restitution had not

been ordered. These databases were different from the USSC database,

and the information covered different time periods. Information provided

by the Chief Probation Officer in the Northern District of California

showed that restitution was ordered in all bank robbery cases where there

was monetary loss. However, restitution was not ordered in bank robbery

cases where there was no loss or where the stolen money was recovered.

In the Central District of California, the primary reason given when

restitution had not been ordered as part of the sentence was, as in the

Northern District, that there was no loss or that the stolen money had been

recovered. We noted that, in some cases, probation officers recommended

restitution, which would have been based on an actual loss, as part of the

sentence; but the judge did not follow the recommendation and did not

order restitution as part of the sentence. In other cases, the probation

officer did not recommend restitution, and the judge did not order it.

According to the Chief Probation Officer, the length of the sentences—

over 80 years in prison in 2 of the cases—might have been a factor

considered by the probation officer in not recommending to the judge that

restitution be part of the sentence.

Although offender characteristics, type of offense, and the nature of the

sentence all played a role, the judicial circuit or district where an offender

was sentenced was a major factor in determining the likelihood of an

offender being ordered to pay a fine or restitution during fiscal year 1997.

This major variation among judicial circuits and districts occurred overall

for all federal offenders sentenced under sentencing guidelines during that

year; and, although occurring less, this variation persisted when we

performed multivariate statistical analysis for federal offenders sentenced

under sentencing guidelines for four types of offenses. The large statistical

variation among circuits and districts raises a question, on a broad level,

about whether the goal of uniformity in the imposition of fines and

restitution is being met. Offenders could be much more likely in some

jurisdictions than in others to be ordered to pay a fine or restitution for the

same type of crime.

Conclusions
B-279743

Page 23 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Statistics for fiscal year 1997 are mixed on whether offenders were more

likely to be ordered to pay restitution after MVRA, which was intended to

eliminate much of the discretion judges previously had in waiving

restitution for certain types of crime. Substantial percentages of offenders

sentenced for crimes such as fraud, robbery, and larceny—which, by their

nature, indicate a need for restitution to a victim—are not being sentenced

to pay restitution by the courts. However, it may be too early to see the full

impact of the results of the legislation; and there also may be mitigating

circumstances, such as recovery of stolen money, in explaining why

restitution was not ordered in a particular case.

We requested comments from DOJ, USSC, and AOUSC. DOJ and USSC

provided written comments on a draft of this report (see apps. III and IV).

AOUSC provided technical comments. All three agencies provided

technical corrections and suggestions.

DOJ generally agreed with the findings in the draft and advised us of the

steps that have been taken to help ensure that MVRA is properly

implemented. These steps include memoranda providing guidance on

MVRA and additional training efforts. DOJ’s comments recognize that the

imposition of restitution is critical to their law enforcement efforts and

that, while a number of steps have been taken, more remains to be done to

increase the number of cases in which restitution is imposed.

USSC raised several issues. First, USSC noted that training efforts are

planned or under way within the offices of the federal courts to provide

guidance and training on the correct application of MVRA. Second, USSC

also raised a general concern that the scope and conclusions of the report

rely perhaps too heavily on use of the 1997 data. Although USSC

acknowledges that 1997 data are the only data currently available to study

MVRA, they believe that replicating the study using future data might

mitigate the idiosyncrasies in any given year’s caseload. While the scope

suggested by USSC might be beneficial, USSC also does not provide any

evidence that expanding the scope would change our overall conclusion

that the judicial district or circuit where an offender was sentenced was a

major factor in determining the likelihood of an offender being ordered to

pay a fine or restitution. We incorporated other suggestions by USSC as

appropriate.

We have incorporated technical comments and suggestions from the three

agencies in the final report, as appropriate.

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation
B-279743

Page 24 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

We are sending copies of this report to Patrick J. Leahy, the Ranking

Minority Member of your committee, and Robert C. Scott, the Ranking

Minority Member of your subcommittee; Charles E. Grassley, the

Chairman, and Robert G. Torricelli, the Ranking Minority Member, of the

Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, Senate

Committee on the Judiciary; Henry J. Hyde, the Chairman, and John

Conyers, Jr., the Ranking Minority Member, of the House Committee on

the Judiciary; Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director, AOUSC; Timothy B.

McGrath, Interim Staff Director, U.S. Sentencing Commission; the

Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General; and other interested parties.

Copies will be made available to others upon request.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. If you have any

questions about this report, please call me on (202) 512-8777.

Richard M. Stana

Associate Director

Administration of Justice Issues
Page 25 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts
Page 26 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Contents

1 Letter

Appendix I 30

Statistical Analysis of

Offenders Ordered to

Pay Fines and

Restitution, Fiscal

Year 1997

Appendix II 47

Offenders Ordered to

Pay Fines or

Restitution for Each

Circuit and District,

Fiscal Year 1997

Appendix III 56

Comments From the

United States

Sentencing

Commission

Appendix IV 60

Comments From the

Department of Justice

Appendix V 62

Major Contributors to

This Report
Contents

Page 27 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Table I.1: Percentages of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines

or Restitution in Fiscal Year 1997, by Various

Characteristics

31

Table I.2: Percentages of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines

or Restitution in Fiscal Year 1997, by Judicial Circuit

32

Table I.3: Percentages of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines

or Restitution in Fiscal Year 1997, by Judicial District

33

Table I.4: Odds Ratios Indicating the Effects of Judicial

Circuit and Other Factors on Fine Orders

38

Table I.5: Odds Ratios Indicating the Effects of Judicial

Circuit and Other Factors on Restitution Orders

40

Table I.6: Odds Ratios Indicating the Effects of Judicial

Districts and Other Factors on Fine and Restitution

Orders for Larceny Offenders

41

Table I.7: Odds Ratios Indicating the Effects of Judicial

Districts and Other Factors on Fine and Restitution

Orders for Fraud Offenders

42

Table I.8: Odds Ratios Indicating the Effects of Judicial

Districts and Other Factors on Fine Orders for Drug

Offenders

43

Table I.9: Odds Ratios Indicating the Effects of Judicial

Districts and Other Factors on Restitution Orders for

Robbery Offenders

44

Table I.10: Odds Ratios Indicating the Effects of Judicial

Circuit and Other Factors on Restitution Orders in

Fiscal Year 1997, for Offenders Whose Offenses

Occurred Before and After MVRA Went into Effect

45

Table II.1: Number of Larceny Offenders Ordered to Pay

Fines or Restitution by Circuit and Corresponding

Districts in Fiscal Year 1997

47

Table II.2: Number of Robbery Offenders Ordered to Pay

Fines or Restitution by Circuit and Corresponding

Districts in Fiscal Year 1997

49

Table II.3: Number of Drug Offenders Ordered to Pay

Fines or Restitution by Circuit and Corresponding

Districts in Fiscal Year 1997

51

Table II.4: Number of Fraud Offenders Ordered to Pay

Fines or Restitution by Circuit and Corresponding

Districts in Fiscal Year 1997

53

Tables
Contents

Page 28 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Figure1: Geographical Boundaries of Twelve Regional

Circuit Courts Including the District of Columbia and

Ninety Four State District Courts

4

Figure2: Percent of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines, by

Circuit

11

Figure3: Percent of Offenders Ordered to Pay

Restitution, by Circuit

12

Figure4: Percentages of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines

in Fiscal Year 1997, by Type of Crime

14

Figure5: Percentages of Offenders Ordered to Pay

Restitution in Fiscal Year 1997, by Type of Crime

15

Figure6: Percentage of Offenders Sentenced to Pay Fines

for Larceny Offenses in Selected Districts

16

Figure7: Percentage of Offenders Sentenced to Pay

Restitution for Larceny Offenses in Selected Districts

16

Figure8: Percentage of Offenders Sentenced to Pay Fines

for Fraud Offenses in Selected Districts

17

Figure9: Percentage of Offenders Sentenced to Pay

Restitution for Fraud Offenses in Selected Districts

17

Figure10: Percentage of Offenders Sentenced to Pay

Fines for Drug Offenses in Selected Districts

18

Figure11: Percentage of Offenders Sentenced to Pay

Restitution for Robbery Offenses in Selected Districts

18

Figures

Abbreviations

AOUSC Administrative Office of the United States Courts

DOJ Department of Justice

MVRA Mandatory Victims Restitution Act

USSC United States Sentencing Commission
Page 29 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to

Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 30 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

To investigate factors affecting the likelihood of convicted federal

offenders being ordered to pay fines or restitution as part of their

sentence, we used data provided by the United States Sentencing

Commission (USSC) for fiscal year 1997. For our review, we considered

(1) selected demographic characteristics of the offenders (i.e., sex, race,

citizenship, education, and number of dependents); (2) the type of offense

they committed (i.e., whether it involved a property, drug, firearms, fraud,

immigration, violent, or other offense); and (3) other characteristics of

their offense (i.e., whether it occurred before or after the Mandatory

Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) went into effect) and sentencing (i.e.,

whether and for how long they were sentenced to prison or probation,

whether there was an alternative sentence imposed, and whether there

was more than a single count of conviction). We also considered the

circuit or district in which the sentencing occurred.

Over 48,000 federal offenders were sentenced under USSC Guidelines in

fiscal year 1997. About 19 percent of these offenders were ordered to pay

fines, and about 20 percent were ordered to pay restitution. Few offenders

were ordered to pay both restitution and a fine (about 2 percent). Table I.1

provides descriptive information on the percentages of offenders ordered

to pay fines and restitution across categories of offenders, offense

characteristics, and other components of their sentences. Regarding

offender characteristics, females were more likely to be ordered to pay

restitution than males, though there was little difference between those

two groups in the percentages ordered to pay fines. Hispanics and

noncitizens--two variables that were strongly associated--were less likely

to be ordered to pay fines and restitution than other offenders. The

number of dependents, education, and having a fine waived because of

inability to pay were three proxies we used for determining offenders’

ability to pay and that were available in the USSC data. While better

educated offenders were more likely to be ordered to pay fines and

restitution, having dependents did not have much of an effect on whether

an offender was ordered to pay a fine or restitution; and having had a fine

waived because of inability to pay had little effect on whether restitution

was ordered.
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 31 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Characteristics Fines Restitution

Sex Male 19 18

Female 17 31

Race White 26 31

Black 17 23

Hispanic 9 4

Other 25 34

Citizenship Citizen 21 25

Noncitizen 12 4

Education Less than high school 13 11

High school graduate 20 23

Some college 22 32

College graduate 33 36

Number of

dependents

None 20 22

One or more 18 18

Fine waived Yes N/A 18

No N/A 20

Offense type Violent 12 50

Property 32 50

Drug 17 1

Firearms 17 9

Fraud 17 63

Immigration 6 Less than 1

Other 35 24

Date of commission Pre-MVRA 20 26

Post-MVRA 16 12

Counts of conviction One 18 17

Two or more 19 30

Type of sentence Prison 14 17

Probation 36 30

Alternative sentence No 18 17

Yes 25 41

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

As noted in the letter section of this report, when we considered the

various factors that affected the likelihood of whether the offender was

ordered to pay fines or restitution, one of the most important was the type

of offense committed. While 6 percent of immigration offenders were

Table I.1: Percentages of Offenders

Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution in

Fiscal Year 1997, by Various

Characteristics
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 32 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

ordered to pay a fine, fines were ordered for 12 percent of violent

offenders; 17 percent of drug, firearm, and fraud offenders; and 32 percent

of property offenders. Similarly, while less than 1 percent of drug or

immigration offenders were ordered to pay restitution, 50 percent of the

violent and property offenders, and 63 percent of the fraud offenders, were

ordered to pay restitution.1 Offenders who committed offenses after

MVRA went into effect were less likely, overall, to be ordered to pay fines

or restitution than offenders who committed offenses prior to MVRA.

Offenders with multiple counts of conviction were more likely than those

with a single count of conviction to be ordered to pay restitution; and

those who received probation rather than prison sentences, and who

received an alternative sentence instead of or in addition to their prison or

probation sentence were more likely to be ordered to pay fines or

restitution.

The circuit where an offender was sentenced was strongly associated with

whether the sentence included an order to pay a fine or restitution. Tables

I.2 and I.3 show the percentages of offenders ordered to pay fines or

restitution across the 12 circuits and 94 judicial districts. Table I.2 shows

that the percentages of offenders ordered to pay fines ranged from 7

percent to 42 percent, while the percentages of offenders ordered to pay

restitution across the 12 circuits ranged from 15 percent to 32 percent.

Circuit Fines Restitution

District of Columbia 7 25

First 14 16

Second 16 16

Third 35 25

Fourth 23 20

Fifth 19 15

Sixth 23 30

Seventh 42 32

Eighth 15 24

Ninth 11 16

Tenth 17 20

Eleventh 18 21

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Table I.3 shows that across the 94 districts, the percentages of offenders

ordered to pay fines and restitution ranged from 1 percent to 84 percent,

and 3 percent to 49 percent, respectively.

 1

 In fiscal year 1997, the percentage of all federal offenders in the following broad categories were as

follows: drugs (39 percent); fraud (14 percent); immigration (14 percent); property (7 percent); violent

(6 percent); firearms (5 percent); all other (15 percent).

Table I.2: Percentages of Offenders

Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution in

Fiscal Year 1997, by Judicial Circuit
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 33 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

District Fines Restitution

Alabama Middle 21 19

Alabama North 44 29

Alabama South 3 19

Alaska 27 29

Arizona 8 10

Arkansas East 8 17

Arkansas West 47 38

California Central 12 21

California East 9 19

California North 19 23

California South 3 3

Colorado 14 18

Connecticut 16 19

Delaware 24 31

District of Columbia 7 25

Florida Middle 7 26

Florida North 17 21

Florida South 9 17

Georgia Middle 44 11

Georgia North 33 28

Georgia South 35 17

Guam 27 13

Hawaii 25 28

Idaho 40 38

Illinois Central 20 17

Illinois North 35 40

Illinois South 84 14

Indiana North 23 45

Indiana South 55 26

Iowa North 11 24

Iowa South 5 15

Kansas 19 29

Kentucky East 12 25

Kentucky West 41 27

Louisiana East 22 24

Louisiana Middle 16 46

Louisiana West 33 28

Maine 15 23

Maryland 11 22

Massachusetts 19 18

Michigan East 18 26

Michigan West 56 34

Minnesota 12 26

Mississippi North 30 31

Mississippi South 56 27

Missouri East 18 19

Missouri West 14 22

Montana 10 34

Nebraska 6 17

Nevada 31 44

Table I.3: Percentages of Offenders

Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution in

Fiscal Year 1997, by Judicial District
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 34 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

District Fines Restitution

New Hampshire 10 13

New Jersey 45 22

New Mexico 2 7

New York East 12 9

New York North 24 13

New York South 16 19

New York West 25 29

North Carolina East 38 25

North Carolina Middle 14 28

North Carolina West 22 21

North Dakota 8 38

Northern Mariana Islands 18 9

Ohio North 19 37

Ohio South 26 27

Oklahoma East 1 27

Oklahoma North 45 48

Oklahoma West 17 18

Oregon 6 21

Pennsylvania East 36 33

Pennsylvania Middle 41 25

Pennsylvania West 9 20

Puerto Rico 7 8

Rhode Island 20 32

South Carolina 5 21

South Dakota 33 37

Tennessee East 9 27

Tennessee Middle 19 32

Tennessee West 12 32

Texas East 15 27

Texas North 14 33

Texas South 17 9

Texas West 17 7

Utah 40 23

Vermont 8 24

Virginia East 28 17

Virginia West 42 18

Virgin Islands 25 8

Washington East 9 14

Washington West 23 29

West Virginia North 17 12

West Virginia South 34 28

Wisconsin East 55 35

Wisconsin West 2 49

Wyoming 20 36

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Because of the pronounced differences across offense types in the

likelihood of an offender being ordered to pay fines and restitution and the

strong associations between offense types and many of the other factors

we reviewed, including the circuit or district in which offenders were
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 35 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

sentenced, we conducted a series of multivariate analyses for specific

types of offenses to estimate the effects of the different factors net of one

another.2

 We used logistic regression techniques to estimate,

simultaneously, the effects of these different factors on the odds of an

offender being ordered to pay fines among larceny, drug, and fraud

offenses and then to estimate the effects of these factors on the odds of an

offender being ordered to pay restitution among larceny, robbery, and

fraud offenses. In one series of regression models, we employed circuit as

one of our independent variables to determine how much variation across

circuits, in the odds on ordering fines and restitution, persisted for these

types of offenses after other factors were controlled3

. In a second series

of regressions involving these same 4 offense types, we restricted our

analysis to offenders in the 10 districts that sentenced the largest numbers

of offenders of each type to get a sense of the extent of the variation

across districts.4

 We selected these offenses because they represented

sizable categories of offenders and--in the case of robbery (a subset of

violent offenders), larceny (a subset of property offenders), and fraud

offenders--because regulations imply that restitution should be ordered for

these types of crimes.5

 For the different types of offenses we considered,

we first estimated how the odds on a fine or restitution being ordered

varied across circuits or across the larger districts before controlling for

other factors. We then controlled for the other factors mentioned above

 

2

For example, a large number of offender demographic characteristics were associated with the type of

offense for which the offender was sentenced. Whereas only slightly more than one-fourth of all drug

offenders were white, over half of all fraud offenders were white. The percentages of females among

robbery, drug, fraud, and larceny offenders were 6 percent, 11 percent, 24 percent, and 32 percent,

respectively. More than 80 percent of fraud offenders were high school graduates, while 76 percent of

larceny offenders, 63 percent of robbery offenders, and 50 percent of drug offenders were high school

graduates.

3

Logistic regression is a standard procedure for estimating the size and significance of the effects of

categorical or continuous factors on dichotomous outcomes, such as whether offenders were or were

not ordered to pay restitution. The size of the effects are estimated by odds ratios, which indicate how

the odds on being in one category of the outcome measure (in our case, being ordered to pay

restitution or fines) varies across categories or values of the various factors considered. The

significance of those factors is tested by standard chi-square values, or by Wald statistics, which

approximate chi-square and follow the same underlying probability distribution.

4

 Because of the large number of districts and the small number of specific types of offenders in many

of them, it was not possible to look at all districts. We chose the 10 districts in which the largest

numbers of offenders of each type were sentenced to enhance the statistical power associated with our

multivariate analyses.

5

Offenders with multiple counts of conviction were classified on the basis of their primary offense of

conviction, as indicated in the USSC database.
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 36 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

(i.e., offender demographic characteristics, offender’s ability to pay, and

other characteristics of the offense and of the offender’s sentence).6

In each of the following tables, the coefficients shown are odds ratios,

which indicate how the odds on being ordered to pay fines or restitution

vary across the districts or circuits used in our analyses and how they

varied across the categories or levels of the other factors we considered.

The odds on being ordered to pay a fine or restitution for a particular

category of offender were obtained by simply dividing the number of

offenders who were ordered to pay a fine or restitution by the number of

offenders who were not ordered to pay. For example, if in one circuit

1,000 offenders were ordered to pay restitution while 100 were not, the

odds on being ordered to pay restitution in that circuit equal 1,000/100 =

10.0. If in a second circuit 4,000 offenders were ordered to pay restitution

while 1,000 were not, the odds on paying restitution in that circuit are 4.0.

The odds ratio obtained by dividing the former odds by the latter (i.e.,

10.0/4.0 = 2.5) provides an estimate of the differences across the two

circuits and can be interpreted as indicating that the odds on being

ordered to pay restitution are 2.5 times greater in one circuit than in the

other.

In our analyses, we chose the circuit or district with the lowest odds on

offenders being ordered to pay a fine or restitution, before other factors

were controlled, and calculated odds ratios, which indicated how much

higher the odds were in the other circuits or districts relative to that one.

We call the circuit or district with the lowest odds the referent circuit or

district. Hence, all of the odds ratios shown for the first model we

considered for each type of offender in the tables which follow are greater

than 1.0. It should be noted, however, that in many instances the circuit or

district that had the lowest odds on ordering offenders to pay fines and

restitution, before other factors are controlled, was not the circuit that had

the lowest odds after other factors were controlled. This is why some of

the odds ratios for circuits or districts for the second model in the

following tables, which controls for the effects of these other factors, are

less than 1.0. An odds ratio of 0.5 indicates that, after other factors are

controlled, the odds on being ordered to pay fines or restitution in the

particular district that the odds ratio corresponds to are only half as great

as in the referent district to which it is compared.

 

6

One shortcoming of the USSC data set for the purpose of our analyses is that it includes no

information on offender income, which would have helped us to control for offenders’ ability to pay.

We included education, number of dependents, and whether a fine was waived (because of an inability

to pay or because the burden the fine would have caused the offender’s dependents) among the factors

in our model as proxies for income or ability to pay.
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 37 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Regarding the other variables used in our analyses, it should be recognized

that the odds ratios for Blacks, Hispanics, and Others reflect how similar

or different those groups are in terms of their odds on being ordered to pay

fines or restitution from the referent category, which is Whites. The three

odds ratios for education (i.e., high school, more than high school, and

missing) indicate how different offenders in those categories are from

offenders with less than a high school education. The other offender

characteristics (i.e., sex, citizenship, whether fines were waived because of

the offenders inability to pay, and whether the offender had any

dependents) were each divided into two categories; and the odds ratios for

them reflect how females, noncitizens, and offenders whose fines were

waived because of inability to pay or had dependents differed from males,

citizens, offenders whose fines were not waived, or who had no

dependents, respectively. Among the sentence characteristics, the Prison

and Alternative Sentence variables indicate how different offenders

sentenced to prison, or given an alternative sentence, were from offenders

not sentenced to prison or not given an alternative sentence. Similarly, the

variables labeled “more than one count,” “after MVRA passed,” and (in the

case of fines) “restitution ordered” reflect (1) how different offenders who

had multiple counts of conviction differed from offenders with a single

count; (2) how much those whose offenses occurred after MVRA differed

from those whose offenses occurred before; and (3) how much offenders

who were ordered to pay restitution differed from those who were not, in

terms of their odds on being ordered to pay fines. The length of sentence

variable was measured in years and entered into our regression analyses as

a linear term. We used an interaction term in our analyses to allow its

effect to vary on the odds of an offender being ordered to pay a fine or

restitution, depending on whether the sentence involved time in prison or

probation.

Table I.4 shows the likelihood of fines being ordered for larceny, drug, and

fraud offenders, before (model 1) and after (model 2) the other factors that

we thought would affect fines were controlled. For both larceny and drug

offenses, there were significant similar effects for the characteristics of

sex, race and education, and significant effects for other factors as well on

an offender’s likelihood of having to pay a fine. Among larcenists and drug

traffickers, Blacks and Hispanics were less likely to be ordered to pay fines

than Whites, and females were less likely than males, while better

educated offenders were more likely than offenders with less than a high

school education to be so ordered. Even after controlling for these effects,

however, the differences across circuits remained pronounced. However,

in the case of imposing fines for fraud, the differences across circuits were

not as pronounced.
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 38 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Larceny Drugs Fraud

Circuit Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

District of Columbia aaaaaa

First 13.67b 13.14b 2.06 2.69 2.02b 1.32

Second 11.93b 4.18 2.18 2.75b 1.46 0.56

Third 19.10b 17.86b 20.09b 40.08b 2.20b 2.61b

Fourth 28.52b 11.11b 4.99b 6.54b 1.19 1.16

Fifth 30.99b 20.82b 7.85b 17.81b 1.57 2.42b

Sixth 39.16b 12.91b 5.97b 7.96b 1.47 1.74

Seventh 9.42b 9.05 40.86b 61.51b 1.76 1.52

Eighth 14.26b 14.47b 3.38b 4.33b 1.06 1.02

Ninth 10.87b 4.29 2.76b 3.87b 1.35 0.75

Tenth 24.73b 15.33b 3.23b 5.69b 1.31 1.45

Eleventh 35.67b 29.01b 4.21b 5.68b 1.16 1.32

Offender

characteristics

Race

Black 0.59b 0.71b 0.60b

Hispanic 0.62 0.61b 0.66b

Other 1.15 1.18 1.71b

Sex

Female 0.67b 0.58b 0.77b

Education

High school 1.62b 1.19b 0.83

More than high

school

1.59b 1.36b 0.95

Missing 0.91 0.81 0.08b

Citizenship

Not a citizen 093 0.59b 0.41b

Ability to pay

Fine waived 0.04b 0.10b 0.04b

One or more

dependents

1.11 0.73b 1.18b

Sentence

characteristics

Prison (vs.

probation)

0.11b 0.81 0.41b

Alternative sentence 0.74 0.94 0.76b

Prison/alternative

Interaction

1.43 2.11b 1.73b

More than one count 0.92 1.06 1.32b

After MVRA 1.43b 0.92 0.87

Restitution ordered 0.27b 0.65 0.26b

Length of sentence 0.62b 1.03 0.94

Prison/sentence

interaction

1.44b 0.99 1.09

a

The referent categories to which the other circuits were compared.

b

Odds ratios that are significant at the .05 level of statistical analysis.

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Table I.4: Odds Ratios Indicating the

Effects of Judicial Circuit and Other

Factors on Fine Orders
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 39 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

The results were similar when we reviewed restitution orders. Table I.5

shows how the odds on restitution being ordered for larceny, robbery, and

fraud offenders varied across circuits. Considering the variation across

circuits in which larceny offenders were sentenced, table I.5 shows that

offenders sentenced for larceny in the 10th circuit were 2.5 times as likely

to be ordered to pay restitution than those sentenced in the 11th circuit.

When controlling for the other factors describing larceny offenders and

their crime, there were also differences. Larceny offenders who were not

citizens were about half as likely to be ordered to pay restitution as those

who were citizens. Offenders sentenced to prison or convicted of more

than one charge were also more likely to be ordered to pay restitution.

Offenders who had fines waived because of inability to pay were twice as

likely to be ordered to pay restitution. Even when the effects of these

other factors were included in model 2, there remained sizable and

significant variation in the likelihood of being ordered to pay restitution,

depending on the circuit in which the offender was sentenced.

The variation across circuits, before and after controls, was even more

pronounced when looking at the odds on ordering restitution for robbery

offenders. Minority offenders were less likely to be ordered to pay

restitution than white offenders, and those sentenced for crimes

committed after MVRA went into effect and those convicted of more than

one offense were about 1.5 times as likely to be ordered to pay restitution.

However, when holding crime and offender characteristics constant,

offenders sentenced in many circuits were 10 times or more as likely to be

ordered to pay restitution as those tried in the D.C. circuit.

For fraud offenses too, demographic, crime, and offense characteristics

had pronounced effects on the likelihood of imposing restitution. For

example, noncitizen offenders were less likely to be ordered to pay

restitution, while female offenders were more likely to be ordered to pay

restitution. Those offenders who received prison sentences over

probation sentences were more than eight times as likely to be ordered to

pay restitution. Again, even after controlling for the differing effects of

demographics and offense characteristics, the odds of being ordered to

pay restitution varied significantly, according to the circuit in which the

offender was sentenced.
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 40 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Larceny Robbery Fraud

Circuit Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

District of Columbia 4.89a 3.12abb 1.13 1.04

First 1.57 0.78 4.72 3.91 1.39 1.66a

Second 1.42 0.79 3.53 3.52 b b

Third 1.76a 1.03 6.85a 6.60a 1.69 1.32a

Fourth 1.59a 2.13a 9.17a 8.49a 1.40 1.15

Fifth 1.53a 1.56a 13.78a 12.83a 1.37 1.58a

Sixth 1.14 1.86a 15.44a 14.10a 2.44 2.10a

Seventh 2.78a 1.65 13.28a 11.92a 2.12 1.74a

Eighth 2.51a 1.54 11.88a 11.14a 1.76 1.42a

Ninth 1.65a 1.12 5.77a 5.13a 1.41 1.16

Tenth 2.54a 2.08a 10.95a 10.07a 1.76 1.47a

Eleventh b b 10.93a 10.09a 2.57 2.26a

Offender

characteristics

Race

Black 0.68a 0.73a 1.19a

Hispanic 0.69a 0.61a 0.79a

Other 0.89 0.75 1.31a

Sex

Female 1.16 0.79 1.23a

Education

High school 1.01 1.13 1.45a

More than high

school

1.21 0.97 1.32a

Missing 1.06 1.35 0.48a

Citizenship

Not a citizen 0.58a 1.23 0.48a

Ability to pay

Fine waived 2.06a 0.86 2.14a

One or more

dependents

1.28a 1.11 1.04

Sentence

characteristics

Prison (vs. probation) 3.74a 1.22 8.24a

Alternative sentence 1.24 1.00 1.39a

Prison/alternative

interaction

1.51 1.28 0.74a

More than one count 1.64a 1.72a 0.96

After MVRA 0.54a 1.41a 0.81a

Length of sentence 1.72a 1.02 1.67a

Prison/sentence

interaction

0.68a0.97 0.64a

a

Odds ratios that are significant at the .05 level of statistical analysis.

b

The referent categories to which the other circuits were compared.

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Table I.5: Odds Ratios Indicating the

Effects of Judicial Circuit and Other

Factors on Restitution Orders
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 41 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Additional analyses of the four types of offenses undertaken that involved

looking at the 10 largest districts exhibited similar pronounced variation

across districts that was not accounted for by the characteristics of

offenders and other elements of their sentences. Given that the sample

size was reduced when only the 10 largest districts were considered,

standard errors associated with the odds ratios estimating the effects of

the different factors we considered were often larger, including the effect

of which district an offender was sentenced. Nonetheless, some districts

were much more likely than others to order offenders to pay restitution or

fines for some types of offenses, after other factors were controlled.

Tables I.6 and I.7 show how fine and restitution orders varied across the 10

districts in which the largest numbers of larceny and fraud offenders,

respectively, were sentenced. Table I.8 shows how fine orders varied

across the 10 districts in which the largest numbers of drug offenders were

sentenced, and table I.9 shows how restitution orders varied across the 10

districts in which the largest numbers of robbery offenders were

sentenced.

Fines Restitution

District Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

California- Central 1.12 1.93 2.82a 1.39

Florida-South b b 3.56a 1.76

Georgia-Middle 24.74a 177.36abb

Kentucky-West 10.42a 3.76a 1.59 4.19a

Louisiana-West 12.00a 34.20a 2.73a 3.51a

New Jersey 2.40 11.60a 4.65a 2.05

New York-East 1.04 0.94 2.51a 0.89

North Carolina-East 4.99a 5.36a 3.76a 4.46a

Texas-West 8.27a 11.95a 2.15 2.24

Virginia-East 5.15a 5.32a 2.90a 2.95a

Offender characteristics

Race

Black 0.57 0.98

Hispanic 1.36 0.86

Other 0.98 1.07

Sex

Female 0.86 0.87

Education

High school 2.64a 0.89

More than high school 1.87 1.10

Missing 4.72a 0.56

Citizenship

Not a citizen 0.67 0.88

Ability to pay

Table I.6: Odds Ratios Indicating the

Effects of Judicial Districts and Other

Factors on Fine and Restitution Orders

for Larceny Offenders
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 42 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Fines Restitution

District Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Fine waived 0.02a 2.06a

One or more dependents 1.22 1.64a

Sentence characteristics

Prison (vs. probation) 0.08a 4.00a

Alternative

sentence 0.40 2.52a

Prison/alternative

interaction 1.46 0.83

More than one

count 0.83 1.60

After MVRA

passed 0.83 0.57a

Restitution

ordered 0.29a N/A

Length of

sentence 0.60a 1.54a

Prison/sentence

interaction 2.01a 0.60a

Note: N/A represents not applicable.

a Odds ratios that are significant at the .05 level of statistical analysis.

b

The referent categories to which the other districts were compared.

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Fines Restitution

District Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

California-Central 2.77a 1.88 1.53a 0.54a

Florida-Middle 1.49 2.37a 4.96a 2.06a

Florida-South 1.76 3.10a 5.11a 2.14a

Illinois-North 3.56a 4.58a 3.43a 1.09

New York-East 3.50a 1.38 1.13 0.52a

New York-South 2.98a 3.05a 2.12a 0.83

Pennsylvania-East 5.40a 18.00a 4.39a 1.42

South Carolina b b 1.72a 0.56a

Texas-North 3.80a 14.40a 4.52a 1.28

Texas-West 1.57 10.58abb

Offender characteristics

Race

Black 0.70 1.20

Hispanic 0.82 0.75

Other 1.41 1.02

Sex

Female 0.73 1.15

Education

High school 0.65 1.54a

More than high school 0.97 1.48a

Missing 0.01a 0.34a

Table I.7: Odds Ratios Indicating the

Effects of Judicial Districts and Other

Factors on Fine and Restitution Orders

for Fraud Offenders
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 43 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Fines Restitution

District Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Citizenship

Not a citizen 0.60 0.50a

Ability to pay

Fine waived 0.03a 1.94a

One or more dependents 1.65a 1.02

Sentence characteristics

Prison (vs. probation) 0.35a 6.28a

Alternative

sentence 0.59a 1.45a

Prison/alternative

interaction 2.73a 0.83

More than one

count 1.09 0.97

After MVRA

passed 0.69 0.90

Restitution

ordered 0.30a N/A

Length of

sentence 0.94 1.50a

Prison/sentence

interaction 1.03 0.71a

Note: N/A represents not applicable.

a Odds ratios that are significant at the .05 level of statistical analysis.

b The referent categories to which the other districts were compared.

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

District Model 1 Model 2

Arizona 6.80a 15.88a

California-South b b

Florida-Middle 2.59 3.07

Florida-South 9.02a 7.27a

New York-East 3.11 2.30

New York-South 8.43a 10.97a

South Carolina 0.96 0.37

Texas-South 26.84a 98.13a

Texas-West 31.25a 99.20a

Virginia-East 3.68a 1.51

Offender characteristics

Race

Black 0.89

Hispanic 0.38a

Other 0.99

Sex

Female 0.54a

Education

High school 1.27a

More than high school 1.56a

Missing 1.38

Citizenship

Table I.8: Odds Ratios Indicating the

Effects of Judicial Districts and Other

Factors on Fine Orders for Drug

Offenders
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 44 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

District Model 1 Model 2

Not a citizen 0.47a

Ability to pay

Fine waived 0.07a

One or more dependents 0.91

Sentence characteristics

Prison (vs. probation) 0.50

Alternative sentence 0.45

Prison/alternative interaction 1.08

More than one count 1.10

After MVRA passed 0.82

Restitution ordered 3.74a

Length of sentence 1.02

Prison/sentence interaction 1.03

a

Odds ratios that are significant at the .05 level of statistical analysis.

b The referent categories to which the other districts were compared.

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

District Model 1 Model 2

California-Central b b

California-North 3.70a 3.88a

California-South 1.23 1.02

Florida-Middle 3.01a 3.39a

Florida-South 2.94a 4.49a

Georgia-North 7.42a 8.08a

Illinois-North 4.80a 5.30a

Oregon 5.49a 5.83a

Pennsylvania-East 3.29a 4.76a

Texas-North 6.03a 5.99a

Offender characteristics

Race

Black 0.71

Hispanic 0.40a

Other 0.26a

Sex

Female 1.70

Education

High school 1.33

More than high school 0.90

Missing 0.88

Citizenship

Not a citizen 5.52a

Ability to pay

Fine waived 0.72

One or more dependents 0.60a

Sentence characteristics

Prison (vs. probation) N/A

Alternative sentence N/A

Prison/alternative interaction N/A

More than one count 1.63a

After MVRA passed 1.82a

Table I.9: Odds Ratios Indicating the

Effects of Judicial Districts and Other

Factors on Restitution Orders for

Robbery Offenders
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 45 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

District Model 1 Model 2

Length of sentence 0.98

Prison/sentence interaction N/A

Note: N/A represents not applicable.

a

Odds ratios that are significant at the .05 level of statistical analysis.

b

 The referent categories to which the other districts were compared.

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

One of the surprising findings in our analyses, in addition to the

considerable variation in the likelihood of an offender being ordered to pay

restitution and fines across circuits and districts, was the inconsistent

difference across the types of offenses we considered in the effect of

whether their crimes were committed before or after the MVRA went into

effect. Among larceny and fraud offenders, those who committed offenses

after MVRA went into effect were less likely to be ordered to pay

restitution than those whose offenses occurred before MVRA, while among

robbers, restitution was more likely to be ordered after MVRA than before.

Since we were interested in knowing whether MVRA had affected the

extent of variation in restitution across circuits and districts, we

reanalyzed the data using samples of pre-MVRA cases in one set of

analyses and post MVRA cases in another. As table I.10 shows, MVRA did

not diminish the variation across circuits (the same is true across the

largest districts) in the likelihood of an offender being ordered to pay

restitution, nor did it seem to consistently alter the effects of any of the

offense characteristics across the three types of offenses we reviewed.

Larceny Robbery Fraud

Circuit Pre-MVRA Post-MVRA Pre-MVRA Post-MVRA Pre-MVRA Post-MVRA

District of Columbia 1.50 16.34a 1.06 NA 2.02a 0.48a

First 0.36a 9.46a 1.52 0.61 1.40 2.94a

Second 0.52a 1.68 bbbb

Third 0.53a 2.44a 1.65 2.30 1.27 2.16a

Fourth 1.42 2.89a 2.70a 2.40a 1.04 1.42

Fifth 1.34 1.59 3.93a 3.65a 1.76a 1.78a

Sixth 1.32 2.47a 5.09a 3.48a 2.32a 1.59

Seventh 1.10 2.01 5.73a 3.01a 1.63a 2.65a

Eighth 0.60 5.29a 3.67a 3.17a 1.52a 1.12

Ninth 0.73 1.48 1.13 1.86 1.23 0.96

Tenth 1.38 2.70a 3.52a 2.66a 1.54a 1.48

Eleventh b b 2.70a 3.26a 2.49a 1.64a

Offender characteristics

Race

Black 0.58a 0.77 0.68a 0.73a 1.17a 1.14

Hispanic 0.47a 1.06 0.55a 0.67 1.11 0.52a

Table I.10: Odds Ratios Indicating the Effects of Judicial Circuit and Other Factors on Restitution Orders in Fiscal Year 1997,

for Offenders Whose Offenses Occurred Before and After MVRA Went into Effect
Appendix I

Statistical Analysis of Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines and Restitution, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 46 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Larceny Robbery Fraud

Circuit Pre-MVRA Post-MVRA Pre-MVRA Post-MVRA Pre-MVRA Post-MVRA

Other 0.91 0.96 0.37a 1.76 1.19 1.06

Sex

Female 1.50a 0.89 0.83 0.84 1.12 1.58a

Education

High school 1.17 1.00 1.11 1.07 1.38a 1.70a

More than high school 1.49a 0.99 1.49 0.70a 1.29a 1.36a

Missing 2.67 0.69 3.75 0.62 1.14 0.22a

Citizenship

Not a citizen 0.36a 0.76 0.64 2.12 0.64a 0.40a

Ability to pay

Fine waived 1.76a 2.53a 0.99 0.80 2.24a 1.87a

One or more dependents 1.18 1.61a 1.15 1.14 1.05 0.99

Sentence characteristics

Prison (vs. probation) 3.58a 2.72a NA NA 7.50a 8.77a

Alternative sentence 1.48 0.94 NA NA 1.15 2.68a

Prison/alternative

interaction

1.12 2.43 NA NA 0.88 0.36a

More than one count 1.52a 2.40a 1.4a 1.90a 0.98 0.96

Length of sentence 1.55a 1.83a .99 1.02 1.67a 1.59a

Prison/sentence interaction 0.63a 1.00 NA NA 0.62a 0.78a

Note: N/A represents not applicable.

a Odds ratios that are significant at the .05 level of statistical analysis.

b The referent categories to which the other districts were compared.

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.
Appendix II

Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution

for Each Circuit and District, Fiscal Year 1997

Page 47 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

The following tables provide the numbers of larceny, robbery, drug and

fraud offenders who were ordered to pay fines and restitution, in each of

the judicial circuits and districts in fiscal year 1997. The numbers of

offenders of certain types are quite small in many districts, so readers

should be cautious about making percentage comparisons across small

and large districts. Districts are arrayed within circuits in these tables, and

it can be readily seen that substantial variation exists in the likelihood of

being ordered to pay fines and restitution across the various districts

within different circuits. Additional statistical work, not detailed here,

revealed that for these specific offenses only between 13 percent and 37

percent of the variation in the likelihood of being ordered to pay fines or

restitution resulted from variation across circuits, rather than across

districts within circuits.

Circuit District

Total number of

larceny offenders

Number ordered

to pay fines

Number ordered

to pay restitution

D.C. District of Columbia 44 2 32

First Maine 10 2 7

Massachusetts 19 4 6

New Hampshire 2 1 1

Puerto Rico 4 1 1

Rhode Island 5 2 4

Second Connecticut 9 2 5

New York East 56 10 16

New York North 11 5 9

New York South 51 13 22

New York West 10 1 7

Vermont 6 2 5

Third Delaware 3 1 3

New Jersey 54 18 23

Pennsylvania East 55 20 28

Pennsylvania Middle 11 1 9

Pennsylvania West 6 1 2

Virgin Islands 0 0 0

Fourth Maryland 15 1 13

North Carolina East 104 53 39

North Carolina Middle 6 1 5

North Carolina West 10 2 7

South Carolina 24 2 18

Virginia East 114 59 36

Virginia West 24 7 20

West Virginia North 4 0 3

West Virginia South 11 3 8

Fifth Louisiana East 20 3 6

Louisiana Middle 10 2 7

Louisiana West 59 43 17

Table II.1: Number of Larceny Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution by Circuit and Corresponding Districts in Fiscal

Year 1997
Appendix II

Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution for Each Circuit and District, Fiscal Year

1997

Page 48 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Circuit District

Total number of

larceny offenders

Number ordered

to pay fines

Number ordered

to pay restitution

Mississippi North 18 2 14

Mississippi South 9 0 7

Texas East 14 2 14

Texas North 52 13 36

Texas South 19 4 12

Texas West 98 62 25

Sixth Kentucky East 12 3 7

Kentucky West 168 115 34

Michigan East 30 5 13

Michigan West 23 12 13

Ohio North 20 2 14

Ohio South 19 6 14

Tennessee East 12 1 9

Tennessee Middle 17 6 13

Tennessee West 5 0 5

Seventh Illinois Central 4 1 3

Illinois North 46 11 20

Illinois South 2 1 1

Indiana North 12 0 10

Indiana South 10 3 7

Wisconsin East 6 2 3

Wisconsin West 12 0 12

Eighth Arkansas East 8 2 2

Arkansas West 5 1 3

Iowa North 1 0 1

Iowa South 4 0 4

Minnesota 10 0 5

Missouri East 16 4 5

Missouri West 10 1 6

Nebraska 8 3 2

North Dakota 7 2 4

South Dakota 24 11 23

Ninth Alaska 5 3 4

Arizona 18 3 9

California Central 59 12 19

California East 41 16 14

California North 24 7 13

California South 28 2 6

Guam 6 1 1

Hawaii 43 18 19

Idaho 8 1 8

Montana 25 0 24

Nevada 7 3 5

North Mariana Island 0 0 0

Oregon 15 2 9

Washington East 4 1 4

Washington West 39 20 12

Tenth Colorado 34 13 20

Kansas 16 7 5

New Mexico 5 0 5
Appendix II

Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution for Each Circuit and District, Fiscal Year

1997

Page 49 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Circuit District

Total number of

larceny offenders

Number ordered

to pay fines

Number ordered

to pay restitution

Oklahoma East 2 0 1

Oklahoma North 10 6 7

Oklahoma West 16 10 4

Utah 20 6 15

Wyoming 7 2 5

Eleventh Alabama Middle 27 14 9

Alabama North 39 13 24

Alabama South 6 0 5

Florida Middle 27 3 13

Florida North 20 3 13

Florida South 58 10 21

Georgia Middle 80 67 11

Georgia North 45 21 18

Georgia South 51 38 10

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Circuit District

Total number of

 robbery offenders

Number ordered

 to pay fines

Number ordered

 to pay restitution

D.C. District of Columbia 12 0 2

First Maine 5 0 5

Massachusetts 11 2 2

New Hampshire 7 0 4

Puerto Rico 11 0 5

Rhode Island 1 1 1

Second Connecticut 9 0 5

New York East 42 1 7

New York North 4 0 4

New York South 30 1 12

New York West 16 1 13

Vermont 0 0 0

Third Delaware 8 0 5

New Jersey 32 4 16

Pennsylvania East 49 8 32

Pennsylvania Middle 11 1 7

Pennsylvania West 8 0 3

Virgin Islands 1 0 0

Fourth Maryland 40 0 14

North Carolina East 25 9 18

North Carolina Middle 39 2 32

North Carolina West 32 1 23

South Carolina 34 0 20

Virginia East 6 0 5

Virginia West 9 4 7

West Virginia North 2 0 2

West Virginia South 0 0 0

Fifth Louisiana East 8 0 5

Louisiana Middle 3 0 2

Table II.2: Number of Robbery Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution by Circuit and Corresponding Districts in Fiscal

Year 1997
Appendix II

Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution for Each Circuit and District, Fiscal Year

1997

Page 50 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Circuit District

Total number of

 robbery offenders

Number ordered

 to pay fines

Number ordered

 to pay restitution

Louisiana West 4 0 1

Mississippi North 6 1 4

Mississippi South 10 5 6

Texas East 23 2 18

Texas North 49 0 38

Texas South 34 6 30

Texas West 32 5 20

Sixth Kentucky East 11 0 9

Kentucky West 21 0 16

Michigan East 39 0 25

Michigan West 11 6 6

Ohio North 42 0 35

Ohio South 8 0 8

Tennessee East 20 1 17

Tennessee Middle 13 0 8

Tennessee West 19 0 15

Seventh Illinois Central 8 0 7

Illinois North 60 10 44

Illinois South 5 3 4

Indiana North 15 2 11

Indiana South 11 6 4

Wisconsin East 14 5 11

Wisconsin West 4 0 4

Eighth Arkansas East 18 0 8

Arkansas West 10 1 9

Iowa North 1 0 1

Iowa South 8 1 6

Minnesota 29 0 22

Missouri East 22 0 13

Missouri West 10 0 9

Nebraska 9 0 7

North Dakota 0 0 0

South Dakota 1 0 1

Ninth Alaska 9 2 6

Arizona 40 6 24

California Central 185 4 68

California East 40 0 27

California North 53 14 36

California South 61 1 26

Guam 0 0 0

Hawaii 19 0 14

Idaho 1 0 1

Montana 3 0 0

Nevada 45 10 28

North Mariana Island 0 0 0

Oregon 58 0 44

Washington East 3 0 1

Washington West 21 0 14

Tenth Colorado 17 0 9

Kansas 28 0 22
Appendix II

Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution for Each Circuit and District, Fiscal Year

1997

Page 51 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Circuit District

Total number of

 robbery offenders

Number ordered

 to pay fines

Number ordered

 to pay restitution

New Mexico 33 0 24

Oklahoma East 2 0 1

Oklahoma North 10 2 8

Oklahoma West 3 2 1

Utah 20 2 12

Wyoming 5 0 4

Eleventh Alabama Middle 13 0 10

Alabama North 14 4 11

Alabama South 22 0 15

Florida Middle 79 1 50

Florida North 21 3 14

Florida South 59 0 37

Georgia Middle 12 0 10

Georgia North 45 13 37

Georgia South 12 1 7

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Circuit District

Total number of

 drug offenders

Number ordered

 to pay fines

Number ordered

 to pay restitution

D.C. District of Columbia 149 5 1

First Maine 67 8 5

Massachusetts 146 10 1

New Hampshire 91 5 0

Puerto Rico 197 4 0

Rhode Island 31 9 0

Second Connecticut 82 6 1

New York East 414 16 2

New York North 190 5 2

New York South 402 32 2

New York West 136 33 0

Vermont 46 1 0

Third Delaware 27 5 0

New Jersey 188 103 1

Pennsylvania East 208 78 1

Pennsylvania Middle 105 68 0

Pennsylvania West 86 5 0

Virgin Islands 35 11 0

Fourth Maryland 106 6 2

North Carolina East 220 63 3

North Carolina Middle 138 6 0

North Carolina West 250 63 1

South Carolina 412 4 1

Virginia East 444 16 3

Virginia West 222 89 1

West Virginia North 76 12 1

West Virginia South 102 39 1

Fifth Louisiana East 132 32 1

Table II.3: Number of Drug Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution by Circuit and Corresponding Districts in

Fiscal Year 1997
Appendix II

Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution for Each Circuit and District, Fiscal Year

1997

Page 52 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Circuit District

Total number of

 drug offenders

Number ordered

 to pay fines

Number ordered

 to pay restitution

Louisiana Middle 10 2 0

Louisiana West 66 3 1

Mississippi North 77 30 1

Mississippi South 69 50 2

Texas East 220 21 3

Texas North 285 30 0

Texas South 1121 242 1

Texas West 857 208 4

Sixth Kentucky East 157 14 2

Kentucky West 74 4 0

Michigan East 304 50 2

Michigan West 86 63 1

Ohio North 152 32 2

Ohio South 126 31 0

Tennessee East 140 9 1

Tennessee Middle 66 2 3

Tennessee West 112 8 0

Seventh Illinois Central 139 27 6

Illinois North 87 53 6

Illinois South 163 150 1

Indiana North 23 7 0

Indiana South 71 50 0

Wisconsin East 89 69 1

Wisconsin West 30 0 1

Eighth Arkansas East 143 5 1

Arkansas West 35 22 0

Iowa North 105 9 22

Iowa South 113 2 0

Minnesota 155 7 1

Missouri East 181 23 1

Missouri West 256 30 0

Nebraska 123 6 0

North Dakota 27 1 7

South Dakota 50 22 1

Ninth Alaska 30 1 1

Arizona 560 38 1

California Central 213 9 1

California East 183 13 4

California North 110 30 1

California South 419 4 1

Guam 25 4 0

Hawaii 86 16 2

Idaho 22 17 0

Montana 85 4 0

Nevada 60 31 0

North Mariana Island 5 2 0

Oregon 129 7 1

Washington East 88 9 12

Washington West 114 5 2

Tenth Colorado 181 4 0
Appendix II

Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution for Each Circuit and District, Fiscal Year

1997

Page 53 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Circuit District

Total number of

 drug offenders

Number ordered

 to pay fines

Number ordered

 to pay restitution

Kansas 84 5 1

New Mexico 343 8 0

Oklahoma East 19 1 0

Oklahoma North 25 15 0

Oklahoma West 87 7 0

Utah 65 36 0

Wyoming 53 12 1

Eleventh Alabama Middle 108 3 0

Alabama North 189 115 0

Alabama South 214 5 1

Florida Middle 509 13 3

Florida North 192 28 3

Florida South 557 47 2

Georgia Middle 121 26 1

Georgia North 223 36 3

Georgia South 104 13 0

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.

Circuit District

Total number of

 fraud offenders

Number ordered

 to pay fines

Number ordered

 to pay restitution

D.C. District of Columbia 129 16 70

First Maine 17 5 10

Massachusetts 89 25 50

New Hampshire 21 3 8

Puerto Rico 31 6 19

Rhode Island 20 1 18

Second Connecticut 51 10 32

New York East 266 57 97

New York North 44 6 20

New York South 262 48 134

New York West 108 8 84

Vermont 22 3 18

Third Delaware 25 12 17

New Jersey 142 34 87

Pennsylvania East 225 65 154

Pennsylvania Middle 57 9 41

Pennsylvania West 62 4 33

Virgin Islands 11 2 3

Fourth Maryland 79 7 42

North Carolina East 53 11 40

North Carolina Middle 31 3 28

North Carolina West 71 3 43

South Carolina 202 14 94

Virginia East 165 21 114

Virginia West 66 37 27

West Virginia North 12 0 7

West Virginia South 35 7 34

Table II.4: Number of Fraud Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution by Circuit and Corresponding Districts in

Fiscal Year 1997
Appendix II

Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution for Each Circuit and District, Fiscal Year

1997

Page 54 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Circuit District

Total number of

 fraud offenders

Number ordered

 to pay fines

Number ordered

 to pay restitution

Fifth Louisiana East 58 10 33

Louisiana Middle 35 5 28

Louisiana West 47 19 40

Mississippi North 22 4 18

Mississippi South 26 6 18

Texas East 61 16 49

Texas North 207 46 143

Texas South 144 25 99

Texas West 285 30 98

Sixth Kentucky East 46 5 35

Kentucky West 37 6 32

Michigan East 145 23 99

Michigan West 69 27 50

Ohio North 159 25 105

Ohio South 67 10 46

Tennessee East 30 2 27

Tennessee Middle 23 4 18

Tennessee West 63 10 49

Seventh Illinois Central 24 5 18

Illinois North 195 42 122

Illinois South 17 5 13

Indiana North 50 8 38

Indiana South 37 5 29

Wisconsin East 48 12 35

Wisconsin West 20 2 16

Eighth Arkansas East 44 7 24

Arkansas West 20 6 17

Iowa North 17 0 13

Iowa South 13 0 12

Minnesota 64 11 38

Missouri East 89 10 42

Missouri West 93 5 70

Nebraska 27 0 22

North Dakota 14 4 10

South Dakota 23 11 16

Ninth Alaska 11 1 8

Arizona 93 10 56

California Central 338 58 145

California East 83 10 58

California North 100 19 74

California South 116 19 40

Guam 7 0 5

Hawaii 25 4 19

Idaho 11 3 9

Montana 38 6 25

Nevada 134 24 107

North Mariana Island 1 0 1

Oregon 34 3 22

Washington East 8 1 4

Washington West 94 13 73
Appendix II

Offenders Ordered to Pay Fines or Restitution for Each Circuit and District, Fiscal Year

1997

Page 55 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Circuit District

Total number of

 fraud offenders

Number ordered

 to pay fines

Number ordered

 to pay restitution

Tenth Colorado 69 7 39

Kansas 52 15 33

New Mexico 13 0 7

Oklahoma East 8 0 5

Oklahoma North 48 10 39

Oklahoma West 47 4 34

Utah 33 8 18

Wyoming 24 3 16

Eleventh Alabama Middle 25 0 20

Alabama North 84 21 58

Alabama South 42 4 38

Florida Middle 228 23 162

Florida North 29 8 23

Florida South 242 29 174

Georgia Middle 22 5 8

Georgia North 155 25 124

Georgia South 27 8 17

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 1997 USSC data.
Appendix III

Comments From the United States Sentencing

Commission

Page 56
Appendix III

Comments From the United States Sentencing Commission

Page 57
Appendix III

Comments From the United States Sentencing Commission

Page 58
Appendix III

Comments From the United States Sentencing Commission

Page 59
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 60
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 61
Appendix V

Major Contributors to This Report

Page 62 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts

Douglas M. Sloane, Supervisory Social Science Analyst

David P. Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst

Wendy M. Ahmed, Mathematical Statistician

Michael H. Little, Communications Analyst

Jan B. Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel

Darryl W. Dutton, Assistant Director

Richard R. Griswold, Evaluator-in-Charge

James R. Russell, Evaluator

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Office of the General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Los Angeles Field

Office
Page 63 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts
Page 64 GAO/GGD-99-70 Federal Courts
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional

copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address,

accompanied by a check or money order made out to the

Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and

MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more

copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax

number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony.

To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past

30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A

recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these

lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(188640)